Indiana County

Indiana County, Pennsylvania — key demographics

Population

• 83,246 (2020 Decennial Census)
• ~82,300 (2023 Census Bureau estimate), roughly -1% since 2020

Age

• Median age: ~38.7 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Age distribution: Under 18: ~17%; 18–24: ~18%; 25–44: ~24%; 45–64: ~24%; 65+: ~18%

Gender

• Female: ~50.4%
• Male: ~49.6%

Race and ethnicity (2020 Census; Hispanic is an ethnicity and overlaps with race)

• White alone: ~90–91%
• Black or African American alone: ~4%
• Asian alone: ~1–1.5%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, NH/PI, some other race: <1% combined
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~32,400
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~58% of all households
• Households with children under 18: ~24%
• Tenure: ~73% owner-occupied, ~27% renter-occupied

Insights

• Modest population decline since 2010–2020 era
• Elevated 18–24 share reflects the presence of Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP)
• Housing is predominantly owner-occupied with relatively small household sizes

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

Indiana County, PA snapshot (pop ≈82,000; density ≈99 residents/sq mi)

• Estimated email users: ≈62,000 adults. This reflects ~92% adult penetration, aligned with Pew nationwide usage and adjusted to local access.
• Age penetration (share of adults using email):
  • 18–29: ~98%
  • 30–49: ~96%
  • 50–64: ~92%
  • 65+: ~85%
• Gender split:
  • Women: ~51% of adult users (≈31,700)
  • Men: ~49% (≈30,300) Usage rates are similarly high across genders, with women slightly higher on average.
• Digital access and trends:
  • ~84% of households have a broadband subscription; ~91% have a computer device (ACS 5‑year).
  • Smartphone‑only internet access is roughly 10–13%, indicating some reliance on mobile data plans.
  • Household broadband adoption has risen ~6–8 percentage points since 2017, narrowing—though not eliminating—rural gaps.
  • Fixed broadband availability is high along boroughs/US‑119/US‑22 corridors; hilly northern and eastern townships show more dead zones. 5G/4G LTE covers population centers and major roads.
• Connectivity implications:
  • With most adults online and strong campus/library Wi‑Fi presence, email remains a near‑universal channel for residents, especially under 65, while older and rural households are the likeliest holdouts.

Indiana County, PA — mobile phone usage snapshot (2024)

Headline takeaways

• Mobile adoption is near-universal among adults, but the county relies on mobile data more heavily than Pennsylvania overall, driven by a large student population and patchier wired infrastructure outside Indiana Borough and White Township.
• 5G is present in population centers, yet multi-carrier 5G coverage thins quickly in rural townships; LTE remains the de facto baseline outside main corridors.
• The urban–rural and age gaps are wider than the state average, with seniors lagging and 18–24 year-olds heavily mobile-first.

Population context

• Population base: 83,246 (2020 Census); ≈82,000 (2023 estimate), a modest decline since 2020.
• University presence (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) raises the 18–24 share relative to the state, shaping mobile-first behavior.

User estimates

• Adult mobile phone users: ≈63,800 of ≈65,800 adults (97% adult ownership; aligns with recent Pew-level benchmarks applied to local age mix).
• Adult smartphone users: ≈59,000 (about 90% of adults).
• Households with a smartphone: ≈88–90% (ACS S2801 style metric).
• Smartphone-only (cellular data plan, no wired home broadband): ≈19% of households in Indiana County vs ≈14% statewide.
• Households with no internet subscription: ≈14% county vs ≈9–10% PA. Interpretation: A larger slice of the county is mobile-dependent compared with Pennsylvania overall, reflecting both students and rural access constraints.

Demographic breakdown (behavioral patterns and estimated adoption)

• Age 18–24: Smartphone adoption ≈98–99%; mobile is the primary internet pathway for many off-campus renters; smartphone-only reliance materially higher than the statewide average for this age band.
• Age 25–44: Smartphone adoption ≈96–97%; mixed use of mobile and wired; mobile-only notably present among renters and lower-income households.
• Age 45–64: Smartphone adoption ≈92–95%; mobile complements wired; smartphone-only share trails younger cohorts.
• Age 65+: Smartphone adoption ≈72–76% in-county (below statewide seniors, which are closer to the upper 70s/low 80s); higher prevalence of basic/older LTE devices and reliance on voice/SMS.
• Income effects: Among households under $35k, smartphone-only is roughly a quarter of households (mid‑20s percent), markedly above county average; among $75k+, smartphone-only falls into high single digits.
• Student effect: The presence of IUP lifts overall smartphone penetration and mobile‑first usage compared with demographically similar rural counties without a campus.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• 4G/LTE: Near-universal along primary corridors and population centers; outdoor coverage from at least one national carrier (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon) reaches the vast majority of residents. Indoor reliability drops in wooded valleys and older, larger-footprint homes common outside the boroughs.
• 5G availability:
  • Population coverage: strong in Indiana Borough, White Township, Homer City, and along US‑422/US‑119; countywide population coverage by at least one carrier is high but trails the statewide norm.
  • Land-area coverage: patchy outside towns; much of the county still operates primarily on LTE. Practical 5G mid‑band capacity is concentrated in and around the boroughs.
  • Compared with PA: Indiana County’s multi-carrier 5G availability and redundancy are lower than the state average; Pennsylvania’s large metros drive higher statewide 5G coverage and capacity.
• Capacity and backhaul: Macro sites cluster along major highways and near towns, with wider site spacing in rural townships. Fiber backhaul is robust in town and along primary routes; microwave backhaul and longer site spacing in rural areas contribute to peak-time LTE congestion and lower median speeds outside population centers.
• Fixed-wireless interplay: 5G Home/4G fixed wireless is available in and near population centers and fills gaps where cable/DSL are limited, reinforcing mobile-first behavior. Rural availability is inconsistent compared with statewide.
• Public Wi‑Fi and campus networks: University and municipal Wi‑Fi reduce out‑of‑home data costs for students, indirectly lifting smartphone-only household rates in nearby rental markets.

How Indiana County differs from Pennsylvania overall

• Higher mobile dependence: Smartphone-only households are several points higher than the state, reflecting both student-driven mobile-first usage and rural wired gaps.
• Wider urban–rural performance gap: Outside towns, users are more likely to rely on LTE with weaker indoor signal and lower capacity than typical suburban/metro PA users who see broader mid‑band 5G.
• Older adults lag further: Senior smartphone adoption is a few points lower than the statewide senior average, widening the county’s age-based digital divide.
• Fixed broadband subscription rates are lower, and “no subscription” households are higher than statewide, pushing more residents to rely on mobile for primary connectivity.

Methodological notes and sources

• Figures synthesize U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Census; 2023 population estimates), American Community Survey S2801 (2022–2023) on devices/subscriptions, FCC National Broadband Map (2023–2024) for coverage patterns, and Pew Research Center (2023–2024) for adult mobile/smartphone adoption, adjusted to Indiana County’s age mix and campus profile. All statistics are county-level estimates calibrated to those sources to emphasize differences from Pennsylvania’s statewide averages.

Indiana County, PA — social media usage snapshot (2025)

Baseline population and reach

• Population: ~82,500 (2023 estimate). Adults (18+): ~66,800.
• Overall reach: At least 83% of adults use a major social platform (YouTube alone reaches ~83% of U.S. adults), implying ≥55,000 adults locally are on social media. Actual reach across any platform is likely higher due to multi-platform use.

Most-used platforms among adults (U.S. adoption rates applied to Indiana County’s adult base; counts are estimates and overlap)

• YouTube: 83% → ~55,400 adults
• Facebook: 68% → ~45,400
• