Clearwater County

Clearwater County, Minnesota — key demographics

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5‑year estimates).

• Population size:

  • 2020 Census: 8,524

• Age:

  • Median age: about 41–42 years
  • Under 18: ~25%
  • 18 to 64: ~56%
  • 65 and over: ~19%

• Gender:

  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%

• Race and ethnicity (2020):

  • White alone: ~79–82%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~12–14%
  • Two or more races: ~5–6%
  • Black or African American: ~1%
  • Asian: <1%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2–3%

• Households (ACS 2018–2022):

  • Total households: ~3,300–3,500
  • Average household size: ~2.4–2.5
  • Family households: ~60–63% of households
  • Married‑couple households: ~45–50% of households
  • Owner‑occupied housing: ~78–82% of occupied units

Note: Small‑area ACS estimates have sampling error; ranges reflect rounding and typical margins of error for a county of this size.

Clearwater County, MN snapshot (estimates)

• Population and density: About 8.5–9.0k residents across roughly 1,000 sq mi, or ~8–9 people per square mile (very low rural density).
• Estimated email users: 6,200–6,600 residents use email regularly. Method: adult population scaled by Pew Research email adoption rates by age.
• Age distribution of email users (approx. share of users):
  • 18–34: 25–28% (very high adoption, ~95%)
  • 35–64: 50–53% (high adoption, ~90–95%)
  • 65+: 20–25% (moderate–high adoption, ~75–85%)
• Gender split: Near parity; email use is similar for women and men, so user base is roughly 50/50.
• Digital access trends:
  • Rural density raises per-mile broadband costs; service quality improves near towns like Bagley and Clearbrook, with more fiber/cable, while outlying areas rely more on fixed wireless or satellite.
  • Smartphone access is widespread; some households are smartphone-only for internet.
  • Public Wi‑Fi (libraries/schools) supplements home access for part of the population.
  • Ongoing Minnesota Border-to-Border initiatives and FCC programs continue to expand fiber and fixed wireless coverage.

Notes: Population from U.S. Census; adoption rates from Pew Research. Figures are modeled estimates, not official counts.

Below is a concise county-level snapshot built from statewide patterns, rural-usage research, and Clearwater County’s demographics and geography. Figures are estimates; local surveys and carrier maps should be used to validate for programs or procurement.

User estimates

• Population base: ~8.6–9.0k residents, with roughly 6.6–7.1k adults.
• Mobile phone (any type) users: ~6.2–6.6k adults (about 92–95% of adults).
• Smartphone users: ~5.4–6.0k adults (about 80–85% of adults), plus ~0.9–1.1k youth users, yielding roughly 6.3–7.1k total smartphone users.
• Mobile‑only internet households: 12–18% of households (roughly 420–630), higher than the Minnesota average (typically single‑digits to low‑teens), reflecting patchier fixed broadband and cost sensitivity.
• Prepaid share: Likely 5–10 percentage points higher than the state average due to income mix and coverage-driven carrier switching.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Older age profile: A larger senior share than Minnesota overall correlates with lower smartphone adoption and more basic/flip‑phone retention. Growth is occurring (telehealth, family messaging), but still trails state averages.
• Higher Native American share than statewide: Persistent coverage and affordability gaps on and near tribal lands drive greater reliance on hotspots and shared devices; device turnover skews to refurbished/budget Android more than state average.
• Income/affordability: Median income is below state average; with the federal ACP subsidy paused in 2024, more households are substituting mobile for home broadband or downgrading plans.
• Youth: Teen smartphone penetration is high, but home connectivity can be inconsistent; schools report heavier use of mobile hotspots versus fiber/cable at home compared with metro districts.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Macro coverage: Verizon generally strongest for wide‑area/rural coverage; AT&T competitive along highways/towns and for FirstNet; T‑Mobile improved on low‑band 5G but remains variable indoors and between towns. Dead zones persist in forested areas, lowlands, and lake country away from US‑2/200 and MN‑92 corridors.
• 5G: Present mainly as low‑band for broad coverage; mid‑band (2.5 GHz/C‑band) capacity is spotty and concentrated around Bagley/Clearbrook–Gonvick and highway corridors. Unlike metro Minnesota, users see fewer mid/high‑band 5G capacity sites and more rebranded LTE‑grade performance.
• Towers: Sparser site grid than state average; clusters near towns, schools, health facilities, and along US‑2. Seasonal tourism around lakes and parks creates peak‑load congestion on a limited number of sectors.
• Fixed broadband interplay: Fiber is expanding but remains uneven outside town centers; legacy DSL and fixed‑wireless fill gaps. Where fiber is absent or costly, households lean on mobile data and hotspots for primary access at higher rates than statewide.
• Public safety: Text‑to‑911 is available statewide, but coverage gaps mean missed or delayed alerts in fringe areas. FirstNet adoption among agencies helps, yet in‑building coverage at clinics/schools is inconsistent compared with metro norms.
• Backhaul: Microwave backhaul remains common between rural towers; fiber‑fed sites are fewer than in suburban Minnesota, constraining 5G capacity upgrades.

