Jefferson County

Jefferson County, Iowa — Key Demographics

Population size

• 2023 population estimate: ~15,700 (U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, V2023)

Age

• Median age: ~41 years
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18 to 64: ~60%
• 65 and over: ~19% (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2018–2022 5-year)

Gender

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5% (Source: ACS 2018–2022 5-year)

Racial/ethnic composition

• White, non-Hispanic: ~84%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~4–5%
• Asian: ~6%
• Black or African American: ~2%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.4%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0.1% (Components are ACS 2018–2022 5-year; Hispanic is an ethnicity and overlaps race categories, “White” shown as non-Hispanic)

Household and housing

• Households: ~6,800
• Average household size: ~2.3 persons
• Family households: ~57% of households
• One-person households: ~34–35%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~67%
• Renter-occupied: ~33%
• Housing units: ~7,400; vacancy rate ~9% (Source: ACS 2018–2022 5-year, DP02/DP04)

Notes

• Population total reflects the 2023 official county estimate; detailed composition and household figures are ACS 5-year estimates (most current high-reliability source for small counties).

Jefferson County, IA (pop. 15.7k; ~12.2k adults) is estimated to have about 12,000 active email users. Using national adoption rates (92% of adults; ~70% of teens), adults account for ~11,300 users and teens ~700.

Age mix of adult email users (est.):

• 18–29: 17% (1,900)
• 30–49: 28% (3,200)
• 50–64: 27% (3,000)
• 65+: 28% (3,100)

Gender split among users aligns with the population: ~51% female, ~49% male.

Digital access and behavior:

• ~82% of households have a home broadband subscription
• ~91% of households have a computer or smartphone
• ~15% are smartphone‑only internet users Daily email use is highest among working‑age and college‑age residents in and around Fairfield; older adults show slightly lower frequency but high adoption.

Local density/connectivity facts:

• Population density ~36 people per sq. mi.
• Coverage is strongest in Fairfield and along US‑34; rural townships rely more on fixed‑wireless and satellite, with higher latency and lower upload speeds.
• Public Wi‑Fi at libraries and campus sites supplements home access.

Trend: Fiber and 5G buildouts are steadily improving speeds and reliability, while affordability and last‑mile gaps remain the primary constraints.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Jefferson County, Iowa

Scope and sources: Latest available county-level metrics are drawn primarily from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5-year “Computer and Internet Use” tables (household device and subscription indicators) and recent FCC mobile coverage filings. Figures below reflect households or residents in Jefferson County, IA, with comparisons to statewide Iowa benchmarks from the same ACS/FCC vintages.

Size of the mobile user base

• Population baseline: 15,663 (2020 Census); roughly 6,700–6,900 households.
• Smartphone-equipped households: about 88–90% in Jefferson County (≈6,000–6,200 households), slightly below Iowa’s ≈90–92%.
• Adults who use smartphones: approximately 10,500–11,000 residents 18+ (mid- to high-80s percent adoption), a tick under Iowa’s statewide adult adoption (~90%).
• Households relying on cellular data for home internet (cellular-only): about 12–14% in Jefferson County versus roughly 9–10% statewide. This is a clear, consistent county-level divergence: more reliance on mobile networks for primary home connectivity than Iowa overall.

Demographic patterns (how Jefferson County differs from the state)

• Age
  • 18–34: near-universal smartphone usage (>95%), on par with Iowa.
  • 65+: smartphone usage in the county runs lower than the state average (roughly high-60s percent in Jefferson County vs low-70s percent statewide). This segment also shows a higher-than-average share of cellular-only internet in the county, pointing to cost and availability factors driving mobile reliance.
• Income
  • Lower-income households (<$25k) in Jefferson County are more likely to be cellular-only (roughly one-quarter to near one-third) than the statewide average for the same income band. This gap is larger than for middle- and higher-income brackets, indicating that budget constraints are amplifying mobile substitution for fixed broadband locally.
• Education
  • Households without a bachelor’s degree have notably higher cellular-only rates than the county’s college-educated households. The county’s spread between these education groups is wider than the statewide spread, reinforcing that affordability and plan simplicity via mobile providers are stronger differentiators in Jefferson County.
• Urban vs rural within the county
  • Fairfield and the US-34 corridor exhibit higher 5G availability and better capacity than outlying townships. That intra-county gap is more pronounced than in more urbanized Iowa counties, which compresses performance disparities and moderates cellular-only reliance.

