Holmes County

Holmes County, Ohio — key demographics

Population size

• Total population: 44,223 (2020 Decennial Census)
• Growth since 2010: +4.4% (from 42,366 to 44,223)

Age

• Median age: about 31–32 years (ACS 5-year, latest available)
• Age distribution (approx., ACS 5-year):
  • Under 18: roughly one-third of residents
  • 65 and over: roughly 12–15%

Gender

• Near parity; approximately 50% male, 50% female (ACS 5-year)

Race and ethnicity (2020 Census)

• White (non-Hispanic): overwhelming majority (≈95%+)
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): low single digits (~1–3%)
• Black or African American, Asian, American Indian, and Two+ races: each well under 1–2% individually
• Note: Holmes County has one of the nation’s largest Amish populations, which shapes its age and household patterns

Households (ACS 5-year)

• Number of households: roughly 12–13 thousand
• Average household size: high (≈3.4–3.7), among the largest in Ohio
• Family households: dominant share, with a high proportion of married-couple families
• Households with children present: well above state average

Insights

• The county is notably younger than Ohio overall and has larger households due to its substantial Amish population and higher fertility rates.
• Racial/ethnic composition is among the least diverse in Ohio, with a very high share of non-Hispanic White residents.

• Population baseline: ~44,500 residents; density ~105 people per sq mi across ~424 sq mi, with a large rural, Amish-majority footprint that depresses internet and email adoption.
• Estimated email users: ~20,000 residents (≈45% of population). This reflects lower-than-state-average uptake due to Amish technology norms and rural connectivity gaps.
• Age distribution of email users (share of users): 13–24: 18%; 25–44: 37%; 45–64: 31%; 65+: 14%. Adoption concentrates in working-age, non-Amish adults.
• Gender split among users: ~50% female, ~50% male.
• Digital access:
  • Households with a broadband subscription: ~58% (vs Ohio ≈80%+).
  • Households with a computer: ~72%.
  • Smartphone-only internet households: ~13%.
  • Fixed broadband and 5G strongest along the Millersburg–Berlin corridor and US‑62/SR‑39; coverage and adoption drop in rural valleys and Amish districts.
• Trends and insights:
  • Email usage is growing modestly with incremental fiber/5G builds and workplace/school requirements, but overall penetration remains well below state averages.
  • Mobile-first email usage is rising fastest; home broadband adoption is the primary constraint, not device availability.
  • Local density and settlement patterns (dispersed farms, unincorporated areas) correlate with the lowest connectivity and email uptake.

Mobile phone usage in Holmes County, Ohio — summary and contrasts with statewide patterns

Topline

• Holmes County’s mobile adoption is materially below Ohio averages, driven primarily by the county’s unusually large Amish population and rural terrain that produces coverage gaps. Where Ohio shows near-universal smartphone access, Holmes County exhibits lower smartphone presence, fewer cellular data subscriptions, and higher rates of households without any internet.

User adoption and household metrics (ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates; rounded)

• Households: roughly 13–14 thousand in Holmes County.
• Households with a smartphone: about 65–70% in Holmes County vs 82–86% statewide.
• Households with a cellular data plan (any device): about 50–55% in Holmes County vs 70–75% statewide.
• Households with no internet subscription of any kind: about 20–25% in Holmes County vs 13–15% statewide.
• Computer ownership (any type): about 75–80% in Holmes County vs 88–92% statewide. Interpretation: A sizable share of Holmes County households either rely on basic phones or forgo mobile data plans altogether, whereas most Ohio households pair smartphones with cellular data.

Demographic patterns shaping usage

• Amish share: approximately half of residents live in Amish or other Plain communities, where smartphone adoption is limited or discouraged; basic/feature phones are more common than smartphones in these groups. This single factor depresses countywide smartphone and cellular data adoption by well over 10 percentage points relative to Ohio.
• Age structure: Holmes County’s median age is among the youngest in Ohio (early 30s vs about 40 for Ohio overall) due to large family sizes in Plain communities. Despite the younger profile, overall smartphone penetration is lower than the state because cultural restrictions outweigh age-driven adoption trends seen elsewhere.
• Language and digital habits: a large minority speaks Pennsylvania German at home. That, coupled with selective technology use (e.g., community phones, shared or employer-provided devices), reduces individual smartphone ownership and mobile app usage compared with statewide norms.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage pattern: All national carriers provide LTE along primary corridors (US‑62/SR‑39) and in towns such as Millersburg, Berlin, and Walnut Creek. Outside these corridors, signal quality degrades in valleys and low-density townships, producing dead zones and frequent LTE fallback.
• 5G availability: Concentrated in and around towns and along main travel routes; county-level population coverage is markedly below Ohio’s statewide 5G population coverage (Ohio exceeds 85–90%, Holmes County is closer to the mid-range). This constrains 5G device benefits and keeps many users on LTE.
• Capacity and speeds: Typical on-network speeds cluster lower than Ohio metro medians. Expect roughly 20–60 Mbps down in town centers and single‑digit to teens in fringe and valley areas, with uplinks often 2–8 Mbps where signal is weak. Capacity is particularly sensitive to backhaul and terrain.
• Alternatives and workarounds: Fixed wireless and satellite (e.g., Starlink) play a larger role than in urban Ohio for households that avoid wired broadband or lack it; mobile hotspots are used but less commonly as a primary home connection than statewide because many households do not maintain a cellular data plan.

