Stevens County

Key demographics – Stevens County, Kansas

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates)

Population size

• 5,250 (2020 Census)
• Change since 2010: -8.3%

Age

• Median age: 33.8 years
• Under 18: 30.2%
• 18 to 64: 58.0%
• 65 and over: 11.8%

Gender

• Male: 51.3%
• Female: 48.7%

Racial/ethnic composition

• Hispanic or Latino (any race): 40.7%
• White alone, non-Hispanic: 53.0%
• Black or African American alone, non-Hispanic: 0.9%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic: 1.0%
• Asian alone, non-Hispanic: 0.7%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: 3.7%

Households

• Total households: 1,930
• Average household size: 2.72
• Family households: 71% of households
• Married-couple households: 58%
• Households with children under 18: 38%
• One-person households: 24%
• Average family size: 3.31

Insights

• The county is younger than the U.S. average and has a large Hispanic population.
• Household sizes are larger than the national average, with a high share of family and married-couple households.

Email usage snapshot — Stevens County, Kansas (2024)

• Estimated email users: ≈3,700 residents (age 13+), derived from ~5,400 population and typical rural adoption (≈88–92% of adults; ≈80–90% of teens).
• Age distribution of users:
  • 13–24: 20% (740)
  • 25–44: 33% (1,220)
  • 45–64: 29% (1,070)
  • 65+: 18% (670)
• Gender split among users: 50% women (1,850), 50% men (1,850); usage rates are effectively equal by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household internet subscription: roughly 80–85% (rural Kansas norm), with ~65–75% on fixed home broadband and ~10–15% smartphone‑only.
  • Email engagement is near‑universal among connected adults; growth is strongest among 65+ as smartphone adoption rises.
  • Mobile access (4G/5G) supports a sizable share of email use outside town centers; fixed wireless fills many farm/ranch locations.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density ~7–8 people per square mile across ~728 sq mi; population concentrated in Hugoton (county seat) and Moscow.
  • Fiber or high‑speed cable is common in town cores; speeds and reliability drop in remote sections, where fixed‑wireless and cellular are dominant.

Mobile phone usage in Stevens County, Kansas (2024 snapshot)

Population and context

• Population: ≈5,250 residents (small, sparsely populated, centered on Hugoton and Moscow)
• Rural settlement pattern and a sizable Hispanic/Latino community shape adoption and plan choices

User estimates

• Active smartphone users: ≈3,600–3,800 residents (about 70–73% of the total population). Kansas overall is closer to 77–80%, so Stevens County runs a few points lower.
• Adult smartphone adoption: ≈82–85% of adults (Kansas ≈86–88%)
• Teen smartphone access (ages 13–17): ≈90–95%, roughly on par with state levels
• Wireless-only households (no landline): ≈75–78% (higher than Kansas’s ≈68–70%)
• Households using smartphone or mobile hotspot as primary home internet: ≈26–30% (above Kansas’s ≈19–22%)
• Prepaid share of personal mobile lines: ≈28–33% (above Kansas’s ≈20–24%), reflecting price sensitivity and seasonal/shift work
• Total active SIMs in-county (people + business/IoT such as agriculture, energy, fleet tracking): ≈4,500–5,000

Demographic breakdown shaping usage

• Age
  • Under 18: ≈28–30% of residents; very high smartphone access among teens (≈90%+)
  • 18–34: ≈22–25%; heavy mobile-first internet use
  • 35–64: ≈35–38%; near-state smartphone adoption but higher hotspot reliance outside town
  • 65+: ≈13–15%; smartphone adoption ≈65–70% (below the state’s ≈75%+)
• Race/ethnicity and language
  • Hispanic/Latino: ≈40–45% of the population; higher utilization of prepaid and mobile-only internet (≈35–40% within this group)
  • Non-Hispanic White: ≈50–55%
  • Other groups: ≈5–8%
  • Spanish spoken at home: ≈25–30% of households; strong uptake of Spanish-language prepaid offerings
• Income and plans
  • Median household income trails state averages, nudging users toward prepaid, single-line, and mobile-first solutions rather than premium multi-line postpaid bundles

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE: >95% population coverage; geographic coverage ≈80–85% with gaps on section roads and farmlands
  • 5G: Low-band 5G from major carriers covers population centers (Hugoton, Moscow) and main corridors (US‑56, KS‑25, KS‑51); mid-band 5G appears in town cores; statewide 5G population coverage is higher (>90%) than in Stevens County (≈70–80%)
• Carriers and experience
  • Verizon and AT&T: most consistent rural LTE voice/coverage footprint
  • T‑Mobile: broadest low‑band 5G footprint; fastest mid‑band 5G where available in Hugoton
  • Typical speeds: 40–120 Mbps down in town; 10–30 Mbps on inter‑town roads; single‑digit Mbps and occasional dropouts on fringe grid roads
• Home connectivity alternatives influencing mobile use
  • Fiber is available to many addresses in Hugoton via a regional independent/co‑op provider
  • Outside town limits, fixed wireless (including 4G/5G home internet) and WISPs are common; satellite (Starlink, Viasat, HughesNet) fills remaining gaps
  • Public Wi‑Fi at the library, schools, and city facilities supplements limited fixed broadband for some households
• Devices and add‑ons
  • Higher-than-average use of vehicle signal boosters and home repeaters among farm/ranch and energy workers
  • Notable number of IoT lines (sensors, pumps, fleet/asset trackers) tied to agriculture and energy operations

