Crawford County

Here are concise, recent demographics for Crawford County, Kansas. Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2018–2022 5-year unless noted) and rounded for readability.

• Population: ~38,900 (2023 estimate)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~34
  • Under 18: ~20%
  • 65 and over: ~17%
• Gender: ~50% female, ~50% male
• Race/ethnicity (race alone unless noted; Hispanic is of any race):
  • White: ~87%
  • Black/African American: ~3–4%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~2–3%
  • Asian: ~2%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0–0.1%
  • Two or more races: ~5–6%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~7%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~15,400
  • Average household size: ~2.3
  • Family households: ~56% of households
  • Married-couple families: ~40–45% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~25–30%
  • Nonfamily households: ~40–45% (about one-third living alone)

Notes: Figures reflect ACS sample estimates; small differences may appear across sources/years.

• Population baseline: ~39,000 residents in Crawford County, KS (Pittsburg is the hub; county density ~65 people/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: 30,000–33,000 residents. Method: adult-heavy population plus high email adoption among adults and students; lower among children.
• Age distribution of users (approx. share of users):
  • 13–17: 6–8% (school-driven usage).
  • 18–24: 14–18% (Pittsburg State University boosts near‑universal email).
  • 25–44: 28–32% (work/service usage).
  • 45–64: 25–30%.
  • 65+: 12–18% (adoption lower but majority use email).
• Gender split: Roughly even; no meaningful email usage gap by gender expected.
• Digital access trends:
  • About 4 in 5 households subscribe to broadband; computer access is widespread, with a notable smartphone‑only segment (~10–15% of households).
  • Urban core (Pittsburg/Girard) has cable/fiber options; rural areas rely more on DSL/fixed wireless with slower speeds.
  • Public access (PSU, libraries) helps close gaps for non‑subscribers.
• Local connectivity notes:
  • Craw‑Kan Telephone Cooperative and other ISPs have expanded fiber in parts of the county; coverage and speeds drop in sparsely populated areas.
  • Strong corridor connectivity along major routes (e.g., US‑69); rural dead zones persist.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Crawford County, Kansas

Executive takeaways

• High smartphone penetration but greater reliance on mobile as primary internet than the Kansas average.
• Coverage and speeds are strong in and around Pittsburg/Frontenac/Girard, with more variability and pockets of weak signal in rural townships and around recreation areas.
• A sizable student population (Pittsburg State University) pushes up device ownership and 5G device adoption among younger adults, while lower household incomes raise the share of prepaid/MVNO plans and mobile-only households.

User estimates (modeled)

• Population context: ~39,000 residents; adult population roughly 30,000–31,000.
• Smartphone users: 27,000–29,500 residents.
  • Method: Apply recent Pew smartphone ownership rates for adults (roughly mid- to high-80s percent; higher for 18–34) plus high teen adoption to county age mix.
• Mobile-only internet households: materially above the Kansas average.
  • Expect roughly mid-teens percent of households relying mainly or only on cellular data (vs Kansas often in high single digits to low teens), reflecting lower wired-broadband take-up outside Pittsburg and budget constraints.
• Prepaid/MVNO use: higher than statewide, especially among students and lower-income households.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• 18–34 (students and early-career): Near-universal smartphone adoption; high data usage; frequent reliance on campus and public Wi‑Fi in Pittsburg; above-average adoption of 5G-capable devices.
• 35–64: Strong smartphone ownership; cost-sensitive plans more common than state average; hotspotting for home connectivity appears more frequent than in metro Kansas.
• 65+: Ownership lower than younger cohorts and somewhat below statewide senior rates; voice/SMS favored over high-data apps where coverage is variable.
• Income and housing: Lower median incomes and more rental/student housing increase demand for prepaid plans, device financing, and mobile-first internet.

Digital infrastructure snapshot

• Networks present: All three national carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon) serve the county; strongest capacity clustered in Pittsburg and along US‑69 and US‑160 corridors.
• 5G availability:
  • Low-band 5G is broadly available near population centers and main highways.
  • Mid-band 5G (e.g., T-Mobile n41, AT&T/Verizon C‑band) is concentrated in/near Pittsburg; rural sectors are often LTE-first with 5G infill less consistent than Kansas metros.
• Coverage gaps: More dead zones/weak indoor signal in sparsely populated western/northern townships and around lakes/wooded recreation areas than the state average; signal boosters and external antennas are more commonly used by rural households and small businesses.
• Backhaul and fiber: Regional fiber assets run along primary corridors; the local telco cooperative (Craw‑Kan) and other regional providers supply fiber backhaul for some cell sites and FTTH to parts of the county, improving performance in covered pockets but with uneven rural reach.
• Public Wi‑Fi offload: Dense on/near Pittsburg State University and civic facilities, shaping traffic patterns and reducing cellular load in the city core.

