Mcleod County

McLeod County, Minnesota — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates unless noted)

Population

• Total population: ~36,900 (2020 Census count: 36,771)
• Population density: ~65 per square mile

Age

• Median age: ~41 years
• Under 18: ~24%
• 18 to 64: ~57%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Race and ethnicity

• White, non-Hispanic: ~88–89%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~7%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: <1% (Note: Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity and can be of any race.)

Households and housing

• Households: ~14,900
• Average household size: ~2.45
• Family households: ~63%
• Married-couple households: ~49–51%
• Households with own children under 18: ~28%
• Individuals living alone: ~27%; age 65+ living alone: ~12%
• Housing tenure: ~78% owner-occupied; ~22% renter-occupied

Insights

• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a modest but meaningful Hispanic/Latino community.
• Older-than-national age profile with about one in five residents 65+.
• High owner-occupancy and typical small-to-midsize household sizes for greater Minnesota.

McLeod County, MN email usage snapshot

• Population: 36,900; density: ~74 residents per square mile.
• Estimated adult (18+) email users: ~26,000 (≈92% of ~28,400 adults).
• Age distribution of adult email users (estimated):
  • 18–34: ~6,800 (≈96% adoption)
  • 35–54: ~9,000 (≈94%)
  • 55–64: ~4,300 (≈90%)
  • 65+: ~5,800 (≈85%)
• Gender split among users: ~50% female / ~50% male, mirroring the population.

Digital access and connectivity

• Computer access: ~93% of households; home broadband subscription: ~87%; ~9% are smartphone‑only; ~13% lack home internet.
• Fixed broadband availability: ~95% of locations can get ≥100/20 Mbps; fiber‑to‑the‑premises reaches roughly half the county, strongest in Hutchinson and Glencoe; remaining areas rely on cable/DSL.
• Speeds: median fixed speeds typically 150–250 Mbps in towns; lower at rural edges.
• Mobile: 5G covers major corridors (US‑212, MN‑7, MN‑15) and population centers; LTE fills gaps.

Insights: Email adoption is near‑universal and even by gender; usage differences stem mainly from last‑mile connectivity. Higher fiber and stable 5G in towns sustain frequent email use, while rural pockets with older DSL or wireless see less consistent access.

Mobile phone usage in McLeod County, Minnesota — 2025 snapshot

Context

• Population: about 36,800 residents; roughly 14,500–15,000 households. The county is anchored by Hutchinson and Glencoe and is more rural and older than Minnesota overall.

User estimates

• Smartphone users: approximately 30,000–32,000 residents use a smartphone (about 82–86% of the total population; roughly 90–93% of adults).
• Wireless-only (no landline) households: about 63–67% of households, below the Minnesota statewide share (roughly high‑60s to low‑70s). This reflects an older age profile and more rural housing stock.
• Phone-as-primary internet: an estimated 14–16% of households rely mainly on cellular data for home internet access, slightly above the state average. This is concentrated in lower‑income and more rural townships where fixed broadband options are limited or costly.
• Prepaid share: modestly higher than the state, roughly mid‑20% of mobile lines (vs upper‑teens to ~20% statewide), reflecting price sensitivity and variable credit profiles.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age: Adults 65+ show lower smartphone adoption (roughly mid‑70s to ~80%) than the state’s senior average, widening the age gap in digital engagement. Younger adults (18–34) are near parity with state adoption but more likely to be mobile‑only for internet.
• Income: Households under $35,000 show higher dependence on mobile data plans for primary internet than the state average, driven by patchy fixed coverage and price considerations.
• Education and language: Households without a 4‑year degree and bilingual households are more likely to be wireless‑only and to favor Android devices and prepaid plans than the statewide pattern.
• Rural vs town centers: Smartphone penetration and 5G usage are strongest in Hutchinson and Glencoe; outlying townships exhibit lower adoption and more voice/SMS‑centric use due to speed and coverage constraints.

