Keokuk County

Keokuk County, Iowa – key demographics

Population (size and trend)

• Total population: ~10,100 (ACS 2019–2023 5-year). 2020 Census count: 10,033.
• Direction: Essentially stable to slightly declining since 2010.

Age

• Median age: ~44.7 years (ACS 2019–2023).
• Under 18: ~22.9%
• 18–64: ~55.0%
• 65 and over: ~22.1%

Sex

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023; Hispanic can be of any race)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~93.9%
• Hispanic/Latino: ~3.2%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~1.7%
• Black, non-Hispanic: ~0.4%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~0.3%
• Other, non-Hispanic: ~0.3%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: ~4,210
• Average household size: ~2.37
• Family households: ~64% of households (married-couple families ~51%)
• Nonfamily households: ~36%
• Households with children under 18: ~26%
• Households with someone 65+ living alone: ~13%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (DP tables); American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program (2023).

Keokuk County, IA overview

• Population and density: 10,033 residents (2020 Census) across ~579 sq mi ≈ 17 people/sq mi (very rural).
• Estimated email users: ≈7,200 adult users. Method: ~7,850 adults × 92% U.S. adult email adoption (Pew Research).
• Age distribution of email users (county-skewed older profile): 18–34 ≈19%, 35–54 ≈30%, 55–64 ≈16%, 65+ ≈35%.
• Gender split of users: roughly even, mirroring population (~50% female / ~50% male).

Digital access and trends

• Household access: ~90% of households have a computer; ~78% have a broadband internet subscription (ACS 2018–2022, 5-year).
• Implications: Email usage is near-universal among connected adults; older adults are a large share of users locally due to the county’s age mix. Lower-than-urban broadband subscription rates mean a sizable portion of email access occurs via mobile connections or shared/work locations.
• Local density/connectivity facts: Very low population density increases last‑mile costs and slows universal fiber buildout; service is concentrated in/around towns such as Sigourney, with ongoing expansion of fiber and fixed wireless improving reliability and speeds countywide.

Keokuk County, Iowa: mobile usage, demographics, and infrastructure snapshot (focus vs. Iowa overall)

What “definitive” county-level mobile-usage counts do and don’t exist

• Federal and state sources do not directly publish a single “mobile phone users by county” statistic. The figures below combine the latest available public datasets through 2023 (primarily U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-year S2801 “Computer and Internet Use,” FCC mobile coverage filings, and statewide adoption benchmarks) to produce county-level estimates and clearly marked modeled values. Where exact counts are not published, estimates are provided with narrow ranges and a stated basis.

User estimates (2023, modeled from ACS and statewide adoption rates)

• Population base: Keokuk County counted 10,033 residents in the 2020 Census; the 2023 Census estimate keeps the county close to 10,000 residents, with modest net out-migration and aging.
• Smartphone users: approximately 6,100–6,600 adult residents use a smartphone (roughly 78–84% of adults), below the Iowa average by several points. Basis: ACS device and subscription indicators for rural counties and Iowa statewide.
• Cellular-only home internet households: approximately 12–15% of households rely primarily on a cellular data plan for home internet, compared with roughly 9–10% statewide. This reflects substitution where fixed broadband is scarce or unaffordable.
• Households with no home internet subscription: about 14–17% locally, versus approximately 11–12% statewide—consistent with higher rural non-adoption.
• Total human-held mobile lines: on the order of 8,000–9,000 lines in use by residents (excludes IoT and vehicle telematics), reflecting near-ubiquitous basic mobile service even where smartphone adoption is lower among older adults.

Demographic breakdown and how it shapes usage (vs. Iowa)

• Age: The county skews older than the state; adults 65+ comprise a materially larger share than Iowa’s average. Consequences:
  • Lower smartphone adoption and lower use of app-centric services compared with the state.
  • Higher persistence of voice/text-centric usage and basic/entry-tier smartphones.
• Income and education: Median household income and bachelor’s attainment trail Iowa averages. Consequences:
  • Higher price sensitivity; above-average prepaid and budget MVNO usage.
  • Higher likelihood of cellular-only home internet as a cost-managed alternative to wireline broadband.
• Household composition: More single- or two-person households than the state norm, boosting per-line penetration but not necessarily data-heavy multi-line family plans.

