Rush County

Rush County, Kansas — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau)

Population size

• 2,956 (2020 Decennial Census)
• ~2,900 (ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimate), continuing a decline from 3,307 in 2010

Age

• Median age: ~50 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Age distribution: ≈20% under 18; ≈57% 18–64; ≈23% 65+ (ACS 2019–2023)

Gender (sex)

• Male ≈51%; Female ≈49% (ACS 2019–2023)

Racial/ethnic composition

• White alone: ≈95%
• Black or African American alone: <1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: <1%
• Asian alone: <1%
• Two or more races: ≈3–4%
• Hispanic/Latino (of any race): ≈4–5% (ACS 2019–2023; note Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity and overlaps with race)

Households

• ~1,320 households; average household size ≈2.2 (ACS 2019–2023)
• Family households ≈57%; married-couple households ≈49%
• Nonfamily households ≈43%; one-person households ≈38%; living alone age 65+ ≈20% (ACS 2019–2023)

Insights

• Small, aging population with a higher share of seniors than the state/nation
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a small Hispanic/Latino community
• Smaller households, high share of nonfamily and older adults living alone

Rush County, KS snapshot

• Population and density: ~2,900 residents, about 4 people per square mile (very rural).
• Estimated email users: ~2,200 residents use email regularly (≈75% of the total population; ≈88–90% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users (share of users): 13–17: ~7–9%; 18–34: ~20–22%; 35–64: ~43–46%; 65+: ~24–27%. Seniors participate at lower rates than prime-age adults but continue to rise each year.
• Gender split: Roughly even among users (about 50% women, 50% men).
• Digital access and trends:
  • Household broadband subscription: roughly 78–82%.
  • Smartphone‑only internet access: ~10–12% of households.
  • No home internet: ~10–12% (higher in remote farmsteads).
  • Connectivity has improved with expanded fixed‑wireless and incremental fiber builds; most occupied locations meet at least 25/3 Mbps, with growing but uneven 100/20 Mbps availability.
• Insight: Given the county’s sparse settlement pattern, email remains a primary, low‑bandwidth communication tool across age groups, with adoption highest among 18–64 adults and steadily increasing among 65+. Public institutions and mobile networks help bridge last‑mile gaps, supporting continuing gains in email use.

Rush County, Kansas: mobile phone usage summary (focus on county vs. statewide patterns)

Context

• Population and settlement: About 3,000 residents spread across roughly 700+ square miles (very low density). The county skews older than Kansas overall, with seniors making up a substantially larger share of residents than the state average. Most population clusters in and around La Crosse and small towns along US‑183, K‑4, and K‑96; large agricultural areas lie between towns.

User base estimates (people and households)

• Unique mobile phone users: Approximately 2,300–2,450 people in Rush County use a mobile phone regularly. This reflects high overall adult mobile ownership (low–mid 90s percent) tempered by the county’s older age structure.
• Smartphone users: Estimated 2,000–2,150 users. Smartphone adoption is widespread but 5–10 percentage points lower than Kansas statewide because of the larger 65+ population.
• 5G‑capable device users: Roughly 1,050–1,250 users (about 50–60% of smartphone users), below the statewide mix where urban counties push 5G‑capable penetration higher.
• Wireless‑only households (no landline): About 65–72% of households, a few points lower than Kansas overall due to more landline retention among older residents.
• Cellular-only home internet (households relying on mobile data for home connectivity): About 14–19% of households in Rush County versus ~9–11% statewide. This gap reflects more limited fixed‑line options in outlying areas and cost sensitivity among smaller, rural households.
• Households with at least one smartphone: Approximately 80–86% of households, below the statewide rate by several points.

Demographic patterns (how usage differs from Kansas)

• Age:
  • 65+ residents constitute a noticeably larger share of the county than the state average; smartphone adoption in this group sits around the low‑to‑mid 60% range, versus higher rates statewide.
  • Working‑age adults (18–64) show high mobile and smartphone adoption (generally 90%+), but 5G device ownership lags urban Kansas by several points.
• Income and household composition:
  • Lower‑income and single‑adult households are more likely to be smartphone‑only for internet access, which elevates the county’s cellular‑only internet share above the state average.
  • Small businesses and farm operations frequently use LTE hotspots and rugged devices for field operations, a usage mix less common in urban Kansas.

Digital infrastructure and network characteristics

• Coverage baseline: 4G LTE from the three national carriers reaches towns and primary corridors (US‑183, K‑4, K‑96) and covers most populated areas. Outside those corridors, signal quality can drop in low‑lying fields and around metal/agricultural structures, producing more indoor‑coverage challenges than in metro counties.
• 5G footprint:
  • Low‑band 5G is present in and around population centers and along main highways.
  • Mid‑band 5G (the layer that delivers 100–300+ Mbps) is comparatively sparse relative to Kansas’s larger cities; town centers are more likely to see mid‑band, while open rangeland remains LTE‑or low‑band‑5G‑only.
• Capacity and backhaul:
  • Macro towers predominate; small‑cell density is minimal, unlike urban Kansas.
  • Backhaul combines regional fiber (from rural providers active in western Kansas) along with microwave links on more remote sites, which can constrain peak capacity versus metro counties with dense fiber.
• Carrier landscape:
  • AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon all serve the county; practical choice often narrows to whichever carrier has the stronger local macro coverage near a user’s home or farm. This “single‑best‑carrier” dynamic is more pronounced than in urban Kansas where multi‑carrier strong coverage is common.
  • Public safety coverage is supported via AT&T’s FirstNet footprint across the region, improving resilience for EMS/fire relative to commercial‑only networks.
• Performance characteristics:
  • Typical user experience in town: stable LTE/low‑band‑5G with mid‑band 5G in select spots; attainable speeds often adequate for app use, messaging, telehealth, and streaming.
  • Typical experience in fields/remote homesteads: greater variability, with occasional dead zones and more reliance on external antennas or boosters for indoor use. This contrast with Kansas metros is one of the most consistent county‑level divergences.

