Harlan County

Key demographics for Harlan County, Kentucky

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census (DHC) and 2018–2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.

Population size

• Total population: 26,831 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~43 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~22%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2018–2022)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~94%
• Black or African American: ~2%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~2–3%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~1–2%
• Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, and other groups: each <1%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~11,000–11,500
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple families: ~45% of households
• One-person households: ~31%
• Households with children under 18: ~25–27%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~70–75%

Insights

• Older age profile relative to the U.S. overall, with about one in five residents age 65+
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White population
• Small, modest-sized households with a high share of owner-occupied housing and a sizable share of one-person households

Harlan County, KY snapshot (pop ~26,000; ~468 sq mi; ≈55–60 people/sq mi)

• Estimated email users: ≈19,000 adults (≈88–92% of residents 18+), ≈20,000–21,000 total including teens.
• Age distribution of email users (adults):
  • 18–34: ~24% of users (high adoption ~95%).
  • 35–64: ~53% of users (adoption ~92–95%).
  • 65+: ~23% of users (adoption ~75–82%; rising but still lagging).
• Gender split among users: ~51% female, ~49% male (tracks county demographics; usage rates are near-parity by gender).
• Digital access and usage trends:
  • Home broadband subscription: ≈70–75% of households; ~18–22% have no home internet, relying on work, school, or public Wi‑Fi.
  • Smartphone‑only access: ≈22–27% of households; common in lower‑income and remote areas, shaping email behavior toward short, mobile interactions.
  • Connectivity is strongest in/around Harlan, Cumberland, Evarts, and along US‑119/US‑421; mountain hollows create dead zones and raise last‑mile costs, depressing speeds and consistency.
  • Ongoing fiber and fixed‑wireless buildouts are improving availability, especially around population centers, but adoption gaps persist among older adults and in the most rural tracts.

Bottom line: Email use is mainstream across Harlan County, skewing toward middle‑aged users, with seniors catching up as access improves.

Mobile phone usage in Harlan County, Kentucky — summary and contrasts with state trends

Scope note: Figures blend the most recent available county-level demographics (ACS 2022 5‑year), FCC mobile coverage filings, state broadband subscription data, and nationally benchmarked device-adoption rates adjusted for Harlan’s age, income, and rurality. Point estimates are provided with reasonable ranges where applicable.

Population and household base

• Total population: about 26,500–27,000; households: roughly 10,500–11,000; adults (18+): about 21,000–22,000.
• Older, lower-income profile than Kentucky overall: 65+ share ≈ 21–23% (KY ≈ 17–18%); poverty rate ≈ 30%+ (KY ≈ 16–18%).

User estimates and adoption

• Adults with any mobile phone: ≈ 93–95% of adults (≈ 19,500–20,800 users). Near-universal basic phone ownership persists, but slightly lower than KY’s largely universal rate.
• Smartphone ownership: ≈ 80–84% of adults (≈ 17,000–18,500 users), below Kentucky’s ≈ 87–90%. The gap is driven by older age structure, lower incomes, and spotty coverage in hollows.
• Mobile-only internet households (cellular data plan without a fixed home broadband subscription): ≈ 22–28% of households (≈ 2,300–3,000), notably higher than Kentucky’s ≈ 14–17%.
• Any home broadband subscription (cable, fiber, DSL, fixed wireless): ≈ 65–70% of households in Harlan versus ≈ 80–85% in Kentucky; the shortfall pushes heavier reliance on mobile data and public Wi‑Fi.
• Plan types: prepaid share is materially higher than the state average, reflecting income sensitivity and the presence of a strong regional carrier; postpaid family plans are less dominant than statewide.

Demographic breakdown of mobile usage

• By age
  • 18–34: smartphone ownership ≈ 95–97%; heavy app/social/video use with mobile as primary internet for many renters.
  • 35–64: ≈ 88–92%; usage mixes work communications, messaging, and streaming; more hotspotting to supplement limited home broadband.
  • 65+: ≈ 60–70%; higher share of basic/flip phones and text/voice reliance; growing but still below state senior adoption.
• By income
  • Low-income households show higher prepaid adoption, data-capped plans, and mobile-only internet dependence; ACP wind-down in 2024 intensified plan downgrades and data rationing locally more than statewide.
• By geography within the county
  • Town centers and highway corridors (e.g., US‑119/US‑421) have materially better 4G/5G service and usage; dispersed hollows see more voice/text fallback, Wi‑Fi calling, and external antennas/boosters.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Carriers and footprint
  • AT&T and Verizon provide the broadest coverage; AT&T’s Band 14 (FirstNet) improves public-safety coverage and indoor reliability in some zones.
  • T‑Mobile coverage is present but materially spottier in terrain‑shielded areas; mid‑band 5G is limited.
  • Appalachian Wireless (regional carrier) has a meaningful presence, competitive rural coverage, and roaming arrangements; it materially shapes device choices and prepaid adoption.
• 4G/5G availability
  • 4G LTE is the primary workhorse; 5G low‑band is available along main corridors and in town centers; mid‑band 5G capacity is sparse compared with Kentucky metros.
• Typical performance (outdoors)
  • Town centers/corridors: LTE often 10–30 Mbps down; low‑band 5G 30–80 Mbps; mid‑band 5G where present can exceed 100 Mbps.
  • Hollows/valleys: sub‑10 Mbps common; frequent signal drop‑offs; latency and uplink constraints impact video calls and telehealth unless on Wi‑Fi.
• Fixed broadband context
  • Cable/fiber footprints are discontinuous outside towns; DSL remains in use but underperforms. Fixed‑wireless and satellite (including Starlink) fill gaps. This patchwork keeps mobile connections central to daily connectivity.
• Public connectivity
  • Libraries, schools, and county facilities provide high‑use Wi‑Fi. Wi‑Fi calling is a critical workaround for indoor voice in marginal RF areas.

How Harlan County differs from Kentucky overall

• Lower smartphone penetration, especially among seniors, and a higher residual base of basic phones.
• Significantly higher mobile-only internet reliance due to gaps in fixed broadband availability and affordability.
• Greater dependence on prepaid plans and on a regional carrier (Appalachian Wireless), with fewer premium unlimited postpaid bundles than state averages.
• More pronounced coverage variability and dead zones driven by mountainous terrain, leading to heavier use of signal boosters and Wi‑Fi calling.
• Network capacity constraints in peak periods are more common than in Kentucky’s metro counties, with larger swings between corridor and hollow performance.
• Public and community Wi‑Fi plays a larger role in everyday connectivity than statewide norms.

Implications

• Mobile networks in Harlan serve as both primary and fallback broadband more often than elsewhere in Kentucky, so improvements to mid‑band 5G coverage and fixed broadband buildouts will disproportionately reduce digital inequities here.
• Outreach for senior digital adoption and affordable device programs can move the needle more in Harlan than in the state overall.
• Ensuring continued affordability support (post‑ACP) matters more locally given the higher mobile-only share and prepaid reliance.

Harlan County, KY — social media usage (best-available 2024 estimate)

Headline user stats

• Population: ≈26,000 residents; ≈21,000 adults (U.S. Census Bureau 2023 est.)
• Broadband access: ≈70–75% of households (ACS)
• Active social media users: ≈15,000–17,000 residents
  • ≈60–65% of total population
  • ≈72–80% of adults

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

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 70–75%
• Instagram: 35–40%
• TikTok: 30–35%
• Snapchat: 25–30%
• Pinterest: 25–30% (female‑skewed)
• LinkedIn: 12–18% (niche; professionals/educators/healthcare)
• X/Twitter: 10–15% (news/sports/weather)
• Reddit: 10–12% (male‑skewed)
• WhatsApp: 8–12% (family ties; limited group usage)

Age profile (estimated adoption of “any social platform”)

• Teens 13–17: 90–95%
• 18–29: ≈90%
• 30–49: ≈80–85%
• 50–64: ≈70–75%
• 65+: ≈50–60%

Gender breakdown

• Population: ≈51% women, 49% men (ACS)
• Social users: ≈52% women, 48% men overall
  • Platform skews: Pinterest and Facebook lean female; YouTube and Reddit lean male; Snapchat slightly female among teens/young adults

Behavioral trends

• Facebook as the local hub: Highest daily reach across 30+, with heavy use of community groups (buy/sell/trade, school and church updates, yard sales, obituaries, road closures, severe weather). Marketplace is a core behavior.
• Video first: Short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) now drives the best organic reach; local faces, recognizable venues, and “how‑to” or event‑recap clips outperform static posts. YouTube sees longer sessions on smart TVs in the evening.
• Messaging‑centric commerce: Many business interactions move to Messenger and Snapchat DMs; posts often push phone/text for offline follow‑up.
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (≈7–10 p.m.) and weekends; after‑school windows (≈3–5 p.m.) lift teen/parent activity; weather events and high‑school sports produce sharp spikes.
• Content interests: High school athletics, UK sports, hunting/fishing/outdoors, trucks/ATVs, local government/elections, healthcare jobs, and community events dominate shares and comments.
• Ads and reach: Best cost‑reach on Facebook/Instagram with tight geo‑targeting (≈15–35 miles). TikTok reaches under‑35s efficiently; YouTube in‑stream is effective for broad awareness. User‑generated content, testimonials, and giveaway mechanics pull the strongest engagement.

Notes on method and sources

• County‑level platform splits are not directly published; figures are modeled from Harlan County population/ACS internet‑access data and applied Pew Research Center “Social Media Use in 2024” adoption rates (including rural patterns), plus DataReportal Digital 2024: USA. Numbers are expressed as local estimates and rounded ranges for clarity.