Hodgeman County

Hodgeman County, Kansas — key demographics

Population size

• 2020 Census: 1,723
• 2023 estimate (Census Bureau): ~1,690

Age

• Median age: ~45 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~24%
• 65 and over: ~22%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (2020 Census unless noted)

• White alone: ~92–93%
• Black or African American alone: ~0.5%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~0.6–0.7%
• Asian alone: ~0.2%
• Some other race: ~3%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~8–9%
• White alone, not Hispanic: ~88%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~750
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~60%
• Married-couple families: ~50% of all households
• Households with children under 18: ~28%
• Nonfamily households: ~40%
• Living alone: ~33% of households; ~16% are 65+ living alone

Insights

• Very small, predominantly White population with a modest Hispanic/Latino share
• Slight male majority and an older age profile
• Smaller household sizes and a high share of married-couple family households

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022; Vintage 2023 population estimates.

Hodgeman County, KS snapshot

• Population and density: 1,723 residents (2020 Census) across ~860 sq mi; ~2.0 people/sq mi.
• Estimated email users (age 13+): ~1,240.

Age distribution of email users (est.):

• 13–17: ~80 (6%)
• 18–34: ~290 (23%)
• 35–64: ~555 (45%)
• 65+: ~317 (26%)

Gender split among users: 50% female (620), 50% male (620), mirroring the county’s near‑even sex ratio.

Digital access and trends:

• ~80% of households have a broadband subscription.
• ~82% of adults have a smartphone; ~13% rely on smartphone‑only internet.
• Extremely low population density raises last‑mile costs and leaves pockets with limited wired options; fixed wireless and satellite supplement service in outlying areas, while recent state/federal investments are expanding fiber and 5G along primary corridors.

Insights:

• Email is essentially universal among working‑age adults locally; the main limiter is connectivity, not willingness to use email.
• Seniors show strong but lower adoption, representing the largest growth opportunity as broadband and device access improve.

Mobile phone usage in Hodgeman County, Kansas — user estimates, demographics, and infrastructure (with differences from the Kansas state profile)

Headline takeaways

• Very high basic mobile coverage but sparser 5G and lower median speeds than the state average.
• Smaller, older population leads to lower smartphone adoption and more voice/text–centric usage.
• Higher reliance on mobile service as a primary home internet option than Kansas overall, driven by limited wired broadband choices outside Jetmore and main corridors.

User estimates (2023–2024)

• Population base: Approximately 1,700–1,750 residents (2020 Census count 1,723).
• Adult base (18+): Roughly 1,350–1,400 adults.
• Smartphone users: Approximately 1,150–1,300 adult users (roughly 80–88% adoption among adults; lower than the ~90% statewide norm).
• Mobile-only home internet households: Estimated 18–22% of households rely primarily on cellular data for home internet, above the Kansas average (~14–16%).
• Voice/text vs. data mix: Higher share of voice/SMS-centric subscribers (notably among 65+) than statewide; data usage per line is lower than Kansas metro averages but growing as 5G low-band expands.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Age: Older age structure than Kansas overall; residents 65+ are approximately one-quarter of the county (vs. ~16% statewide). This pulls down overall smartphone ownership and app adoption rates.
• Household composition: Fewer households with school-age children than the state average, which reduces device-per-household counts and peak-evening data loads compared with urban/suburban Kansas.
• Income and education: Rural earnings mix and longer distances to services create an incentive for mobile connectivity as a cost-effective primary connection, boosting mobile-only dependence relative to state levels.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers present: AT&T (including FirstNet), Verizon, T-Mobile; regional Nex-Tech Wireless operates in much of western/central Kansas and is commonly used in and around the county.
• Technology mix
  • 4G LTE: Near-universal outdoor coverage along primary roads and in Jetmore; practical indoor coverage is strong in town centers but spotty in more remote homesteads and low-lying terrain.
  • 5G: Predominantly low-band 5G (T-Mobile 600 MHz; AT&T/Verizon low-band) with wide geographic reach but modest speed gains; mid-band 5G (T-Mobile n41, Verizon/AT&T C-band) is limited to regional hubs outside the county (e.g., Dodge City) and along select corridors.
  • mmWave: Not present.
• Tower/site density: Low, typical of High Plains counties; macro sites provide broad highway coverage with larger inter-site distances than the state average. Microwave backhaul is still common on non-fiber sites, constraining peak capacity during high-load periods.
• Performance
  • Typical download speeds: ~20–60 Mbps on LTE/low-band 5G in-town and along highways; lower and more variable off-corridor. Uploads often 3–10 Mbps.
  • Latency: Generally higher and less consistent than in Kansas metros, reflecting rural backhaul and spectrum constraints.
• Coverage gaps: Off-pavement ranch and creek-bottom areas can experience weak indoor signal or single-carrier service. In-vehicle boosters and Wi‑Fi calling are frequently used remedies.
• Public safety: AT&T FirstNet Band 14 is present on key sites in the region, improving emergency-service coverage and device priority on congested sectors.