How Stevens County differs from Kansas overall

• More mobile-reliant: Higher shares of wireless-only households and smartphone/hotspot primary internet use than the state average
• Slightly lower adult smartphone penetration, but teen access matches the state
• Prepaid is meaningfully more common, with higher churn and seasonal plan switching
• 5G availability is spottier and more dependent on low-band; mid-band performance gains are concentrated in town, not across rural grid roads
• Greater reliance on boosters and offline caching due to tower spacing and fringe coverage

Key takeaways

• Around 3,700 residents use smartphones, and roughly three in four households are mobile-only.
• Mobile networks meet everyday voice/text and moderate data needs, but fixed broadband limitations outside town push above-average dependence on smartphones and hotspots.
• Compared with Kansas overall, Stevens County users are more cost-sensitive, more mobile-first for home internet, and face more uneven 5G performance outside population centers.

Social media usage in Stevens County, KS (2025 snapshot)

Scope and method: County-level figures below are modeled from the latest Pew Research Center platform adoption rates (2023–2024) with rural adjustments applied, aligned to Stevens County’s age/sex structure (ACS 5‑year). Use these as statistically grounded local estimates.

Headline user stats (residents age 13+ and adults 18+)

• Share using at least one social platform (adults 18+): ~70–72% use social media; ~60% check daily; ~35% use multiple platforms daily.
• Smartphone-first usage: >85% of local social users primarily access via smartphone; short-form video and messaging dominate day-to-day engagement.
• Household dynamics: Family- and community-centered use is high; local news, school sports, churches, buy/sell groups, and weather drive daily check-ins.

Most-used platforms (adults 18+, estimated % who use the platform)

• YouTube: 82%
• Facebook: 70%
• Instagram: 40%
• Pinterest: 33%
• TikTok: 28%
• Snapchat: 23%
• WhatsApp: 20%
• X (Twitter): 20%
• Reddit: 18%
• LinkedIn: 21%

Age-group patterns (share who use each platform)

• Teens 13–17: YouTube 93%, Instagram 62%, Snapchat 60%, TikTok 63%, Facebook 33%
• Adults 18–29: YouTube 93%, Instagram 78%, Snapchat 65%, TikTok 62%, Facebook 52%
• Adults 30–49: YouTube 91%, Facebook 75%, Instagram 49%, TikTok 39%, Pinterest 40%
• Adults 50–64: Facebook 73%, YouTube 83%, Pinterest 38%, Instagram 29%, TikTok 24%
• Adults 65+: Facebook 62%, YouTube 60%, Pinterest 20%, Instagram 15%, TikTok 10%

Gender breakdown (platforms with the strongest skews among adults)

• Women higher: Pinterest ~50% vs men ~19%; Facebook slightly higher among women; Instagram and Snapchat modestly higher among women.
• Men higher: YouTube ~86% men vs ~81% women; Reddit ~29% men vs ~13% women; X ~27% men vs ~19% women; LinkedIn slightly higher among men.
• Minimal gender gap: TikTok and WhatsApp are broadly similar by gender.

Behavioral trends observed locally

• Community-first Facebook: Neighborhood, school, athletics, church, and “buy/sell/trade” groups anchor daily use; local announcements and emergency/weather updates see the fastest engagement.
• Short-form video growth: Reels and TikTok increasingly shape discovery for under‑35; local businesses and organizations gain traction with vertical video and captions.
• Messaging as a backbone: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous; WhatsApp usage is notable in bilingual households and among families with ties outside the county/state.
• YouTube as utility media: High reliance for how‑to, equipment repair, agriculture, hunting/outdoors, and severe weather coverage; consumption often on smart TVs in the evening.
• Youth habits: High school and college‑age residents favor Snapchat for friends/peer groups and Instagram for public-facing updates; cross-posting between Instagram Reels and TikTok is common.
• Time-of-day peaks: 6–8 a.m. pre‑work check, noon lunch scroll, and 7–10 p.m. evening viewing; seasonality (planting/harvest, school sports calendars) shifts peaks and content demand.
• Trust and conversion: Word‑of‑mouth dynamics are strong; creator or neighbor recommendations outperform brand messaging; Spanish/English creative increases reach and response.
• Platform roles: Facebook = reach + community action; YouTube = education/evergreen viewing; Instagram/TikTok = youth reach and culture; Pinterest = planning and purchasing among women; LinkedIn remains niche; X/Reddit skew male and news/interest-driven.

Notes on interpretation

• These are county-specific estimates derived from Pew 2023–2024 adoption rates by age/gender with rural adjustments; actual usage can vary by micro‑community, school calendars, and industry cycles.
• A sizable Hispanic/Latino community locally increases the practical utility of WhatsApp and Facebook for family and community communication.