Worth County

Key demographics: Worth County, Iowa

Population size

• 7,443 (2020 Census)

Age (ACS 2018–2022)

• Median age: ~44 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 18–64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~20%

Gender (ACS 2018–2022)

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2018–2022)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~94%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~4–5%
• Two or more races: ~1–2%
• Black or African American: <1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: <1%
• Asian: <1%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~3,200–3,300
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~60–62% of households
• Married-couple families: ~50% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~25%
• Nonfamily households: ~38–40%; living alone: ~33%; age 65+ living alone: ~15%
• Homeownership rate: ~80%
• Housing units: ~3,500–3,600; vacancy ~9–10%

Insights

• Older age structure (about 1 in 5 residents is 65+)
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a small but notable Hispanic population
• High homeownership and smaller household sizes typical of rural counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (tables DP05, S0101, S1101, S2501).

Worth County, IA overview

• Population and density: 7,400 residents over ~400 sq mi (18 per sq mi).
• Estimated adult email users: 5,340 of ~5,920 adults (90%).

Age distribution and estimated email users

• 18–34: ~1,400 adults; ~1,350 use email (≈96%).
• 35–54: ~1,850 adults; ~1,760 use email (≈95%).
• 55–64: ~1,040 adults; ~940 use email (≈90%).
• 65+: ~1,630 adults; ~1,290 use email (≈79%).

Gender split

• Email users are roughly 50% female and 50% male, mirroring the county’s near-even sex balance.

Digital access and connectivity trends

• ~80% of households maintain a broadband subscription; ~90% have a computer or smartphone.
• Subscription rates have risen by roughly 5 percentage points since 2018 as fiber and fixed‑wireless expand.
• Smartphone‑only internet households are ~10–12%, higher in the lowest‑density townships.
• 4G LTE covers nearly all populated areas; 5G access clusters along the I‑35 corridor and in towns such as Northwood and Manly.
• Typical speeds comfortably support email, video, and telehealth; pockets of weak signal persist on rural gravel corridors away from highways.

Overall, email is a near‑universal tool among working‑age adults, with adoption moderating among seniors and in the most rural tracts.

Mobile phone usage in Worth County, Iowa — 2024 snapshot

Population baseline (for scale)

• Total population: 7,443 (U.S. Census, 2020)
• Households: ≈3,100
• Adults (18+): ≈5,900 (about 79% of residents), reflecting an older age mix than Iowa overall

User estimates (people, not subscriptions)

• Adult smartphone users: ≈4,850 (about 82% of adults), versus Iowa ≈87%
• Adult mobile phone users (any type): ≈5,600 (about 95% of adults), roughly on par with Iowa
• Total mobile phone users (all ages): ≈6,300–6,500 (about 85–87% of residents)
  • These estimates apply national age- and rural-adjusted ownership rates (Pew Research, 2023) to the county’s older age structure

Demographic breakdown and implications for usage

• Age
  • 65+: ≈22% of Worth County vs ≈18% statewide → lower smartphone adoption among seniors locally (≈60–62% vs ≈66–70% statewide)
  • 50–64: ≈20% of residents; smartphone adoption ≈80–85%
  • 18–49: ≈36–38% of residents; smartphone adoption ≈94–96%
  • Result: overall adoption trails the state by ~3–5 percentage points, driven primarily by the larger senior share
• Income and plan mix
  • Median household income: ≈$62,000 locally vs ≈$69,000 in Iowa (ACS)
  • Higher sensitivity to device/plan cost; prepaid/MVNO penetration is elevated (estimated 22–28% of lines) relative to the statewide mix (≈18–22%)
• Race/ethnicity and language
  • ≈94% White non-Hispanic (vs ≈84% in Iowa); low linguistic isolation; Android share tends to be higher in price-sensitive rural segments

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Networks present: Verizon, AT&T, T‑Mobile, and UScellular operate in Worth County; numerous MVNOs ride these networks
• 4G LTE coverage: near-universal for residents; estimated ≥99% population coverage and ≈96–98% land-area coverage with at least one 4G signal
• 5G coverage
  • Low-band 5G: broad population coverage (≈90–95%), strongest along the I‑35 corridor and in town centers (e.g., Northwood, Manly)
  • Mid-band 5G (2.5–3.7 GHz): patchier than the Iowa average; estimated 30–45% of residents within a strong mid-band footprint, below major metro counties (e.g., Polk, Linn)
• Macro cell infrastructure
  • Approximately 30–45 FCC-registered tall structures (macro sites) in the county; multi-tenant collocation is common along I‑35 and near towns
• Typical performance (where service class is available)
  • 4G LTE: ~10–50 Mbps down / 2–10 Mbps up
  • 5G low-band: ~40–150 Mbps down / 5–20 Mbps up
  • 5G mid-band: ~100–400 Mbps down / 10–40 Mbps up
  • Uplink is often the limiting factor indoors, especially in metal-clad farm buildings; Wi‑Fi calling or signal boosters see above-average use compared with urban Iowa
• Fixed broadband context (shapes mobile reliance)
  • Town cores have fiber (regional co‑ops) and some cable coverage; legacy DSL persists; fixed wireless is common in rural tracts
  • Mobile-only internet households are more prevalent than statewide: estimated 18–22% of households rely primarily on cellular data vs ≈12–15% for Iowa

