Lewis And Clark County

Key demographics: Lewis and Clark County, Montana

Population size

• 70,973 (2020 Census)

Age (ACS 2018–2022)

• Median age: 40.5 years
• Under 18: 21%
• 18–24: 9%
• 25–44: 27%
• 45–64: 25%
• 65 and over: 18%

Gender (ACS 2018–2022)

• Male: 50.3%
• Female: 49.7%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2018–2022; mutually exclusive where noted)

• White alone, non-Hispanic: 87.9%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): 4.3%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic: 3.0%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: 3.6%
• Asian alone, non-Hispanic: 0.8%
• Black or African American alone, non-Hispanic: 0.5%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic: ~0.1%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~30,700
• Average household size: 2.31
• Family households: ~57% of households
• Owner-occupied: ~68% | Renter-occupied: ~32%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Lewis and Clark County, MT overview (≈74,000 residents; ≈21 people per sq. mile). Estimated email users: ≈57,000.

Age distribution of email users

• 13–17: 6% ≈3.4k
• 18–34: 27% ≈15.4k
• 35–54: 35% ≈20.0k
• 55–64: 14% ≈8.0k
• 65+: 18% ≈10.3k

Gender split

• Female ≈50.5% ≈28.8k users
• Male ≈49.5% ≈28.2k users

Digital access and usage

• Household computer ownership ≈95%.
• Households with broadband subscription ≈90% (ACS-like profile for comparable MT urban counties).
• Email penetration mirrors U.S. norms: ≈92% of adults use email; seniors (65+) ≈85–88%.
• Smartphone-only internet households ≈14%, indicating meaningful mobile-first access.

Connectivity and density insights

• Most residents cluster in and around Helena/Helena Valley, where cable and growing fiber coverage support stable email access.
• Outlying rural tracts (mountainous terrain, large lot sizes) face last‑mile gaps; DSL, fixed wireless, and satellite are common fallbacks.
• Cellular and 5G coverage are strongest along the Helena Valley and I‑15 corridor; weaker in remote valleys and forested areas.

Figures are county-scaled estimates integrating U.S. email adoption benchmarks with local population and ACS-style internet metrics.

Mobile phone usage summary for Lewis and Clark County, Montana

Definitive baseline

• Population: 70,973 (2020 Census). County seat: Helena.
• Market structure: All three national carriers (AT&T/FirstNet, T-Mobile, Verizon) operate in the county; service is anchored around Helena/East Helena and the I‑15/US‑12 corridors, with sparser coverage in mountainous and forested western/northern areas.

User estimates (clearly modeled from widely used benchmarks)

• Adult smartphone users: ~50,000. Method: apply a conservative 90% smartphone-ownership rate among adults (Pew Research national benchmark) to an adult population on the order of 55,000–56,000 (consistent with Montana’s age structure and the county’s 2020 population).
• Total mobile lines in service: ~78,000–85,000. Method: apply 1.1–1.2 wireless subscriptions per resident (CTIA-style utilization ratios typical for mixed urban/rural counties) to the county population. This range reflects work and personal lines, hotspots, tablets, and IoT endpoints.
• Smartphone-only internet households: approximately low-to-mid teens share of households. Urban counties with cable availability (Helena has widespread cable broadband) tend to have a lower smartphone-only share than rural Montana counties, where mobile data substitutes more often for home broadband.

Demographic patterns of mobile use (county-specific context with quantified expectations)

• Age:
  • 18–34: near-universal smartphone adoption (>95%), heavy mobile-first behavior for media, messaging, and payments.
  • 35–64: very high adoption (~90%+), heavier use of productivity and navigation; broad postpaid plan participation via employer and family plans.
  • 65+: high but not universal adoption (~75–85%); strongest relative growth cohort countywide as devices and telehealth become more accessible.
• Income and education:
  • Helena’s higher educational attainment and stable government/healthcare employment base correlate with higher postpaid penetration, larger family plans, and higher 5G device mix than the state average.
  • Smartphone-only dependence is present but less concentrated than in lower-income, more rural Montana counties because cable and DSL/fiber are widely available in the Helena Valley.
• Urban vs. rural within the county:
  • Helena/East Helena residents benefit from denser site placement and multi-carrier mid-band 5G, supporting higher median speeds and lower latency.
  • Outlying communities (e.g., along MT‑200 and in foothills/valleys) experience more LTE-only coverage, more signal shadowing from terrain, and a higher propensity to rely on Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Radio access:
  • 5G coverage: Mid-band 5G (e.g., T‑Mobile n41 and at least one carrier’s C‑band) is deployed in and around Helena; 5G coverage attenuates with distance from the urban core, with LTE remaining the dominant layer in rural tracts.
  • FirstNet: AT&T’s Band 14 public-safety layer is present and material in Helena, important given state government and regional healthcare facilities.
• Backhaul and fixed broadband interplay:
  • Cable and telco plant (e.g., Spectrum and Lumen/CenturyLink) provide robust backhaul in Helena/East Helena, enabling carrier aggregation and higher-capacity sectors on macro sites.
  • Fiber is more limited outside the valley; carriers lean on microwave backhaul and fewer sectors in rural sites, constraining peak throughput and capacity during peak hours.
• Coverage constraints:
  • Terrain-induced dead zones persist along canyons, lake-adjacent roads, and forested ridges; seasonal foliage and weather can exacerbate signal variability.
  • New site builds and sector upgrades since 2021 have focused on Helena’s core, the airport area, the I‑15 corridor, and growth pockets in the valley, with incremental improvements elsewhere.

