Sullivan County

Sullivan County, Missouri – key demographics

Population size

• 5,999 residents (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~38 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~26%
• 65 and over: ~18%

Gender

• Female: ~49%
• Male: ~51% (ACS 2018–2022)

Racial/ethnic composition (2020 Census; Hispanic is an ethnicity)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~69–70%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~24%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: <1%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~4–5%

Households and housing (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~2,300
• Average household size: ~2.6–2.7 persons
• Family households: ~65%
• Owner-occupied housing: ~70–72% of occupied units

Notable insights

• Roughly one in four residents is Hispanic/Latino, among the highest shares in Missouri, shaping a comparatively younger age profile than many rural counties.

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

Sullivan County, MO (pop. 5,999; ~651 sq mi) has a low density of ~9.2 people/sq mi, shaping digital access and email behavior.

Estimated email users (2025): ~3,200 residents use email regularly.

• Basis: adult share of population, rural home-internet adoption, and near‑universal email use among internet users.

Age distribution of email users (share of users):

• 18–34: 22%
• 35–54: 33%
• 55–64: 18%
• 65+: 27%

Gender split among email users:

• Female: 51%
• Male: 49%

Digital access trends:

• ~70% of households have a home internet subscription; ~15–20% are smartphone‑only users.
• Fixed broadband ≥25/3 Mbps is available to most populated areas; fiber is concentrated in Milan and a few nearby blocks, with DSL, fixed wireless, and satellite prevalent elsewhere.
• Older adults (65+) show lower adoption but rising smartphone email use; middle‑aged cohorts drive the highest daily email engagement.

Local connectivity facts:

• Sparse settlement and long last‑mile runs constrain wireline upgrades; connectivity is strongest in and around Milan and along US‑136, with patchier service on rural roads.
• Public Wi‑Fi (library, schools, municipal buildings) is an important access supplement for lower‑income and remote households.

Sullivan County, Missouri: mobile phone usage snapshot (best-available 2023–2024 estimates)

Population and base counts

• Population: ~5,900 residents; ~2,350 households (U.S. Census/ACS 5-year).
• Age mix (approx.): 0–17: 24%; 18–29: 13%; 30–49: 24%; 50–64: 20%; 65+: 19%.
• Race/ethnicity: substantially higher Hispanic or Latino share than Missouri overall (county ≈18–22% vs. Missouri ≈5%, driven by employment around Milan).

User estimates (people with phones in use)

• Mobile phone users (any mobile, including basic phones): ≈4,600 residents.
  • Method: ~95% of adults 18+ (≈4,484) plus ~90% of ages 13–17 (≈354).
• Smartphone users: ≈4,000 residents.
  • Method: age-adjusted smartphone adoption drawn from recent Pew Research rates, adjusted modestly for rural markets (18–49 ≈94%, 50–64 ≈80%, 65+ ≈60%) plus teens 13–17 ≈88%.
• Adult smartphone penetration: ≈82–86% of adults (below Missouri’s urbanized average but near rural-Missouri norms).

How usage differs from Missouri overall

• More mobile-only internet households: ~22% of households rely primarily on a cellular data plan for home internet (vs. roughly low-teens statewide). This reflects limited wired options outside town centers and cost sensitivity.
• Higher prepaid/MVNO uptake: prepaid share is materially higher than the statewide mix, tied to income variability and credit constraints; this increases SIM churn and plan-switching.
• Older-and-younger split in adoption: the county’s older cohort depresses overall smartphone penetration, while a sizable working-age Hispanic population lifts adoption and daily reliance for work, messaging, and payments—yielding a wider intra-county usage gap than the state average.
• Heavier mobile data reliance per subscribing household but lower median speeds than Missouri’s metro corridors; video streaming quality and hotspot use are more variable day-to-day than in cities.

Demographic breakdown and usage implications

• Seniors (65+; ~19%): ~60% smartphone adoption; above-average basic-phone retention; lower app diversity; higher voice/SMS dependence.
• Prime working age (30–49; ~24%) and 18–29 (13%): ~94% smartphone adoption; the most data-intensive cohort; highest incidence of hotspotting to replace or supplement fixed broadband.
• Hispanic/Latino residents (~1 in 5 countywide): high smartphone dependence for day-to-day connectivity, multilingual communications, and mobile payments; more Android share and prepaid plans than the state average.
• Households with school-age children: above-average hotspot use and plan upgrades around school year; ACP wind-down in 2024 shifted some fixed-broadband households to cellular-only.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Carriers present: AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon serve the county; UScellular and MVNOs appear via roaming/wholesale in parts of north-central Missouri.
• Coverage pattern: near-universal 4G LTE in and around Milan and along primary routes (MO-5/MO-6), with dead zones between towns and in low-lying or wooded areas. Indoor coverage is the main pain point in farmsteads and metal buildings.
• 5G availability:
  • Low-band 5G: available from at least one major carrier across most populated areas; broad outdoor coverage but only modest speed uplift over LTE.
  • Mid-band 5G: limited build-out; fastest speeds cluster near newer sites and town centers; no meaningful mmWave.
• Typical performance (all carriers combined, 2023–2024 patterns):
  • Median download: ~30–45 Mbps; upload: ~4–10 Mbps; latency commonly 35–60 ms.
  • 10th percentile download: ~3–8 Mbps in fringe areas; peaks >200 Mbps near upgraded 5G sites.
  • State comparison: Missouri’s statewide median mobile download sits substantially higher (driven by St. Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield), so Sullivan County trails the state on speed and consistency.
• Network capacity: limited mid-band spectrum depth constrains busy-hour speeds; sector loading is noticeable during shift changes and evening streaming.
• Backup/Redundancy: single-fiber or microwave backhaul to some rural sites can cause wider outages when cuts or storms occur; recovery times are longer than in metro counties.