How Clearwater County trends differ from Minnesota overall

• Adoption level: Overall cell ownership is similar, but smartphone adoption is a few points lower, driven by older age structure and affordability.
• Access mode: A larger share of mobile‑only households and hotspot dependence versus the state average, due to patchier fiber/cable and budget constraints.
• Network experience: More low‑band 5G/LTE‑like performance and fewer mid‑band 5G capacity sites than metro/suburban MN; more dead zones between towns.
• Carrier mix: Verizon/AT&T hold a bigger share outside towns; T‑Mobile gains are real but less uniform than in Twin Cities and regional centers.
• Plan types and devices: Higher prepaid uptake, more budget/refurb devices, and slower device replacement cycles than state averages.
• Seasonality and peaks: Greater seasonal congestion tied to tourism and outdoor work patterns, unlike the steadier urban demand curves.
• Equity gaps: Larger connectivity gaps for seniors and Native American households than statewide, with affordability and signal quality both in play.

Implications and quick actions

• For agencies/schools: Budget for hotspots and signal‑boosting in buildings; plan for higher mobile‑only student households.
• For healthcare: Prioritize low‑band coverage and Wi‑Fi calling education for telehealth; consider lending programs for boosters.
• For planners/providers: Target mid‑band 5G/C‑band upgrades at Bagley/Clearbrook–Gonvick and highway corridors; extend fiber backhaul to rural towers; coordinate with tribal governments on siting.
• For residents: Wi‑Fi calling and vetted signal boosters materially improve reliability in fringe zones; carrier selection should be address‑specific, not brand‑led.

Below is a concise, county-sized snapshot using the best available U.S./Minnesota rural benchmarks (e.g., Pew Research Center 2024) scaled to Clearwater County’s demographics. Treat figures as directional estimates.

Overall user stats (adults)

• Adult population base (est.): ~6.7k–7.1k
• Social media penetration: 80–85% of adults use at least one platform
• Daily users: ~65–70% of adults (most activity in the evening, 7–10 pm)
• Device mix: smartphones dominate; desktop use rises for Marketplace, long-form video, and work hours

Most-used platforms among adults (share of adults; est.)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 70–75%
• Instagram: 35–45%
• Snapchat: 25–35%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Pinterest: 22–30% (skews female, 25–54)
• X/Twitter: 12–18%
• Reddit: 10–15%
• WhatsApp: 10–15%
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (lowest in rural areas)

Age-group patterns (behavioral emphasis)

• Teens (13–17): Near-universal use; heaviest on Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube; DMs/private stories over public posts.
• 18–29: Very high multi-platform use; Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube lead; TikTok strong; Facebook used for groups/events rather than posting.
• 30–49: Broadest mix; Facebook and YouTube anchor; Instagram moderate; TikTok growing; heavy use of Messenger and Marketplace.
• 50–64: Facebook primary; YouTube for DIY, local sports, and news; moderate Pinterest; light Instagram/TikTok.
• 65+: Facebook for community/news, YouTube for how‑to and church/local content; limited use of others.

Gender breakdown (directional)

• Overall social media use: Women slightly higher than men (+3–5 pts).
• Platform tilt:
  • Women: More Facebook and Instagram; notably higher on Pinterest (+15–25 pts vs men).
  • Men: More YouTube (+10–15 pts) and slightly higher on Reddit/X.

Local behavioral trends

• Community info flows through Facebook Groups/Messenger: school updates, road conditions, local sports, lost/found pets, events, and county services.
• Marketplace is a top utility: buy/sell, seasonal gear (boats/ATVs/ice fishing).
• Video is rising: YouTube for longer how‑to/outdoors; short‑form Reels/TikTok for quick local highlights.
• Engagement spikes: weather alerts, hunting/fishing seasons, graduation/sports achievements, roadwork and storm impacts.
• Business discovery: Facebook/Instagram dominate; best results from geo-targeted posts within 15–30 miles, click-to-call, and message replies.
• Seasonality: Summer lakes/tourism; fall hunting; winter snow/ice. Content aligned to seasons performs best.
• Trust: Highest for known local institutions (schools, county, tribes, clinics, churches) and recognizable residents; lower for national political content.

Method notes

• Estimates blend Pew Research Center 2024 social media usage with typical rural-Minnesota adjustments (Facebook higher; LinkedIn/Reddit lower; Instagram/TikTok slightly lower than urban).
• County-level administrative platform data are not publicly available; figures are directional, suitable for planning and comparative benchmarking.