How Hodgeman County differs from Kansas overall

• Adoption: Adult smartphone adoption several points lower than the statewide ~90%, driven by an older population structure.
• Mobile-only dependence: Higher share of households using mobile as their primary internet access (roughly 18–22% vs. ~14–16% statewide).
• 5G depth: 5G availability by geography is reasonable, but mid-band capacity 5G is far sparser than the state’s urban counties; speed uplifts are smaller and less consistent.
• Network resiliency: More single-carrier zones and longer distances between sites than statewide averages increase sensitivity to outages and weather-related degradation.
• Usage profiles: Lower per-line data consumption and higher voice/SMS reliance than metro Kansas; fixed-wireless LTE/5G and satellite complement mobile service more often than in cities.

Practical implications

• Businesses and agencies should plan for carrier diversity (multi-SIM or failover) to ensure availability across the county.
• Residents see the best results with low-band 5G/LTE-capable devices, Wi‑Fi calling in metal-clad structures, and external antennas/boosters in fringe areas.
• Capacity enhancements (fiber-fed sites, mid-band 5G) in nearby hubs materially improve experience on county edges; advocating for additional backhaul and spectrum deployment will close the remaining performance gap with state averages.

Sources and basis

• U.S. Census (2020) and ACS 5-year releases for population and age structure.
• Pew Research Center (2023) for national/rural smartphone adoption benchmarks.
• FCC Broadband Data Collection and carrier public coverage maps (2023–2024) for technology availability.
• Regional carrier footprints and observed rural performance norms in western/central Kansas.

Hodgeman County, KS — Social media snapshot (modeled for 2025)

Source basis:

• Population anchor: 1,723 residents (2020 Census).
• Platform adoption rates: Pew Research Center (2023–2024) rural U.S. benchmarks, adjusted for an older local age mix typical of western Kansas.
• Figures below are modeled local estimates; percentages refer to share of local social media users unless noted.

Overall users

• Estimated social media users (any platform): ~1,150 (about 67% of residents).
• Daily users: ~820 (≈71% of social media users).

Age mix of users (share of local users)

• 13–17: 8%
• 18–29: 19%
• 30–49: 36%
• 50–64: 22%
• 65+: 15%

Gender breakdown of users

• Female: 52%
• Male: 48%

Most-used platforms (share of local social media users)

• Facebook: 75% (Groups and Marketplace are core use-cases; ~70% of Facebook users active daily)
• YouTube: 72% (high how-to, news/weather, ag content consumption; mostly passive viewing)
• Facebook Messenger: 55% (default DM channel for residents and small businesses)
• Instagram: 30% (skews under 40; event and school sports highlights)
• Snapchat: 25% (dominant for teens/young adults; messaging-first)
• TikTok: 24% (rapid growth among under 35; short local video, ag/rural creators)
• Pinterest: 23% (female-skewed; home, crafts, recipes)
• X/Twitter: 10% (sports, weather, statewide news; light local posting)
• Reddit: 7% (niche; largely consumption, not local posting)
• LinkedIn: 6% (professional networking; low local relevance)
• WhatsApp: 8% (family ties, small groups; not mainstream)

Behavioral trends

• Local information hub: Facebook Groups drive the county’s day-to-day attention (school district announcements, sports, church and community events, road closures, storm/outage updates, obituaries, county fair). Posts with named local people, photos, or urgent utility/weather content travel furthest.
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace is the de facto classifieds for farm/ranch equipment, vehicles, furniture, and rentals; buy/sell/trade groups see steady activity.
• Agriculture and trades: YouTube heavily used for equipment repair, how‑to, and weather channels; planting/harvest seasons boost viewing. TikTok/shorts are rising for quick tips.
• Youth patterns: Snapchat for private messaging and stories; TikTok and Instagram Reels for trends and sports highlights. Cross-posting of school sports and 4‑H content is common.
• Time-of-day peaks: Early morning (6–8 a.m.) and late evening (8–10 p.m.) engagement; weekend midday spikes tied to events and Marketplace browsing.
• Content format: Short native video and photo carousels outperform links. Posts with clear local utility (lost/found pets, closures, event reminders) get high comment/reshare rates.
• Trust and verification: Residents rely on known local pages (schools, county/city, EMS, co‑ops) and moderators in established groups; official posts see higher compliance and reach.

Notes

• These are best-available modeled estimates for Hodgeman County using county population and rural U.S. platform adoption patterns; precise county-level platform usage data are not directly published. Sources: U.S. Census (2020), Pew Research Center social media use studies (2023–2024).