How Lewis and Clark County differs from Montana statewide

• Higher 5G availability and faster median mobile speeds than the statewide average due to urban density, better backhaul, and earlier mid-band activation in Helena.
• Lower share of smartphone-only households than the state average because fixed broadband options are stronger in the county seat; residents more often bundle mobile with home internet.
• Higher postpaid and family-plan penetration, tied to a large public-sector and healthcare workforce; prepaid share is correspondingly lower than in more rural, lower-density Montana counties.
• Smaller coverage gaps overall and more reliable in-building service in the Helena Valley; however, rural western/northern parts of the county still resemble statewide rural coverage challenges.
• Higher device refresh rates and 5G-capable handset penetration, driven by employer stipends, BYOD policies, and retail availability, supporting greater use of mobile payments, telehealth, and remote work.

Strategic insights

• Capacity, not coverage, is the primary differentiator in Helena/East Helena; carriers that sustain dense mid-band 5G and adequate backhaul will capture premium and business subs.
• Extending mid-band 5G and adding low-band fill-in along secondary roads and recreation areas would close the remaining experience gap with the urban core and further differentiate the county from more rural parts of Montana.
• For public services and healthcare providers, continued promotion of Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters in fringe areas will mitigate terrain-related reliability issues while broader infrastructure catches up.

Social media usage in Lewis and Clark County, MT (2025 snapshot)

Population base

• Residents: ≈75,000; Adults (18+): ≈58,000
• Adults using at least one social platform: ≈42,000–44,000 (based on ~72–75% U.S. adult adoption)

Most‑used platforms (share of U.S. adults who use each; local estimated adult users in parentheses)

• YouTube: 83% (≈48k)
• Facebook: 68% (≈39k)
• Instagram: 47% (≈27k)
• TikTok: 33% (≈19k)
• Snapchat: 30% (≈17k)
• Pinterest: 32% (≈19k)
• LinkedIn: 30% (≈17k)
• X (Twitter): 23% (≈13k)
• Reddit: 18% (≈10k)

Age patterns (what’s strongest locally mirrors U.S. usage)

• 18–29: Near‑universal on YouTube; heavy Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat. Facebook used but less central.
• 30–49: Facebook + YouTube are core; Instagram and TikTok solid; LinkedIn present (public sector, healthcare, utilities).
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Pinterest noticeable; some Instagram/TikTok.
• 65+: Facebook for community/news and Marketplace; YouTube for how‑tos/local meetings; limited Instagram/TikTok.

Gender breakdown (directional, aligned with national patterns)

• Facebook: roughly balanced.
• Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat: slightly female‑leaning among under‑35s.
• Pinterest: strongly female‑skewed (about half of U.S. women vs ~15% of men use it).
• LinkedIn and Reddit: male‑leaning.
• YouTube: near‑parity with a slight male tilt.

Behavioral trends in the county

• Community-centric Facebook use: local news and alerts (wildfire/weather/road), school and civic updates (state‑capital effect), Facebook Groups, and Marketplace trading are highly active.
• Short‑form video growth: Reels/TikTok for outdoor lifestyle, events, small businesses; YouTube Shorts rising alongside long‑form how‑to, hunting/fishing, DIY, and gear reviews.
• Hyperlocal networks: Neighborhood discussion and lost‑and‑found thrive in Facebook Groups; Nextdoor present in some Helena/East Helena neighborhoods for safety and services.
• Professional networking: Above‑average LinkedIn activity for a rural market due to state government, healthcare systems, nonprofits, and energy/utilities recruiting.
• Messaging behavior: Heavy use of Messenger and Snapchat among younger users; SMS and Facebook Messenger for older cohorts.
• Timing: Engagement peaks before work (6:30–9 a.m.), lunch (noon–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–10 p.m. MST); weekend afternoons perform well for events and retail.

Method note

• Percentages are from recent U.S. adult usage benchmarks (e.g., Pew Research Center, 2023). Local counts are modeled by applying those rates to the county’s estimated adult population to provide realistic, decision‑ready estimates.