Clackamas County

Key demographics for Clackamas County, Oregon (U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2023 1-year; rounded):

• Population: ~424,000
• Age:
  • Median age: ~41.5 years
  • Under 18: ~22%
  • 18–64: ~59%
  • 65 and over: ~19%
• Sex:
  • Female: ~50.6%
  • Male: ~49.4%
• Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive; sums ~100%):
  • Non-Hispanic White: ~77.9%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~11.0%
  • Non-Hispanic Asian: ~4.2%
  • Non-Hispanic Two or more races: ~4.4%
  • Non-Hispanic Black: ~1.1%
  • Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1.0%
  • Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0.3%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~167,000
  • Average household size: ~2.5
  • Family households: ~66% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~27%
  • Housing tenure: ~71% owner-occupied, ~29% renter-occupied

Notes: Figures are estimates and rounded for readability.

Clackamas County, OR email usage (estimates)

• Estimated email users: 320,000–360,000 residents. Basis: 2020 population ~421k; ~9 in 10 households have internet subscriptions (ACS), and most connected adults use email (Pew ~90%+), with teens also high.
• Age distribution of email use:
  • 13–34: 95–99%
  • 35–64: ~93–97%
  • 65+: ~80–90% (rising as broadband and smartphones spread)
  • Under 13: substantially lower; school-managed accounts common but not universal
• Gender split: Roughly even; email adoption shows no meaningful gap by gender. County population is ~50/50 male/female.
• Digital access trends:
  • About 9 in 10 households report a broadband subscription (ACS S2801), with an additional share relying on smartphone-only internet (~10–15%).
  • Fiber and cable coverage are strongest in urban/suburban corridors (I-205/OR-99E, Happy Valley, Oregon City, West Linn, Lake Oswego); foothill and Mount Hood areas (Estacada, Government Camp) see patchier fixed broadband and more reliance on mobile.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density ~225 people per sq. mile (421k over ~1,870 sq. mi. land).
  • High broadband availability in the Willamette Valley portion; lower density and terrain drive gaps east/southeast, where grant-funded builds and 5G fixed wireless are expanding.

Here’s a concise, planning-oriented snapshot of mobile phone usage in Clackamas County, Oregon, with emphasis on how it differs from statewide patterns.

Headline estimates (2024)

• Total mobile phone users: about 360,000–380,000 people (roughly 85–90% of all residents; ~92–95% of residents age 5+).
• Smartphone users: about 315,000–340,000 (roughly 85–90% of mobile users).
• Smartphone‑only internet households (cellular plan but no fixed home internet): about 6–8% countywide, slightly lower than Oregon overall (≈8–10%).

Demographic patterns

• Age
  • 18–34: near‑universal smartphone adoption (≈97–99%); usage patterns skew toward heavy mobile data, navigation, and streaming tied to commuting into Portland.
  • 35–64: high smartphone adoption (≈92–95%).
  • 65+: smartphone adoption lower but rising (≈78–82%); overall mobile phone ownership still high (>90%), with a higher share of basic/flip phones than other age groups.
  • Net effect vs. Oregon: Clackamas is slightly older than the state average, which would normally depress smartphone rates; however, higher incomes offset much of that, keeping overall smartphone penetration slightly above the state average.
• Income
  • Median household income is higher than Oregon’s (Clackamas ≈$90k+ vs. Oregon ≈$75–80k), supporting higher 5G device adoption, more multi‑line family plans, and lower smartphone‑only internet reliance than the state overall.
• Race/ethnicity and language
  • The county’s population is more White and slightly less Hispanic than the state. Smartphone‑only reliance tends to be higher among Hispanic and Black households statewide; Clackamas’ composition contributes to a somewhat lower smartphone‑only share than Oregon overall.
• Urban–rural split
  • Sharp internal contrast: metro‑adjacent suburbs (Lake Oswego, West Linn, Happy Valley, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Wilsonville) show near‑universal smartphone uptake and strong 5G use; foothill and forest communities (Estacada, Colton, outlying Sandy/Molalla areas) have more coverage gaps and a modestly higher share of mobile‑only users.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carrier landscape
  • All three nationals (T‑Mobile, Verizon, AT&T) provide extensive 4G and broad 5G across the populated western half of the county. Mid‑band 5G (n41/C‑band) is common in the I‑205/OR‑224/OR‑212 corridors and major towns.
  • Coverage gaps persist in the Mt. Hood National Forest and canyons: along OR‑224 past Estacada (Ripplebrook), Clackamas River canyon, and segments off US‑26 beyond Sandy toward Government Camp/Timothy Lake and side roads (Zigzag, Lolo Pass area).
• Capacity and performance
  • Densification with small cells is evident around commercial hubs (e.g., Clackamas Town Center area, Happy Valley, Oregon City), with strong indoor performance and higher 5G median speeds than many Oregon counties.
  • Weekend recreation traffic to Mt. Hood (US‑26) and weekday commuter loads into Portland shape capacity planning; networks are tuned for corridor demand more than in rural Oregon counties.
• Backhaul and redundancy
  • Robust fiber backhaul in the suburban west (Comcast, Lumen/CenturyLink, others) and municipal fiber in Sandy (SandyNet) reduce dependence on mobile networks for home internet—distinct from many rural Oregon counties.
  • In high‑fire‑risk zones, carriers have added some hardening and backup power since the 2020 wildfires, improving resilience relative to similar terrain elsewhere in the state, but remote sites can still experience outages during PSPS or winter storms.

