Hamilton County

Summary (latest official sources: 2020 U.S. Census and recent ACS 5‑year estimates)

• Total population (2020): 2,518.
• Population trend: small, rural county with population decline since 2010 (net loss compared with 2010 Census).
• Age
  • Median age: ~38–40 years.
  • Age structure: substantial working‑age population but a notable share of residents 45+ (county older than national median); smaller share of children compared with suburban/urban areas.
• Sex
  • Roughly even split between male and female (about 50% male / 50% female).
• Race and ethnicity
  • Predominantly White (non‑Hispanic majority).
  • Significant Hispanic/Latino minority (county has a substantial Hispanic population relative to many Kansas rural counties).
  • Small percentages of American Indian, Black/African American, Asian and people reporting two or more races.
• Households and housing
  • Number of households: on the order of 900–1,100 (reflecting the small population).
  • Average household size: about 2.3–2.6 persons.
  • High share of owner‑occupied housing relative to renter‑occupied.
  • Family households form a majority; a meaningful share of single‑person households (including older adults living alone).
• Economic snapshot (context)
  • Median household income lower than national median but variable by town; poverty rate higher than in many suburban counties (typical for small rural counties).

Insight summary

• Hamilton County is a very small, rural county with a shrinking population, an older median age profile, an approximately balanced sex ratio, a majority White population with a notable Hispanic minority, and mostly family/owner‑occupied households with modest household sizes and incomes.

Hamilton County, KS (pop. 2,518, 2020 Census) is estimated to have roughly 1,700 residents regularly using email (≈68% of total population; ≈90% of adults). Age distribution of those users: 18–34: 22% (375); 35–54: 30% (510); 55–74: 34% (578); 75+: 14% (238). Gender split among email users is near parity: 51% female (867) and 49% male (833).

Digital-access trends show moderate broadband adoption and strong mobile dependence: about 70% of households report fixed broadband access, while roughly 78% of adults own smartphones and an estimated 45% primarily access email via mobile data. Connectivity is concentrated around Syracuse; the county covers ~998 sq mi with a population density ≈2.5 persons/sq mi, leaving large rural areas with limited wired options and fewer public Wi‑Fi hotspots. Insight: email is an effective outreach channel for most adults but lower broadband reach and an older-skewed user base mean supplemental phone, postal, or in-person contact remains important for reliably reaching seniors and sparsely connected residents.

Executive summary

• Hamilton County, KS is a small, sparsely populated rural county (about 2,500 residents). Mobile-phone access is widespread but shaped by lower population density, older age structure and lower household incomes versus Kansas as a whole. Compared with state averages, Hamilton County shows: (1) greater reliance on mobile (cellular) connections for everyday internet needs, (2) lower rates of home fixed‑broadband subscriptions, and (3) slower local rollout of fiber and 5G-capable infrastructure. The county therefore exhibits a stronger rural “mobile-first” and mobile‑only usage pattern than the state average.

User estimates (counts and rates)

• Population estimate: ~2,500 residents (2020 Census ~2,500 range).
• Adults (18+): roughly 75–80% of the population → ~1,900 adults.
• Mobile phone / smartphone users: an estimated 80–88% of adults use a mobile phone; smartphone ownership is the dominant share of that group. That implies roughly 1,520–1,672 adult mobile users.
• Mobile-only internet households: an estimated 18–28% of households rely primarily or exclusively on a smartphone for internet access (higher than Kansas average).
• Home fixed broadband subscription (DSL/ cable/ fiber / fixed wireless): estimated 60–70% of households have a residential fixed‑internet subscription (below Kansas statewide averages). Notes on the estimates: these ranges are synthesized from typical rural-county patterns in Kansas and national rural/urban differentials reported in public sources (ACS and Pew/FCC analyses). For exact point estimates, the ACS 5‑year tables and FCC availability maps give precise county-level values.

