Graham County

Here are key demographics for Graham County, Kansas (latest U.S. Census Bureau data; small county = larger margins of error):

• Population

  • 2,415 (2020 Census)
  • ~2.35k (2023 population estimate)

• Age (ACS 2019–2023)

  • Median age: ~49 years
  • Under 18: ~21%
  • 65 and over: ~26%

• Sex (ACS 2019–2023)

  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%

• Race and ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023; race alone or in combination; Hispanic is an ethnicity)

  • White: ~95%
  • Black or African American: ~0.3–0.5%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.5–0.7%
  • Asian: ~0.1–0.3%
  • Two or more races/Other: ~3–4%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~4%

• Households (ACS 2019–2023)

  • Households: ~1,140
  • Average household size: ~2.1
  • Family households: ~58% of households
  • Owner-occupied housing unit rate: ~78–80%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; Vintage 2023 Population Estimates.

Summary for Graham County, Kansas (estimates)

• Population and density: ~2,400 residents across ~900 sq mi (≈2.7 people/sq mi). Adult population ~1,900.
• Email users: 1,400–1,700 regular users (about 75–90% of adults), plus some teen users. Email usage is near-universal among internet users; gaps mainly reflect access and affordability.
• Age distribution and usage:
  • 18–34: small share of county; email adoption ~90–95%.
  • 35–64: largest working-age block; adoption ~85–95%.
  • 65+: sizable (≈25%+ of residents); adoption lower but rising, ~70–85% where access is available.
• Gender split: Roughly even male/female population; email usage differences by gender are minimal.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription in rural KS counties like Graham typically sits in the two‑thirds to three‑quarters range; mobile‑only access adds several points.
  • Connectivity strongest in/near Hill City and along US‑24/US‑283; more gaps on farms and sparsely populated areas.
  • Mix of DSL, cable in town, and fixed‑wireless; fiber is expanding with state/federal (BEAD) investments.
  • The 2024 wind‑down of the ACP subsidy may constrain affordability for some households.

Overall: high email adoption among connected adults, with coverage, cost, and age the main limiting factors.

Below is a concise, decision-oriented snapshot of mobile phone usage in Graham County, Kansas, with estimates, demographic context, and infrastructure notes. Figures are derived from recent ACS population estimates, Pew Research mobile adoption by age and rurality, and common carrier deployment patterns in rural western Kansas; treat them as planning-grade estimates and validate locally where possible.

User estimates

• Population base: ≈2,400 residents.
• Mobile phone users (any cellphone): ≈2,150–2,300 (about 90–96% adoption; rural adoption of basic cell phones is very high and close to statewide).
• Smartphone users: ≈1,700–2,000 (roughly 72–84% of residents; lower than Kansas overall, primarily due to an older age profile).
• Households relying primarily on mobile/fixed-wireless for home internet: roughly 15–25% (above Kansas statewide ~10–12%), reflecting limited wireline options outside towns.

Demographic breakdown (and how it differs from the state)

• Older population share is well above the Kansas average. That skews overall smartphone adoption downward and increases use of basic/feature phones.
  • Ages 65+: ≈28–32% of the county. Smartphone adoption in this group likely 55–65% locally (vs. higher statewide), with a notable minority using flip/basic phones.
  • Ages 45–64: ≈25–27% of the county. Smartphone adoption ~85–90%; many also keep a basic phone as a secondary, rugged “farm/ranch” line.
  • Ages 25–44: ≈18–20%. Near-universal smartphone adoption (>90%), on par with statewide.
  • Ages 18–24 and teens: Small share of the population but very high smartphone prevalence (>95% among 18–24; teens 13–17 also very high). Overall impact on county totals is modest because of small cohort sizes.
• Resulting trend vs Kansas: lower overall smartphone penetration; higher persistence of voice/text-first usage among seniors; slightly higher multi-line ownership tied to agriculture/business needs.

Digital infrastructure and market characteristics (what’s different from the state)