How Clackamas differs from Oregon overall

• Slightly higher smartphone penetration despite an older age profile, driven by higher incomes and metro adjacency.
• Lower share of smartphone‑only households than the state average, thanks to strong cable/fiber availability (notably SandyNet) in population centers.
• More pronounced internal disparity: metro‑grade 5G density in the west vs. true wilderness gaps in the east; the statewide picture has similar gaps, but many counties lack Clackamas’ combination of dense 5G suburbs and nearby rugged terrain.
• Network capacity is engineered around commuter and recreation corridors more than in most Oregon counties, producing better peak‑hour performance in suburbs and more predictable congestion on US‑26 and I‑205.

Method notes

• Estimates triangulate 2023–2024 ACS population structure, Pew Research smartphone/mobile ownership rates by age and income, and 2024 carrier 5G footprints/FCC coverage data. Figures are ranges to reflect local variation and fast‑moving deployments.

Clackamas County, OR — Social Media Snapshot (2025)

How many people are on social?

• Residents (total): ~425,000
• Residents age 13+: ~360,000
• Active social media users (13+): ~300,000–320,000 (≈83–89%)
• Daily social users: ~210,000–240,000 (≈70–75% of users)
• Typical person uses 3–4 platforms
• Access: high broadband/smartphone penetration; mobile-first behavior

Most-used platforms (share of 13+ using each at least monthly; county estimates aligned to Pew 2023–2024 U.S. benchmarks and Portland-metro patterns)

• YouTube: 85–90%
• Facebook: 50–55% overall; 60–70% among ages 30+
• Instagram: 45–50%
• TikTok: 35–40%
• Pinterest: 30–35% (skews female, home/DIY)
• Snapchat: 30–35% (heavily 13–29)
• LinkedIn: 25–30% (professionals, commuters to PDX)
• WhatsApp: 20–25% (family, multilingual groups)
• X (Twitter): 20–25%
• Reddit: 18–22% (male/tech/outdoors)
• Nextdoor: ~15–20% of adults; roughly 25–35% of households with an active account

Age patterns (who’s where)

• 13–17: 95%+ on at least one platform; YouTube/TikTok 80–90%; Snapchat 70%+; Facebook minimal
• 18–29: 95%+ social; Instagram 80%+; TikTok 60%+; Snapchat 60%+; YouTube 90%+; Facebook ~40–50%
• 30–49: ~90% social; Facebook 70%+; Instagram 55%+; YouTube 90%+; TikTok ~35–45%; LinkedIn ~35%
• 50–64: ~80–85% social; Facebook 70%+; YouTube 80%+; Pinterest ~40% (women); Nextdoor ~20–30%
• 65+: ~65–70% social; Facebook 55–60%; YouTube 65–70%; Nextdoor ~20–25%

Gender skews (approximate)

• Overall social users: ~52% women, 48% men
• Pinterest: ~70% women
• Facebook: 55–60% women
• Instagram: ~52–55% women
• TikTok/Snapchat: slight female lean
• YouTube: slight male lean
• Reddit: ~65–70% men
• X (Twitter): ~60–65% men
• LinkedIn: near even, varies by industry

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: Heavy use of Facebook Groups and Nextdoor for school updates, youth sports, wildfire/power outage info, road closures, and local government.
• Shopping and discovery:
  • Facebook Marketplace is a go-to for buy/sell/trade and used gear.
  • Instagram Reels drive discovery for local boutiques, restaurants, coffee, and breweries.
  • Pinterest and YouTube fuel home improvement, gardening, and DIY planning.
• Outdoors + DIY identity: Strong engagement with content around Mount Hood, Clackamas River, hiking, skiing, fishing, kayaking, gardening, and home projects.
• Events: Farmers markets, fairs, concerts, and seasonal festivals are planned via Facebook Events and Instagram; Stories and Reels outperform static posts.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp groups for family, teams, and mutual aid; private groups preferred over public pages.
• Content format: Short-form vertical video leads; photo carousels and how-to clips perform well. Authentic, local voice beats polished ads.
• Timing: Best engagement typically weekday evenings (6–9 pm) and weekend mornings (9–11 am); weather events drive spikes in local info sharing.
• Ad response: Value- and community-oriented offers, local cause tie-ins, and clear calls-to-action convert better than broad branding.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are best-available estimates synthesized from Pew Research Center (2023–2024) U.S. social media adoption, American Community Survey population structure, Oregon/Portland-metro digital adoption patterns, and known suburban platform skews (e.g., Nextdoor). County-specific, platform-reported user counts are rarely public; treat ranges as directional.