Adoption and access indicators

• Mobile-only internet households: ~22% (≈500 of ~2,350), materially above the state share.
• Any broadband (fixed or mobile): most households have at least one broadband pathway, but fixed-wireline fiber/cable remains concentrated in and near Milan; DSL and satellite fill gaps elsewhere, leaving cellular as the primary broadband for many farms and outlying homes.
• Affordability pressure: ACP sunset in 2024 led to plan downgrades and a noticeable shift toward prepaid and cellular-only solutions.

Key takeaways for planners and providers

• Demand is robust: roughly four in five adults carry smartphones, and about one in five households depends on mobile as their main home internet—higher than Missouri overall.
• The binding constraints are coverage uniformity and mid-band capacity, not device willingness; targeted mid-band 5G upgrades and indoor coverage solutions (small cells, repeaters) would yield outsized benefits.
• Outreach in Spanish and prepaid-friendly offerings are more impactful here than in the average Missouri county.
• Any fixed-broadband expansion will reduce mobile-only reliance, but mobile networks will remain the default backup and primary access for the most rural households.

Social media usage in Sullivan County, Missouri (2025) — concise breakdown

How these figures were derived

• No official county-level platform data are published. The figures below are modeled 2025 estimates using Pew Research Center’s latest U.S. and rural-resident platform adoption rates applied to Sullivan County’s age/sex structure (ACS 5-year). They reflect adults (18+) living in the county.

User stats and demographics

• Adult population base: ≈4,600
• Adults using at least one social platform: ≈75% (≈3,450 users)
• Gender split (population): ≈50% women, ≈50% men
• Age structure (adult emphasis): older-skewing rural profile
  • 18–29: ~15%
  • 30–49: ~30%
  • 50–64: ~27%
  • 65+: ~28%

Most-used platforms (share of adults; modeled)

• YouTube: ~80% (≈3,700 adults)
• Facebook: ~70% (≈3,200)
• Instagram: ~38% (≈1,750)
• TikTok: ~30% (≈1,380)
• Snapchat: ~28% (≈1,290)
• Pinterest: ~30% (≈1,380; strong female skew)
• X (Twitter): ~20% (≈920)
• LinkedIn: ~18% (≈830)
• Reddit: ~14% (≈640) Notes:
• Facebook and YouTube dominate reach; Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat concentrate among under-40s.
• WhatsApp use remains niche compared with urban areas.

Age-group usage patterns (localized from national/rural trends)

• Teens (13–17): Very high YouTube; TikTok and Snapchat are primary daily social apps; Instagram secondary; Facebook limited (parents, school updates).
• 18–29: Heavy on Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; YouTube near-universal; Facebook used but less central than older groups.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube anchor daily use; Instagram moderate; TikTok/Snapchat occasional.
• 50–64: Facebook first, YouTube second; light Instagram/TikTok.
• 65+: Facebook leads for community/news; YouTube for how-to and entertainment; minimal on other platforms.

Gender breakdown (patterns observable in rural U.S., applied locally)

• Women: Higher on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; more active in local Groups, school/activities info, and Marketplace.
• Men: Higher on YouTube, Reddit, X; more long-form/creator and hobby content (farm/ranch, outdoors, equipment).

Behavioral trends (Sullivan County context)

• Community-first Facebook: Local news, school updates, weather alerts, county services, churches, youth sports, and buy/sell dominate activity; Groups are the engagement hub.
• Marketplace and Messenger: Marketplace is a primary local commerce channel; Messenger functions as a default communicator for many residents and small businesses.
• YouTube as utility: Strong consumption of how‑to, ag/repair, hunting/fishing, and local-interest content; smart TV viewing increasing.
• Short-form video growth: TikTok/Instagram Reels growth among under‑40s; creation remains concentrated in a minority of users, but viewing is widespread.
• Event-driven spikes: High engagement during severe weather, school closings, county fair, festivals, and high school sports.
• Posting cadence: Many users post infrequently (monthly/seasonal), but check feeds daily; “lurking” is common, especially 50+.
• Timing: Evenings and weekends show the highest local activity; noon-hour checks are common among workers and students.
• Trust patterns: People give outsized weight to information from known local pages/groups and neighbors; local admins and moderators shape narratives.