• Coverage pattern
  • Coverage is adequate around towns and along major corridors (e.g., US-24/US-283), with noticeable dead zones in sparsely populated areas and along river/valley terrain. Indoor signal can be weak in metal buildings; boosters are more commonly used than in urban Kansas.
  • Compared with statewide, there’s less overlap among carriers and more dependence on a single strong option per location.
• 5G and spectrum
  • 5G availability is present but primarily low-band (excellent range, modest speeds). Mid-band 5G (the fast stuff) is limited or spotty; Kansas cities and larger towns see more mid-band than Graham County.
  • Day-to-day experience often resembles good LTE or low-band 5G, with speeds adequate for browsing/SD video but below statewide medians.
• Carriers and regional players
  • Regional carrier presence matters more than in urban Kansas. Nex-Tech Wireless serves much of northwest/central Kansas and is a meaningful option alongside national carriers.
  • Verizon tends to offer the broadest rural footprint; AT&T is bolstered where FirstNet build-outs exist; T-Mobile can be strong in-town or along specific corridors but is more variable off-highway. Locally, the “best” carrier can change within a few miles.
• Fixed broadband interplay
  • Inside town limits, some fiber or high-quality wireline service from regional cooperatives/providers may be available; outside towns, options drop quickly to fixed wireless, legacy DSL, or satellite.
  • As a result, mobile/fixed-wireless is more often used as primary home internet than statewide, especially in outlying areas and for seasonal/farm sites.
• Performance expectations
  • Typical mobile download speeds: below statewide medians and more variable by location/time. Mid-band 5G “100+ Mbps” experiences are less common than in metro Kansas; sustained 10–40 Mbps is a more realistic planning assumption in many rural spots, with higher peaks near town sites.
• Public safety and resilience
  • FirstNet (AT&T) coverage is a factor for agencies; roaming onto stronger networks in fringe areas can still be necessary.
  • Power/backup on rural towers varies; weather can create temporary coverage gaps more often than in urban areas.
• Affordability and programs
  • With ACP funding paused nationally, reliance shifts to Lifeline and carrier-specific rural plans. Cost sensitivity is higher than statewide averages; shared/family plans and MVNOs see relatively strong uptake.

Key differences vs Kansas overall

• Lower smartphone penetration and higher basic-phone use, driven by older demographics.
• Greater reliance on cellular/fixed-wireless as primary home internet, due to sparser wireline infrastructure outside towns.
• Less mid-band 5G and fewer overlapping carriers at any given location; network performance is more variable and generally below statewide medians.
• Higher prevalence of signal boosters and multi-line setups for agriculture and small business use; likely higher per-capita IoT/telematics lines than urban counties.
• Regional carrier (Nex-Tech Wireless) plays a larger role than in most of the state.

Notes on methodology and confidence

• Population and age structure: ACS 1-year/5-year estimates for small counties. Mobile adoption rates: Pew Research Center (overall, rural, and by age), blended to county age mix.
• Network and coverage characteristics reflect FCC maps, carrier-disclosed rural deployments, and typical Great Plains rural site spacing; verify address-level availability with carrier maps and local providers.
• Treat numerical values as ranges; local ground-truthing (first-responder input, school district tech staff, ag co-ops, and county IT) will refine these estimates.

Here’s a concise, best-available snapshot of social media use in Graham County, KS. Because platforms don’t publish county-level stats, figures are estimates derived from local demographics and recent US/rural usage patterns (Pew 2023–2024), adjusted for Graham County’s older age profile.

Overall user stats (estimated)

• Population: ~2,400 residents
• Active social media users (13+): ≈1,400 (±100), about 60% of residents and ~70% of 13+
• Mobile-first usage is common; Facebook Messenger and SMS remain core for coordination

Most-used platforms (share of active social users; multi-platform use means totals exceed 100%)

• YouTube: 70–75%
• Facebook: 65–70% (heavy use of local Groups and Marketplace)
• Instagram: 30–35%
• Snapchat: 25–30% (dominant among teens)
• TikTok: 25–30%
• Pinterest: 25–30% (skews female)
• X/Twitter: 10–15%
• LinkedIn: ~10%
• Reddit: ~10%
• WhatsApp: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited coverage/use)

Age groups (share of active users; reflects both population mix and adoption)

• 13–17: ~10% (near-universal YouTube; Snapchat 75–85%; TikTok 70–80%; Instagram 60–70%)
• 18–24: ~7% (Instagram/TikTok heavy; Facebook lighter; many away for college/work)
• 25–44: ~31% (YouTube 80%+; Facebook ~70%; growing Instagram/TikTok for short video)
• 45–64: ~30% (Facebook dominant; YouTube strong; modest Instagram/TikTok)
• 65+: ~22% (Facebook and YouTube primary; minimal on others)

Gender breakdown (approximate among active users)

• Overall active users: roughly even, slightly female-skewed (≈50–55% women)
• Platform skews: Facebook and Pinterest skew female; YouTube, Reddit, and X skew male

Behavioral trends

• Local-first content: high engagement with school sports, county fair, church events, fundraisers, obituaries, road/weather updates, lost-and-found, and buy/sell/trade.
• Groups > pages: Facebook Groups (community, classifieds, farm/ranch) drive most conversations; Marketplace is a key utility.
• Short video growth: Reels/TikTok used for local events, humor, ag/ranch life; older users still prefer photo albums and text updates.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger for families/teams/church groups; Snapchat for teens/young adults; group texts remain common.
• Timing: Evenings and early mornings see the highest activity; spikes during severe weather and school-year milestones.
• Ads/content that work: Clear local offers, hours/closures, event reminders, school/team sponsorships, and service updates outperform generic creative; geo-targeting by zip performs well.

Notes on method

• Built from county population/age structure and national rural usage benchmarks; intended as directional planning figures, not audited counts.