Digital infrastructure and network performance

• Carrier footprint
  • All national carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon) are present, with UScellular maintaining a significant rural footprint. Compared with Iowa’s urban counties, Jefferson County has a higher share of UScellular usage and greater variation in carrier performance outside Fairfield.
• 5G availability and quality
  • Low-band 5G covers Fairfield and major corridors for all three national carriers; UScellular provides broad low-band 5G. Mid-band 5G (e.g., T-Mobile 2.5 GHz) is concentrated in and around Fairfield and along US-34, with faster median speeds than in outlying areas. Mid-band coverage thins outside town, more so than the statewide norm in metro counties.
• Macro sites and capacity
  • The county is served by several dozen macro towers, densest around Fairfield and transport routes. This density is adequate for coverage but not for consistently high capacity in rural stretches, which depresses peak speeds and can lead to higher latency than Iowa’s urban centers.
• Fixed broadband interplay
  • Fairfield benefits from local fiber (e.g., LISCO) and cable footprints; outside city limits, fixed options transition to DSL, cable fringe, or fixed wireless. The resulting uneven fixed broadband map pushes a larger slice of households to rely on mobile data for primary internet than the statewide average.
• Coverage reliability
  • Signal reliability is strong on primary corridors but variable on secondary roads and in low-lying or tree-dense pockets. This reliability spread is wider than in more urban Iowa counties, reinforcing the county’s slightly lower overall smartphone adoption and higher cellular-only substitution.

Key takeaways vs the Iowa state picture

• Jefferson County’s smartphone penetration is a bit lower than the Iowa average, driven by older and lower-income segments.
• The county’s cellular-only household rate is materially higher than the state’s, reflecting both affordability dynamics and patchy fixed broadband outside Fairfield.
• Performance and availability are notably “corridor-centric”: 5G and capacity are solid in Fairfield/US-34 but taper more sharply than the statewide average as you move into rural tracts.
• UScellular’s relative strength and carrier-performance variability are more prominent here than in urban Iowa counties, which typically lean more on national mid-band 5G grids.

Implications

• For public service and telehealth outreach, prioritize senior-focused smartphone/plan literacy and ensure coverage/capacity along secondary roads.
• For providers, incremental mid-band 5G buildouts outside Fairfield would directly reduce the county’s cellular-only pain points (speed/latency) and could narrow the adoption gap with the state.
• For local stakeholders, continued fiber and fixed wireless expansion beyond Fairfield should reduce reliance on mobile data for primary home internet and lift overall digital participation.

Social media usage in Jefferson County, IA (2025 snapshot)

Overview

• Population: 15,663 (2020 Census). Estimated adults (18+): ~12,200.
• Adults using any social media: ~9,700–10,100 (≈79–83%). Daily users: ~65–70% of adults.

Most‑used platforms among adults (estimated penetration)

• YouTube: 78%
• Facebook: 64%
• Instagram: 38%
• TikTok: 28%
• Pinterest: 27%
• Snapchat: 24%
• LinkedIn: 21%
• WhatsApp: 18%
• X (Twitter): 18%
• Reddit: 12%
• Nextdoor: 6%

Age profile (share of adults using at least one platform; platform tendencies)

• 18–29: ~93%. Heavy on YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; Facebook secondary.
• 30–49: ~88%. Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram/TikTok moderate.
• 50–64: ~76%. Facebook and YouTube lead; Pinterest notable; limited TikTok/Snapchat.
• 65+: ~54%. Facebook primary; YouTube second; minimal use of newer apps.

Gender breakdown (adults)

• Women: ~81% use social; relatively higher use of Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest.
• Men: ~77% use social; relatively higher use of YouTube, Reddit, X.

Behavioral trends

• Facebook is the community hub: Groups, Events, school/club updates, and Marketplace see the widest participation.
• Video first: Short‑form (Reels/TikTok) drives discovery among under‑40s; YouTube is used broadly for how‑to, local interests, and entertainment.
• Private sharing: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat anchor one‑to‑one or small‑group communication; WhatsApp present in family/international circles.
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace is the default for local buy/sell; Instagram Shops used by small retailers targeting 18–44.
• Advertising: Facebook/Instagram deliver the broadest paid reach; YouTube pre‑roll efficiently reaches 25–54; TikTok is effective for 18–34 awareness.
• Timing: Engagement typically peaks evenings (7–10 pm) with a midday bump; weekend mornings perform well for events and retail posts.
• Trust pathway: Residents frequently encounter local news via shared posts and community groups rather than going direct to publisher sites.

Method note

• Figures are modeled for Jefferson County using Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption by age, adjusted slightly for rural markets, and scaled to the county’s adult population (2020 Census/ACS). These provide grounded, county‑specific estimates where direct county surveys are not available.