How Holmes County differs from Ohio

• Lower smartphone penetration: Household smartphone presence is roughly 15–20 points lower than the state average.
• Fewer cellular data subscriptions: Holmes County trails Ohio by about 15–20 points on cellular data plan adoption.
• More households offline: The share of households with no internet subscription is significantly higher than the Ohio average.
• Cultural divergence outweighs age effects: Unlike most of Ohio—where younger populations correlate with higher smartphone uptake—Holmes County’s younger median age does not translate into higher mobile adoption because of Amish technology norms.
• Coverage and 5G gap: Statewide, 5G is the default in most populated areas; in Holmes County, 5G remains corridor- and town-centric, with large LTE-only areas and terrain-related dead zones persisting.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude, consistent with the metrics above)

• Residents regularly using smartphones: roughly 45–55% of the total population, materially below the statewide share.
• Basic/feature‑phone users without data plans: a noticeably larger slice than statewide, concentrated in Plain communities.
• Non-users/limited users: a substantially higher share than the state (includes Amish adults who avoid phones and younger children in large households).

Practical implications

• Public safety and outreach: Redundant channels (SMS, voice trees, physical postings) remain important because app-based alerts alone will miss many residents.
• Service planning: Network investments that prioritize valley coverage and backhaul upgrades along US‑62/SR‑39 and secondary corridors will yield outsized benefits; fixed wireless fill-in is especially impactful.
• Digital inclusion: Programs aimed at device access and affordable internet must account for cultural preferences (e.g., supporting filtered/basic devices or shared-access models) rather than assuming universal smartphone adoption.

Holmes County, OH social media snapshot (localized estimates)

• Context: Holmes County has the highest share of Amish residents in the U.S. (about half the population), many of whom limit or avoid internet/social platforms. Figures below reflect the connected, non-Amish portion of residents and align with rural U.S. usage patterns (Pew Research Center, 2024).

User stats

• Estimated regular social media users: 12,000–15,000 countywide
• Typical daily vs. weekly use among these users: ~70% daily, ~90% at least weekly
• Primary access: mobile-first; video and short-form content outperform text-only posts

Most-used platforms among local social media users

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–70%
• Instagram: 40–45%
• TikTok: 30–35%
• Snapchat: 25–30%
• Pinterest: 30–35%
• LinkedIn: 18–22%
• X (Twitter): 15–20%
• WhatsApp: 20–25%
• Reddit: 15–20%
• Nextdoor: 10–15%

Age groups (who uses what)

• Teens (13–17): YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram dominate; Facebook minimal except for Marketplace/teams.
• Young adults (18–29): Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok heavy; Facebook used for local groups/Marketplace.
• Adults (30–49): Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram moderate; TikTok rising for recipes, DIY, local creators.
• 50+ adults: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Pinterest notable for crafts, recipes; limited TikTok/Snapchat.

Gender breakdown (skews)

• Women: More active on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; highest participation in community/yard-sale/school groups.
• Men: Skew higher on YouTube, Reddit, X; strong interest in sports, tools, farming, and equipment content.
• LinkedIn use concentrates among male and female professionals in healthcare, manufacturing, tourism/hospitality management.

Behavioral trends

• Facebook Groups are the county’s public square: buy/sell/trade, school updates, church/community events, and weather/road conditions. Engagement peaks evenings (7–9 pm) and weekend mid-mornings.
• Marketplace is a key local commerce channel (vehicles, farm equipment, furniture). Listings that include 4–6 clear photos and prices get fastest responses.
• Short-form video growth: TikTok and Instagram Reels featuring farm life, local food, woodworking, construction, and lodging experiences; creators often cross-post to Facebook for reach.
• Public-sector and nonprofits rely on Facebook Pages for announcements, emergency alerts, library and school updates; posts with images or short clips markedly outperform text-only notices.
• Many Amish-adjacent businesses maintain Facebook/Instagram presences managed by non-Amish staff or partners; messaging stays product- and hours-focused with limited personal imagery.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default backchannel for transactions and scheduling; SMS used heavily where broadband is inconsistent.

Notes on interpretation

• Overall countywide reach is lower than similarly sized Ohio counties due to the large Amish population and comparatively lower home broadband adoption; however, within the connected population, platform mix and engagement closely mirror rural U.S. norms.