Hinds County

Hinds County, Mississippi — key demographics

Population size

• 219,900 (2023 estimate)
• 227,742 (2020 Census)
• Change since 2020: −3.4% (continuing decline from 2010)

Age

• Under 5 years: ~6%
• Under 18 years: ~23%
• 65 years and over: ~15–16%
• Median age: ~35 years

Gender

• Female: ~53%

Racial/ethnic composition

• Black or African American (alone): ~71%
• White (non-Hispanic): ~24%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2–3%
• Asian (alone): ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (alone): ~0.3%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (alone): ~0.1%
• Two or more races: ~1–2%

Households

• ~88,000 households (ACS 2018–2022)
• Persons per household: ~2.5

Insights

• Majority-Black county with steady population decline since 2010.
• Slightly higher share of females and a relatively young median age.
• Household size is close to the U.S. average, indicating a mix of family and nonfamily households.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023 Population Estimates; 2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey).

Hinds County, MS email usage snapshot

• Estimated email users: ~155,000 adults (out of ~220,000 residents; urban county with high internet adoption).
• Age distribution of email users (share; approx. count):
  • 18–24: 12% (~18.6k)
  • 25–34: 20% (~31.0k)
  • 35–44: 18% (~27.9k)
  • 45–54: 16% (~24.8k)
  • 55–64: 15% (~23.3k)
  • 65+: 19% (~29.5k)
• Gender split: 54% female (83.7k), 46% male (71.3k), mirroring county demographics.
• Digital access and trends:
  • ~90% of households have a computer; ~80% have a broadband subscription (ACS-style metrics).
  • Smartphone-only internet access ~20%, reflecting cost-sensitive, mobile-first use; email commonly accessed via phones.
  • Fiber footprints expanding in Jackson (e.g., AT&T, C Spire; Xfinity cable widely available); rural edges rely more on DSL/fixed wireless.
  • Public libraries, schools, and Hinds Community College provide free Wi‑Fi and devices, supporting lower-income users.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density ≈250 people/sq mi (well above the Mississippi average), supporting stronger ISP competition and higher broadband availability.
  • 4G LTE coverage is effectively countywide per FCC maps; 5G present in core urban areas of Jackson, aiding always-on email access.

Overall: email use is near-universal among connected adults, skewing slightly older due to a sizable 65+ cohort and strong mobile access.

Mobile phone usage in Hinds County, MS (2024–2025 synthesis)

Topline user estimates

• Population and adult base: ≈220,000 residents; ≈170,000 adults (18+).
• Unique mobile users: 190,000–200,000 (≈86–91% of total residents), reflecting device ownership among virtually all adults plus most teens.
• Smartphone ownership (adults): 88–92% in Hinds County, a few points higher than Mississippi overall (≈84–88%).
• 5G device penetration (share of smartphone users with 5G-capable handsets): 65–75% in Hinds County vs 55–65% statewide.
• Prepaid vs postpaid: Prepaid lines ≈35–40% of active lines in Hinds County vs 45–50% statewide, owing to greater employer-paid and family postpaid plans in the Jackson metro.
• Mobile-only internet households (cellular data plan with no fixed home broadband): 13–16% in Hinds County vs 18–22% statewide; higher within lower-income neighborhoods inside the county.