Digital infrastructure points

• Coverage footprint:
  • LTE coverage from all three national carriers is effectively countywide along primary corridors (US‑212, MN‑7, MN‑15), with localized dead zones in low‑lying, wooded, and far‑western/southern rural sections.
  • 5G availability is mixed: mid‑band 5G is concentrated in Hutchinson, Glencoe, and along US‑212; low‑band 5G covers most roads but with limited capacity. Net 5G population coverage lags the Twin Cities metro.
• Performance:
  • Typical median mobile download speeds in town centers fall in the 50–80 Mbps range and drop to 15–40 Mbps in rural areas, materially below Minnesota’s metro‑driven statewide median.
  • Peak‑time congestion is noticeable on evenings/weekends near retail corridors in Hutchinson; rural sectors are more capacity‑limited than state averages.
• Reliability and in‑building experience:
  • Metal agricultural structures and large industrial buildings frequently require boosters or Wi‑Fi calling to maintain service; this issue is more prominent than statewide norms due to the county’s industrial/ag mix.
  • FirstNet/public‑safety LTE coverage is generally strong on primary routes but has spotty indoor penetration in older public buildings in smaller towns.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Cable and fiber coverage is good in city limits (e.g., Hutchinson, parts of Glencoe, Brownton, Stewart) but rural fiber remains incomplete. Where fiber/cable is absent or slow, residents lean on unlimited or high‑cap cellular plans more than the statewide pattern.
  • Recent state and federal buildouts are closing gaps, but the share of addresses with only one high‑speed fixed option remains higher than the Minnesota average, sustaining above‑average reliance on mobile data.

How McLeod County differs from statewide trends

• Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration than Minnesota’s average, driven by an older population and rural housing.
• Higher reliance on mobile data as primary home internet among low‑income and rural households, despite lower 5G capacity than metro areas.
• Slower median mobile speeds and narrower mid‑band 5G footprints than the state average, leading to more pronounced urban‑rural performance splits within the county.
• Higher prevalence of prepaid and Android‑centric user bases than statewide, consistent with rural price sensitivity and device replacement cycles.
• Greater in‑building coverage challenges in agricultural and industrial facilities compared with the Minnesota average, increasing the use of boosters and Wi‑Fi calling.

Notes on sources and methodology

• Figures are 2024–2025 best‑available estimates synthesized from U.S. Census/ACS device and internet‑subscription indicators, CDC wireless‑only household estimates, FCC broadband/coverage filings, and crowd‑sourced speed‑test datasets for Minnesota, adjusted to McLeod County’s demographics and settlement patterns. Where county‑specific measurements are not published, estimates are modeled to reflect differences from Minnesota statewide benchmarks.

Social media usage in McLeod County, Minnesota (short breakdown)

Snapshot

• Population: ≈36.8k (about 28–29k adults, 18+)
• Adult social-media penetration: ≈73% of adults (≈20–21k people) use at least one platform regularly

Most-used platforms among adults (modeled local estimates, 2025)

• YouTube: ≈80%
• Facebook: ≈72%
• Instagram: ≈40%
• Pinterest: ≈36%
• TikTok: ≈28%
• Snapchat: ≈24%
• WhatsApp: ≈20%
• LinkedIn: ≈23%
• X (Twitter): ≈17%
• Reddit: ≈15%
• Nextdoor: ≈10%

Age mix of local social-media users (share of users)

• 18–29: ≈21%
• 30–49: ≈37%
• 50–64: ≈26%
• 65+: ≈16%

Gender breakdown

• County population is roughly even by sex; among social-media users, usage skews slightly female
• Estimated share of social-media users: ≈54% women, ≈46% men
• Platform skews locally: Pinterest and Instagram skew female; YouTube, Reddit skew male; Facebook is broad but slightly more female; Snapchat and TikTok skew younger across genders

Behavioral trends observed in comparable rural–small metro counties in Minnesota and consistent with local pages/groups

• Facebook is the community hub: highest daily engagement for local news, schools/activities, city/county updates (snow emergencies, road work), buy–sell–trade groups, and church/community event promotion
• YouTube is the primary video platform: how‑to content, local sports highlights, church services, and hobby content; Facebook Reels and YouTube Shorts are gaining with 30–49
• Younger cohort behavior (18–29): Snapchat and TikTok are daily communication/entertainment staples; Instagram for visual updates; lower Facebook posting but still present for groups/events
• Older cohort behavior (50+): Facebook is dominant for news, events, and Messenger; YouTube for tutorials and faith content; limited TikTok/Snapchat usage
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is widespread; Snapchat is primary among teens/young adults; WhatsApp has pockets of use in multilingual/immigrant households
• Local commerce: Facebook and Instagram drive the best paid reach for small businesses; Facebook Events are standard for county fair, festivals, and school activities; Nextdoor presence is modest
• Temporal patterns: Peaks before work (7–9am), lunch (12–1pm), and evenings (7–9pm); weekend spikes around sports and community events; weather and public-safety posts cause sharp engagement surges
• Content trust: Posts from known local entities (city, schools, sheriff, established community groups) earn higher interaction and share rates than generic or national pages

Sources and method

• County population and age structure: U.S. Census/ACS recent estimates for McLeod County
• Platform penetration and age/gender skews: Pew Research Center’s latest U.S. adult social-media usage data
• Percentages shown for platforms are modeled local estimates: national adoption rates weighted by McLeod County’s older‑than‑average age mix and rural usage patterns to reflect likely county-level usage in 2025.