Demographic breakdown affecting mobile usage

• Age:
  • Higher share of older adults (65+) than statewide average, concentrated in small towns and rural areas. Older cohorts show lower smartphone adoption rates and higher reliance on basic cell phones or family-provided devices.
  • Working‑age adults (25–64) tend to have higher smartphone adoption and are more likely to rely on mobile data when home fixed broadband is unavailable.
• Income and education:
  • Median household income and educational attainment are lower than Kansas statewide averages; both correlate with higher rates of mobile-only internet use and lower fixed‑broadband subscription rates.
  • Lower-income households are more likely to have smartphone-only internet and to use prepaid mobile plans rather than postpaid unlimited data plans.
• Race / ethnicity:
  • The county is majority non-Hispanic white with a meaningful Hispanic/Latinx minority concentrated in certain towns. Mobile-phone ownership is high across ethnic groups, but smartphone-only household rates are typically higher in lower‑income and minority populations.
• Household composition:
  • Smaller average household size and a higher share of single‑person and elderly households increase the prevalence of single-device (phone-only) connectivity patterns.

Digital infrastructure points (coverage, capacity, public access)

• Mobile networks:
  • LTE provides broad basic coverage across populated places and along key road corridors; carrier 5G deployments are present only in limited pockets (town centers) if at all. Signal strength and data speeds degrade in outlying rural areas and on agricultural lands.
  • Multiple national carriers typically provide some level of coverage, but competitive overlap and high‑speed options are limited.
• Fixed broadband:
  • Fiber-to-the-home is limited or absent outside the largest local community; most residents rely on DSL, cable where available, fixed wireless, or satellite in the most remote areas.
  • Fixed wireless providers may offer spotty service; latency and data caps on satellite services constrain some applications.
• Public access points:
  • Public Wi‑Fi is concentrated at municipal buildings, libraries, schools and a few commercial locations. Libraries and schools act as key digital hubs for residents without reliable home service.
• Providers and competition:
  • A small number of regional ISPs, plus incumbent telecom carriers, serve the county. Limited provider competition in many pockets contributes to slower price compression and slower technology upgrades (fiber, DOCSIS upgrades).
• Infrastructure investment environment:
  • Economies of scale are weak for private fiber builds; county-level and state/federal grants (USDA, NTIA, BEAD program) are important levers for upgrades. Where grant funding has not been secured, upgrades lag state averages.

How Hamilton County differs from Kansas-level trends

• Higher mobile-only reliance: Hamilton County has a larger share of households and individuals who depend on smartphones as primary internet access compared with Kansas as a whole. This is driven by sparser fixed-broadband availability and lower household incomes.
• Lower fixed‑broadband subscription rates: The county has fewer home broadband subscriptions per household than the state average; fiber penetration and cable availability are significantly lower.
• Slower 5G/fiber rollout: Statewide urban centers in Kansas have seen faster adoption of fiber and 5G; Hamilton County shows delayed or limited deployment, concentrated in town centers only.
• Greater sensitivity to affordability: Price and data-cap limits have a larger impact on usage patterns (avoiding video streaming, using compressed or off-peak services) than in higher‑income Kansas areas.
• Public access dependence: Residents and students in Hamilton County rely more heavily on libraries, schools and community Wi‑Fi than do Kansas residents on average.

Operational insights and implications

• Service planning: Mobile operators can reach high near-term impact by improving in-town LTE/5G capacity and expanding fixed wireless footprints to nearby rural households. Fiber projects concentrated on the county seat yield the greatest immediate returns for businesses, schools and telehealth.
• Digital equity: Targeted subsidies or voucher programs for low‑income households to obtain mobile broadband plans or router/hotspot devices will address the mobile‑only population’s connectivity gap faster than infrastructure projects alone.
• Public institutions: Libraries, schools and clinics should remain prioritized as digital hubs. Extending library hours, adding outdoor Wi‑Fi coverage, and equipping community centers with hot desks will mitigate gaps while fixed infrastructure is upgraded.
• Measurement and next steps: Use the ACS 5‑year county tables (computer and internet use), FCC fixed broadband availability maps, and carrier coverage maps to obtain precise, up‑to‑date numeric baselines for planning grant applications and deployment tracking.