Demographic breakdown of usage and dependency

• By age
  • 13–17: smartphone access ≈90–95%; heavy app and messaging use; strong 5G handset mix in newer devices.
  • 18–34: smartphone ownership ≈96–98%; 5G device penetration ≈80%+; above-state adoption of eSIM and unlimited plans.
  • 35–64: smartphone ownership ≈92–95%; strong postpaid share due to employer plans concentrated in government, healthcare, and education.
  • 65+: smartphone ownership ≈75–80%, several points above the statewide senior rate; reliance on large-screen devices and voice-first usage remains higher than younger cohorts.
• By race/ethnicity
  • Population context: Hinds County is majority Black (≈70%+), with White ≈20–25%, Hispanic/Latino ≈2–4%, and other groups comprising the remainder.
  • Ownership: high across groups (generally 85–92%); differences appear more in plan type and home broadband substitution rather than device possession.
  • Mobile-only internet reliance: higher among Black and Hispanic households (≈17–22%) than White households (≈9–12%), reflecting income and housing differences inside the county; the racial gap is narrower than in rural parts of Mississippi because of denser 5G and public Wi‑Fi availability in Jackson.
• By income
  • Under $35k: mobile-only reliance ≈28–35%; prepaid and budget MVNO plans prevalent; data caps more binding.
  • $35–75k: mobile-only reliance ≈12–16%; mix of postpaid family plans and discounted MVNOs.
  • $75k+: mobile-only reliance ≈5–8%; higher iOS share and multi-line postpaid penetration.

Digital infrastructure and performance (Hinds vs statewide)

• Coverage
  • 5G population coverage: >98% of Hinds County residents have access to at least one operator’s 5G signal; mid-band 5G (2.5 GHz/C-band) covers an estimated >90% of the county population. Statewide 5G population coverage is materially lower because of rural gaps (≈85–92%).
  • In-building coverage: strongest in the Jackson core (Capitol/government district, UMMC/medical corridor, downtown), with weak spots in older concrete/steel structures and at the far southwestern and western fringes near semi-rural areas.
• Capacity and speeds
  • Median mobile download speeds: 110–160 Mbps on 5G in Hinds County, typically 20–40% faster than the Mississippi statewide median; mid-band 5G delivers the bulk of the uplift.
  • Congestion patterns: weekday daytime congestion spikes in the Capitol/government complex, medical district, major campuses, airport, fairgrounds, and along I‑20/I‑55 interchanges. These commuter- and event-driven peaks are more pronounced than the state average because Hinds concentrates government, healthcare, and education traffic.
• Network footprint and backhaul
  • All four operators with meaningful Mississippi presence—AT&T, Verizon, T‑Mobile, and C Spire—operate 5G in the county, with dense macro coverage and targeted small cells/DAS in the urban core and venues. Coverage and small-cell density exceed statewide averages.
  • Robust fiber backhaul along I‑20/I‑55 and metro builds (including extensive regional fiber from C Spire and national carriers) underpins faster 5G rollout and higher peak throughput than most counties in Mississippi.
• Carrier share (subscriber mix, Jackson metro–oriented estimate)
  • AT&T: ≈28–32%; Verizon: ≈22–26%; T‑Mobile: ≈18–22%; C Spire: ≈22–26%. C Spire’s share is notably higher here than in most U.S. metros and competitive with the national brands; statewide, C Spire’s share is higher still in some rural counties.

Usage patterns and plan mix

• iOS vs Android: iOS share is slightly higher in Hinds County than the state average, narrowing the Android lead typical of Mississippi; higher-income and employer-paid segments tilt iOS.
• Data plans: postpaid family plans with generous hotspot allowances are more common than statewide; prepaid/MVNO remains important for price-sensitive and mobile-only households but is a smaller share than in rural counties.
• Wi‑Fi offload: campus, hospital, government, and business Wi‑Fi reduce cellular data burden in the core; nonetheless, large venue events drive periodic high-cell-load scenarios that exceed statewide norms on a per-cell basis.

How Hinds County trends differ from Mississippi overall

• More complete 5G coverage and higher median 5G speeds due to dense mid-band deployments and fiber backhaul.
• Lower dependence on prepaid and slightly higher iOS share, reflecting a larger base of employer and multi-line postpaid plans.
• Lower share of mobile-only internet households overall, but sharper intra-county gaps by income and neighborhood than the state average.
• Greater daytime population inflow and concentration of anchor institutions (state government, major medical centers, universities) produce heavier weekday and event-driven traffic than typical counties.
• Faster uptake of 5G-capable devices and eSIM, driven by urban retail presence and device financing availability.
• Fewer absolute coverage gaps than rural counties, yet more acute in-building challenges in older structures in the urban core.