How Worth County differs from the Iowa average

• Slightly lower smartphone adoption (by ~3–5 pp) due to an older age profile and modestly lower incomes
• Higher reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and longer device replacement cycles
• Greater dependence on mobile data and fixed wireless as primary or backup home internet
• Network choice skews more to coverage-focused carriers (notably UScellular) than in metro areas
• 5G mid-band coverage and capacity lag urban counties; low-band 5G availability is solid but delivers smaller capacity gains than in cities

Notes on methodology and sources

• Population, households, and age structure: U.S. Census (2020 Decennial) and ACS
• Ownership baselines: Pew Research Center (2023 smartphone ownership by age and rural/urban); local estimates apply these rates to the county’s age mix
• Coverage and infrastructure: FCC mobile coverage maps (2023–2024), FCC Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) for site counts, and carrier public coverage disclosures
• Broadband context: FCC Fixed Broadband Deployment (2023) and Iowa provider footprints (regional fiber co‑ops, cable, DSL, fixed wireless)

These figures collectively indicate a county that is well covered for 4G, broadly covered for low-band 5G, but with less mid-band depth and slightly lower smartphone adoption than the state, alongside a higher propensity to rely on mobile or fixed wireless for home connectivity.

Worth County, Iowa: social media usage snapshot (2025)

Population base

• Total population: ~7,400
• Adults (18+): ~5,800 (ACS 2023 estimates used as base for all rates below)

Most-used platforms among adults (modeled local estimates using Pew Research Center 2024 age-specific adoption applied to Worth County’s age structure)

• YouTube: 82% of adults (4,750 users)
• Facebook: 67% (3,900)
• Instagram: 41% (2,350)
• TikTok: 32% (1,850)
• Pinterest: 32% (1,850)
• Snapchat: 26% (1,500)
• LinkedIn: 25% (1,450)
• WhatsApp: 24% (1,400)
• X/Twitter: 20% (1,150)
• Reddit: 18% (1,000)

Age-group profile (approximate adult counts shown; percentages are platform adoption within each age band)

• Ages 18–29 (~1,000 adults): YouTube ~93%; Instagram ~78%; Facebook ~67%; Snapchat ~65%; TikTok ~62%
• Ages 30–49 (~2,000 adults): YouTube ~92%; Facebook ~75%; Instagram ~49%; TikTok ~39%; Snapchat ~31%
• Ages 50–64 (~1,400 adults): YouTube ~83%; Facebook ~73%; Instagram ~29%; TikTok ~24%; Snapchat ~14%
• Ages 65+ (~1,450 adults): YouTube ~60%; Facebook ~50%; Instagram ~15%; TikTok ~10%; Snapchat ~3%

Gender breakdown

• Overall social audience: roughly even, ≈51% female and 49% male (tracks county demographics)
• Platform skews: Facebook and Pinterest lean female; YouTube leans slightly male; Reddit and X/Twitter lean male; Instagram and TikTok are near-even with a slight female tilt

Behavioral trends observed in rural Iowa counties of similar size (applies to Worth County)

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of local Groups (schools, sports boosters, buy/sell, events), Marketplace, and county/emergency updates; most posting is event-driven, while day-to-day behavior is largely passive scrolling and sharing
• YouTube is the default for “how‑to” and local-interest video: farm/repair tutorials, weather coverage, high school sports highlights; growing connected‑TV viewing in evenings
• Instagram and TikTok are entertainment and discovery channels for under‑40s: Reels/shorts cross‑posted between platforms; local businesses and teams use Stories/Reels for announcements; TikTok drives high time‑spent but lower outbound clicks
• Snapchat is a messaging-first platform for teens/young adults: streaks, location filters during games and fairs; minimal public posting
• Messaging over feeds for 1:1 or small groups: Facebook Messenger is common among families; WhatsApp has modest use, mainly for out‑of‑area contacts
• Content that performs: school athletics, county fair, weather alerts/road closures, obituaries and community milestones, hunting/harvest seasons, local business promotions and giveaways
• Timing: engagement peaks before work (6:30–8:00 a.m.), lunch (11:30 a.m.–1:00 p.m.), and evenings (7:00–9:30 p.m.); sharp spikes during severe weather and major school events
• Ads and conversion: small businesses lean on boosted Facebook/Instagram posts targeted to nearby ZIPs; Marketplace and Group posts often outperform formal ads for reach and responses

Method note

• County-level social media surveys are rare. Figures above are modeled for Worth County by applying Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption rates by age to the county’s adult age mix from ACS 2023. Counts are rounded and reflect overlap across platforms.