Digital infrastructure and performance (county specifics vs. Iowa trends)

• Coverage footprint:
  • 4G LTE: near-universal outdoor coverage across traveled roadways; indoor coverage can be variable in the most rural sections and in metal-roof structures.
  • 5G: present but patchier than Iowa’s metro counties. Mid-band 5G (which drives higher speeds) is limited to towns/transport corridors; large swaths remain on 4G or low-band 5G.
  • Carrier mix: Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and UScellular all serve the county; UScellular’s legacy rural footprint remains relevant for reliability in fringe areas.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • Typical observed rural mobile performance in the county is lower and more variable than the Iowa metro median, with constrained capacity during peak evening hours. Users can expect stable low tens of Mbps on 4G/low-band 5G, with higher bursts near sites upgraded to mid-band 5G.
• Fixed-broadband interplay:
  • Cable or fiber is available in town centers (e.g., Sigourney) but drops off rapidly outside municipal limits; DSL and fixed wireless fill gaps.
  • This patchwork increases cellular data substitution and hotspot use relative to the state overall, especially among lower-income and elderly households.

Trends that differ from the Iowa statewide pattern

• More cellular substitution: A notably higher share of households relies on cellular data for home connectivity, reflecting limited wireline options and tighter budgets relative to state averages.
• Older user base: The county’s age profile suppresses smartphone and app-economy usage versus Iowa overall, maintaining higher reliance on voice/SMS and simpler devices.
• Slower 5G transition: 5G availability and mid-band upgrades are less complete than in Iowa’s urban counties, so the local experience remains anchored in 4G and low-band 5G for many residents.
• Adoption gap persists: The share of households with no internet subscription is several points higher than the state rate, signaling ongoing affordability and availability challenges.
• Plan mix: Prepaid and MVNO adoption runs higher than the state average, and multi-line premium plans are less prevalent outside town centers.

Implications

• Demand exists for mid-band 5G and additional sectorization along primary corridors to stabilize evening capacity.
• Targeted affordability offers and senior-friendly plans/devices can unlock incremental adoption.
• Fixed–mobile convergence (home 5G/4G gateways) is an attractive near-term solution for un- or under-served areas, but sustained improvements will require more fiber backhaul and additional rural sites or small cells.

Keokuk County, IA social media snapshot (modeled 2024 local estimates based on Pew Research Center 2024 US platform adoption and the county’s age/gender mix from the 2023 ACS 5‑year; figures rounded)

Headline user stats

• Monthly social media users (age 13+): 6,100
• Daily active users: 4,900 (80% of social users)
• Average platforms used per person: 2.1

Age mix of social users

• 13–17: 10%
• 18–29: 18%
• 30–49: 34%
• 50–64: 23%
• 65+: 15%

Gender breakdown of social users

• Female: 51%
• Male: 49%
• Notable skews: Women over-index on Facebook Groups and Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube and Reddit

Most-used platforms in Keokuk County (share of social users using each monthly)

• YouTube: 78%
• Facebook: 72%
• Facebook Messenger: 64%
• Instagram: 36%
• Pinterest: 30%
• Snapchat: 28%
• TikTok: 27%
• WhatsApp: 14%
• LinkedIn: 13%
• X (Twitter): 12%
• Reddit: 9%
• Nextdoor: 6%

Behavioral trends and usage patterns

• Facebook is the community backbone: heavy use of local groups, Marketplace, school/athletics, churches, EMS/fire, and county/city pages. Photo posts with recognizable people, event reminders, weather and road updates drive the highest comment activity.
• YouTube is utility + entertainment: strong interest in DIY/home repair, farm and equipment content, hunting/outdoors, and local church services; connected-TV viewing rises nights and weekends.
• Messaging dominates coordination: Facebook Messenger is the default for neighbor-to-neighbor communication, buy/sell follow-ups, and event logistics.
• Younger cohorts (13–29) split attention across Snapchat, Instagram DMs, and TikTok; short-form vertical video and Stories perform best; local filters/geotags see steady use at school and sports events.
• Women 25–54 lead recipe/crafts/home/farm project discovery on Pinterest and engage most in Facebook Groups; event RSVPs and volunteer sign-ups skew female.
• Older adults (65+) are concentrated on Facebook with modest YouTube use; they prefer link posts and plain-language updates over Reels/shorts; multi-platform use is limited.
• When people are active: engagement peaks 7–9 pm local time; secondary bump 11:30 am–1 pm on weekdays; weekend mornings work well for events and Marketplace.
• Content formats: short-form video (Reels/shorts) reaches 1.5–2x more people than static images; captions/subtitles are important due to frequent sound-off viewing.
• Advertising efficiency: Facebook/Instagram deliver the broadest local reach and lowest CPM; YouTube skippable in-stream is effective for awareness; TikTok is growing in 18–34 but less efficient for 50+; LinkedIn and X have niche utility and higher local costs per result.

Notes on methodology

• Estimates align national platform adoption by age/rural status (Pew Research Center, 2024) to Keokuk County’s age/gender structure (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2023 5‑year). Figures are modeled for local context and rounded for clarity.