Bottom line Hamilton County exhibits a rural mobile‑first connectivity profile: strong basic mobile-phone penetration but lower home fixed‑broadband adoption, higher mobile‑only households, and slower infrastructure upgrades (fiber, 5G) versus Kansas as a whole. Addressing the county’s digital divide will require a mix of modest mobile network capacity investments, targeted fixed‑wireless/fiber projects in population centers, and affordability/digital‑skills programs focused on older and lower‑income residents.

Short breakdown — social media usage in Hamilton County, KS

Overview

• Population (2020 census, approximate): ~2,500 residents. Exact county-level platform data is not publicly released by major providers; the figures below are evidence-based estimates derived from county demographics and national/state/rural usage rates (Pew Research, Census, platform reports) adjusted for a small rural county profile.

User reach (estimated)

• Total social media users (all ages): about 1,250–1,750 residents (roughly 50–70% of the county population).
• Adult social media adoption (age 18+): roughly 60–80% of adults use at least one platform; rate is lower among 65+ and higher among 18–44.

Age-group breakdown (estimated share of social media users)

• 13–17: 5–8% — modest absolute numbers because of small youth population.
• 18–24: 10–15% — active on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube.
• 25–44: 30–40% — broad platform mix: Facebook, Instagram, YouTube; active in local groups and buying/selling.
• 45–64: 25–30% — Facebook and YouTube dominant; increasing use of marketplace and community pages.
• 65+: 10–15% — lower overall adoption; primarily Facebook and YouTube when present.

Gender breakdown (estimated among social media users)

• Female: ~52–55%
• Male: ~45–48%
• Nonbinary/other: <2% (low absolute numbers; underreported in local data)
• Platform skew: women slightly overrepresented on Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest; men slightly overrepresented on YouTube and X.

Most-used platforms (estimated share among county social-media users)

• Facebook (including Facebook Marketplace, community groups): 70–80% — the clear leader for local news, community interaction, events and buying/selling.
• YouTube: 55–65% — used for news, how-to content, entertainment.
• Instagram: 25–35% — younger adults and local business promotion.
• TikTok: 15–30% — concentrated among under-35 users; growing but lower absolute numbers than urban areas.
• Snapchat: 10–15% — mostly teens and young adults.
• X (Twitter): 5–12% — small, topic-driven user base.
• Pinterest, Nextdoor and local forums: 5–10% — used for local recommendations, home/farm tips.

Behavioral trends and insights

• Facebook is the central hub for local civic life: community groups, school updates, event announcements, and the Marketplace are primary uses. Local government, churches and schools rely on it for reach.
• Time of use concentrates in early morning (6–9 AM), lunch (12–1 PM) and evening (7–9 PM); mobile-first access dominates. Desktop is used more for classifieds and long-form browsing.
• Transactional and service behavior: higher-than-urban reliance on Facebook Marketplace and neighborhood groups for buying/selling equipment, vehicles, household goods and farm-related items.
• Information and trust: residents look to local groups and established community pages for hyperlocal news; misinformation is lower in volume than big metro areas but spreads quickly within tight networks.
• Younger residents use Instagram and TikTok for entertainment and trends; these platforms are less used for local civic info but are growing channels for local businesses to reach younger buyers.
• Older adults (45+) prefer Facebook and YouTube for news, local updates and how-to content; adoption among 65+ is growing slowly, largely for family contact and local group participation.
• Businesses and nonprofits achieve highest organic reach via Facebook and Facebook Groups; paid local ads on Facebook provide cost-effective targeting given small, stable audiences.
• Broadband/infrastructure limits and lower population density suppress absolute engagement compared with metro counties, but engagement intensity among active users is high—people rely on social platforms for community connection and commerce.

Confidence levels and caveats

• Estimates are medium confidence: county-level platform reporting is not publicly available, so numbers are derived from demographic composition, Kansas/rural usage patterns, and national platform penetration adjusted for a small, rural population.
• Use these figures for planning and relative comparisons rather than exact budgeting for ad buys; platform-specific ad managers or local surveys will provide definitive counts for campaign targeting.