Key ways Rush County differs from the Kansas statewide picture

• Adoption: Slightly lower smartphone ownership and notably lower 5G‑device penetration driven by the older age structure.
• Access patterns: Higher reliance on cellular‑only home internet and LTE hotspots for work/education compared with the state average.
• Infrastructure: Fewer mid‑band 5G sites per capita and broader tower spacing, leading to more pronounced indoor‑coverage and edge‑of‑cell issues than in urban/suburban Kansas.
• Market dynamics: Coverage quality tends to be carrier‑specific by location, reducing multi‑carrier competition at the household level compared with cities where all three carriers are strong in the same neighborhoods.

Method notes (for interpreting the figures above)

• Estimates are derived from recent federal datasets (ACS 5‑year “Computer and Internet Use,” FCC mobile coverage filings) combined with national/state adoption research (e.g., Pew smartphone adoption by age) and adjusted for Rush County’s older age profile and rural settlement pattern. Figures are presented as explicit estimates for small‑population geographies where direct county‑specific samples are limited.

Rush County, KS social media snapshot (2025)

How this is framed

• Figures below are best-available estimates for Rush County’s adult population derived from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption rates, with modest downward adjustments typical for rural counties, plus known rural Midwestern usage patterns. They provide practical, decision-grade numbers for a small, highly rural county.

Overall penetration

• Adults using at least one social platform: about 68–74% of adults
• Multi-platform use is common: roughly 2–3 platforms per user, on average
• Daily use: about 60% of adults use social media daily; teens are higher

Most-used platforms among adults (estimated share of all adults)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–70%
• Instagram: 40–45%
• Pinterest: 30–35% (skews female)
• TikTok: 25–30%
• Snapchat: 23–28% (skews under 30)
• X (Twitter): 18–22% (light, news/sports/weather oriented)
• Reddit: 15–20% (skews male)
• WhatsApp: 15–20% (private/family chat)
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (job-seeking; limited local networking utility)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (very low in sparsely populated areas)

Age profile (usage tendencies and typical adoption)

• Teens 13–17: Near-universal YouTube (~95%+); Snapchat and TikTok each ~60–70%; Instagram ~50–60%; Facebook present but mainly for groups/teams/parents
• Young adults 18–29: Instagram ~70–80%, Snapchat ~60–70%, TikTok ~60–65%, YouTube ~90%+, Facebook ~50–60%
• Adults 30–49: Facebook ~70–80%, YouTube ~85–90%, Instagram ~45–55%, TikTok/Snapchat ~30–40%, Pinterest ~35–45%
• Adults 50–64: Facebook ~65–75%, YouTube ~75–85%, Instagram ~25–35%, Pinterest ~30–40%, TikTok ~15–25%
• Seniors 65+: Facebook ~50–55%, YouTube ~60–65%, Instagram ~15–20%, TikTok ~10–15%

Gender breakdown (directional)

• Women: More likely to use Facebook (+8–10 percentage points vs men) and Pinterest (+25–30 pp); similar Instagram; lower Reddit/X
• Men: More likely to use YouTube (+5–10 pp), Reddit (+8–12 pp), and X (+3–5 pp)

Behavioral trends observed in rural Great Plains counties of this size

• Facebook is the community backbone: heavy use of Groups and Marketplace for buy/sell, school, county, EMS, church, and event updates; posts skew toward announcements and reshares over personal status updates
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for how‑to, equipment repairs, ag markets, sports highlights, and weather; growing time on short‑form video via TikTok and Facebook Reels, even among 50+
• Messaging over posting among youth: Snapchat streaks, Instagram DMs, and group chats drive daily engagement more than public feeds
• Event- and weather-driven spikes: Engagement surges around storms, road closures, school sports, fairs, and auctions
• Practical utility beats aesthetics: Local audiences respond to clear details (time, place, price) and recognizable faces; highly produced creative is less necessary than timeliness and relevance
• Trust and locality matter: Official pages (county, schools, law enforcement, EMS) and long-standing community admins get outsized reach; recommendations and word‑of‑mouth via comments are key
• LinkedIn and X are niche: X for real-time weather/news; LinkedIn mostly for outward job search or commuting workers

Notes and sources

• Population context: Rush County is a small, highly rural county (~3,000 residents), which typically lowers platform penetration a few points vs national averages
• Estimates synthesized from Pew Research Center’s 2024 social media adoption data by platform and age, with prior Pew rural/urban differentials and established rural Midwest usage patterns.