How Crawford County differs from the Kansas statewide picture

• Higher mobile dependence: A noticeably larger share of households rely on cellular data (hotspots/phone tethering) as their primary or only internet connection compared with the state overall.
• Plan mix: Prepaid and MVNO plans have a bigger footprint (students, lower-income users) than in metro-heavy parts of Kansas.
• Coverage uniformity: Less uniform 5G mid-band coverage and greater speed variability outside the main towns than the state average, which is skewed by strong metro deployments (KC, Wichita, Topeka).
• Age effects: The university lifts 18–34 smartphone adoption and 5G device penetration above what you’d typically see in a rural Kansas county without a campus.
• Senior adoption: Smartphone uptake among older adults likely trails the Kansas average, widening the intergenerational usage gap locally.
• Business and agriculture use: Above-average reliance on LTE/5G for point-of-sale, telemetry, and precision ag in rural areas compared with urban Kansas, due to limited wired alternatives.

Notes on data and assumptions

• County-specific smartphone ownership data are not directly published; estimates combine:
  • U.S. Census Bureau ACS “Computer and Internet Use” (household smartphone and cellular-only indicators, 5‑year estimates),
  • Pew Research Center 2023–2024 smartphone adoption by age,
  • FCC mobile coverage datasets for 4G/5G availability.
• Figures are presented as ranges to reflect uncertainty and year-to-year network build changes. For a precise brief, pair ACS table S2801 (2018–2022 or newer) for Crawford County with current FCC 5G maps and carrier coverage tools around Pittsburg, Frontenac, Girard, Arma, and rural townships.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate of social media usage in Crawford County, KS. True platform-by-county stats aren’t published; figures are inferred from Pew Research national use, rural-Midwest benchmarks, platform ad-tools, and local demographics (Pittsburg State University skews younger). Expect ±5–10 percentage points.

Population base

• Residents: ~39,000; estimated 13+ population: ~33,000
• Estimated social media users (any platform, monthly): 25,000–28,000 (≈75–85% of 13+)

Age-group adoption (share using any social platform, monthly)

• 13–17: 95–98%
• 18–24: 95%+
• 25–34: 90–95%
• 35–49: 80–85%
• 50–64: 70–75%
• 65+: 45–55%

Gender breakdown (usage tendency and skews)

• Women: 78–82% use social; over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; strong in Groups/Marketplace and local events
• Men: 75–80% use social; over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X; strong in sports, gaming, tech

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+ using monthly)

• YouTube: 75–85% (ubiquitous; news, how-to, sports highlights)
• Facebook: 60–70% overall; 35+ heavy; Groups/Marketplace are central
• Instagram: 35–45% overall; 18–34: 60–70%
• TikTok: 35–45% overall; 13–24: ~70%; 35+: ~20–30%
• Snapchat: 30–40% overall; 13–24: 65–80% (driven by PSU students)
• Pinterest: 20–30% (female skew, 25–54)
• Reddit: 15–20% (male skew)
• LinkedIn: 12–18% (professionals, PSU faculty/staff/alumni)
• X (Twitter): 10–15% (students, sports, local news/reporters)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% of households in Pittsburg/Frontenac; limited rural uptake

Local behavioral trends

• Facebook is the community hub: buy/sell/trade, school groups, youth sports, city updates, severe weather; Marketplace spikes at semester move-outs.
• Students drive ephemeral content: Snapchat streaks/geofilters and Instagram Stories; TikTok for campus life, food, events, and PSU athletics.
• Messaging > posting: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are primary DMs; WhatsApp niche; SMS still common.
• Local news and alerts: City/County, PSU, and KOAM/The Morning Sun pages; weather posts see fastest engagement.
• Video-first: Short vertical video performs best; live streams for local sports or hot civic topics draw spikes.
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (7–9 pm) and lunchtime; weather/road closure posts cut through at any time.
• Trust dynamics: Friends, schools, churches, and known admins matter; unfamiliar pages face skepticism—comments drive reach.
• Ads that work: Facebook/Instagram geofenced ~10–15 miles around Pittsburg for events, retail, hiring; older demos respond to boosted FB posts, younger to TikTok/Snap with concise CTAs.
• Cross-market bleed: Joplin media/groups influence discovery; cross-posting to regional buy/sell groups is common.

Notes and implications

• The PSU student population elevates 18–24 adoption and boosts Snapchat/Instagram/TikTok above typical rural levels; Facebook remains dominant for 35+ and for transactions/community.
• Expect platform shares to vary by town (Pittsburg/Frontenac more active; rural areas rely even more on Facebook).