Muhlenberg County

Muhlenberg County, Kentucky — key demographics

Population

• 30,928 (2020 Census)
• 30,245 (2023 Census population estimate)

Age

• Median age: 42.4 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: 22%
• 18–64: 57%
• 65 and over: 21%

Gender

• Female: 50.8%
• Male: 49.2%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023)

• White alone: 90.4%
• Black or African American alone: 6.3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: 0.4%
• Asian alone: 0.2%
• Two or more races: 2.3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 1.8%

Households and housing (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: 12,320
• Average household size: 2.43; average family size: 2.99
• Family households: 68% of households; married-couple families: 48%
• Households with children under 18: 27%
• Nonfamily households: 32%; living alone: 28%; age 65+ living alone: 12%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: 77% (renter-occupied: 23%)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (tables DP05, S0101, S1101, DP04); Vintage 2023 Population Estimates.

Muhlenberg County, KY snapshot

• Population and density: ~30,200 residents; ~63 people per square mile (largely rural).
• Estimated email users: ~23,000 residents (≈76% of total population). Basis: county age mix (ACS 2022) combined with current U.S. email adoption rates by age (Pew).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: ~9%
  • 18–34: ~23%
  • 35–54: ~32%
  • 55–64: ~15%
  • 65+: ~22%
• Gender split among users: ~51% female, ~49% male (tracks county sex composition; email adoption is similar by gender nationally).
• Digital access and trends:
  • ~79% of households subscribe to broadband; ~88% have a computer; ~13% are smartphone‑only internet households (ACS 2018–2022).
  • Fixed broadband at ≥100/20 Mbps is available to most locations; fiber availability is growing via Kentucky’s recent broadband grants, but adoption lags state averages (county broadband subscription ~79% vs Kentucky ~84%).
  • Rural dispersion and lower income pockets correlate with lower home subscriptions; public Wi‑Fi (schools, libraries) and smartphones help fill access gaps. Insights: Email usage is widespread and stable, concentrated among 35–54 adults, with substantial participation by seniors. Connectivity is improving, yet adoption remains constrained by rural density and affordability.

Mobile phone usage in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky: summary and contrasts with state-level trends

Baseline and user estimates (ACS 2018–2022, Table S2801; Census population estimates)

• Population and households: approximately 30,000 residents and about 12,400 households.
• Households with a smartphone: about 86% in Muhlenberg County versus roughly 89% statewide. That equates to approximately 10,700 local households with at least one smartphone. Using average household size (~2.46), about 26,000 residents live in smartphone-equipped households.
• Households with a cellular data plan (any): about 73% locally versus roughly 72% statewide.
• Cellular-only internet households (cellular data plan and no other home internet): about 24% in Muhlenberg County versus about 17% statewide. That is roughly 3,000 households (≈7,400 people) relying on mobile connections as their primary or only home internet.
• No internet subscription at home (of any kind): about 17% locally versus about 13% statewide.
• No computer or smartphone in the household (ACS definition of “no computer”): about 8% locally versus about 6% statewide.

Demographic patterns behind usage

• Age: A larger share of older adults than the state average (roughly one in five residents is 65+). This slightly reduces overall smartphone penetration compared with Kentucky, but the younger and working-age population shows high smartphone use and a strong tilt toward mobile-only internet access.
• Income and affordability: Lower median household income than the Kentucky average intensifies price sensitivity. That shows up as higher mobile-only reliance, greater use of prepaid mobile plans, and delayed upgrades to premium devices compared with statewide patterns.
• Education and employment: A smaller share of residents with a bachelor’s degree relative to Kentucky overall correlates with lower fixed-home broadband adoption and greater dependence on smartphones for work search, telehealth, and government services.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage: 4G LTE coverage is broadly available across populated areas; 5G is present but more fragmented outside town centers. Signal quality degrades in low-density and wooded areas, creating pockets of weaker service and indoor-reception challenges that are more pronounced than the statewide norm.
• Capacity and speeds: Median mobile speeds in the county trail Kentucky’s statewide median, reflecting fewer sites per capita, more load on existing towers, and thinner mid-band 5G deployment. This contributes to variability for video streaming and telehealth during peak periods.
• Backhaul and buildouts: State middle‑mile investments and ongoing rural last-mile projects have improved backhaul to some sites, but there remain gaps where tower backhaul and spectrum depth limit performance. As a result, mobility improvements depend as much on fiber-to-tower upgrades as on radio access upgrades.
• Public access and resilience: Libraries, schools, and county facilities serve as important Wi‑Fi and charging hubs. FirstNet public-safety coverage is in place and has improved reliability for first responders, but commercial user experience in fringe areas still depends on carrier-specific footprints.