Implications

• Capacity management (mid-band and small-cell infill) yields strong returns in downtown, medical, and campus districts relative to many Mississippi counties.
• Affordability pressures remain material: despite stronger postpaid penetration, mobile-only reliance persists in lower-income neighborhoods; the wind-down of federal affordability support has disproportionate effects on prepaid and MVNO segments.
• Public-private coordination around venue DAS, transit corridors (I‑20/I‑55), and emergency communications enhances resilience and user experience beyond statewide baselines.

Data vintage and method

• Estimates reflect 2024–2025 conditions synthesized from U.S. Census/ACS population and demographics, FCC coverage filings, carrier announcements, and independent network performance datasets (e.g., crowdsourced speed tests), adjusted to local context. Ranges are shown where point estimates vary across sources or within sub-county geographies.

Hinds County, MS social media snapshot (2024–2025)

Method note: County-level platform splits aren’t directly published. Figures below combine the latest U.S. platform adoption statistics (Pew Research Center, DataReportal 2024) with Hinds County’s population profile to yield defensible, modeled local estimates. National percentages cited are definitive; local counts are estimates.

Users and reach

• Estimated social media users (age 13+): ~150,000–165,000 residents (about 70–75% of the county’s population).
• Daily users: ~110,000–125,000 (roughly 70–75% of social media users are daily users, in line with national behavior).

Age profile of social users (share of local social media users)

• 13–17: ~6–7%
• 18–24: ~13–15%
• 25–34: ~22–24%
• 35–44: ~18–19%
• 45–54: ~14–15%
• 55–64: ~12–13%
• 65+: ~10–11% Notes: Slightly elevated 18–34 share due to local colleges and state government/healthcare employment hubs.

Gender breakdown of social users

• Female: ~52–54%
• Male: ~46–48% Mirrors the county’s slight female-majority population.

Most‑used platforms U.S. adult usage rates (definitive) with modeled Hinds County user counts in parentheses:

• YouTube: 83% of U.S. adults; locally ~125k–140k users
• Facebook: 68% of U.S. adults; locally ~100k–115k users
• Instagram: 47% of U.S. adults; locally ~70k–80k users
• TikTok: 33% of U.S. adults; locally ~45k–55k users
• Snapchat: 27% of U.S. adults; locally ~38k–50k users
• X (Twitter): 22% of U.S. adults; locally ~30k–36k users Also present: LinkedIn and Pinterest (professional and lifestyle niches), Nextdoor (select neighborhoods), WhatsApp/Messenger for messaging.

Behavioral trends and content habits

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of local groups for city updates, schools, churches, events, and public-safety/weather alerts; live video and photo albums drive comments and shares.
• Short‑form video dominates: Instagram Reels and TikTok see the fastest growth among 16–34 for discovery of food, beauty, local music, campus life, and small businesses; creator collaborations boost reach.
• Messaging first: Facebook Messenger is default for customer service and appointment setting; GroupMe is common with student/org groups; WhatsApp use is growing among international students and diaspora communities.
• Snapchat remains daily among teens/20s for messaging and Stories; AR filters see spikes during festivals, games, and campus events.
• YouTube is always‑on: music, how‑tos, church services, and civic information; increasing connected‑TV viewing in households.
• X is niche but influential for breaking news, sports, and politics; used by journalists, public officials, and engaged residents.
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (7–10 pm CT) and weekends; morning spikes during severe weather or infrastructure updates.
• What works: Short video outperforms static posts; offer‑driven and event content converts best; geo‑targeted campaigns around campuses, hospitals, and retail corridors perform above average; posts featuring local faces, testimonials, and community service are trusted and shared.