How Muhlenberg County differs from Kentucky overall

• More mobile-dependent: The cellular-only household share (≈24%) is materially higher than the statewide rate (≈17%), indicating heavier reliance on phones and mobile hotspots as the primary connection.
• Slightly lower smartphone penetration at the household level: Smartphone-equipped households are a few points below the state average, largely reflecting age and income structure.
• Higher share with no home internet: Households with no internet subscription are more common locally (≈17% vs ≈13% statewide), underscoring affordability and infrastructure constraints.
• Wider performance variability: Coverage is generally available, but speeds and indoor reliability fall off more sharply outside town centers than typical statewide, reflecting sparser tower density and less mid-band 5G.

Implications

• Services that assume fixed broadband (e.g., large software updates, high-bit-rate telehealth, long-form remote learning) will face greater friction locally; optimizing for mobile data efficiency, offline modes, and lower bandwidth is especially important.
• Programs that reduce device and plan costs, expand mid-band 5G, and continue fiber-to-tower/backhaul upgrades will yield outsized benefits in Muhlenberg County compared with the state average, given the county’s higher mobile-only reliance.

Muhlenberg County, KY — social media snapshot (2025, modeled local estimates)

Core user stats

• Population: ~30,900 residents; age 13+ ≈ 26,600
• Any social media use (13+): ~22,100 users (≈83% of 13+)

Users by age (share of social media users)

• 13–17: ~8%
• 18–29: ~19%
• 30–49: ~33%
• 50–64: ~23%
• 65+: ~17%

Gender breakdown (share of social media users)

• Women: ~53%
• Men: ~47%
• Women over‑index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over‑index on YouTube and X

Most-used platforms in the county (reach among age 13+, multi‑platform usage common)

• YouTube: 72% (19,100 people)
• Facebook: 66% (17,600)
• Instagram: 31% (8,200)
• TikTok: 28% (7,400)
• Pinterest: 26% (6,900)
• Snapchat: 24% (6,400)
• X (Twitter): 12% (3,200)
• LinkedIn: 10% (2,700)

Behavioral trends and local nuances

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups, local news/schools, church and youth sports updates; Marketplace is a top commerce activity.
• Video dominates: short‑form (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) drives discovery; YouTube holds attention for how‑to, hunting/fishing, DIY, auto, and local event recaps.
• Younger cohorts (13–24) cluster on TikTok and Snapchat for messaging, trends, and school/sports content; Instagram is the secondary network.
• Adults 30–54 are multi‑platform but default to Facebook for daily updates and to YouTube for tutorials and entertainment.
• Older adults (55+) are primarily Facebook-first; rising passive consumption of Reels and YouTube, lower posting rates.
• Local content outperforms generic: weather alerts, school calendars, ballgames, fundraisers, local business promos, new jobs, and lost/found pets.
• Peak engagement windows: weekdays 7–9 pm; weekends late morning and Sunday afternoons; school-year bumps around 7–8 am and 12–1 pm.
• Ad performance patterns:
  • Retail/food/service: Facebook + Instagram feeds/Reels targeting women 25–54.
  • Youth programs/events: TikTok/Snapchat placements to 13–24 with short vertical video.
  • Consideration/info: YouTube in‑stream skippable video to adults 25–64.
• Trust flows through local admins and micro‑creators; partnerships with school/booster pages and community groups outperform influencer spend.

Method and confidence

• Figures are 2025 county-level estimates derived from U.S. Census/ACS population structure and 2023–2024 Pew Research platform adoption for rural U.S., adjusted for the county’s older-skewing profile; counts rounded to the nearest hundred. Use for planning and targeting at the county level.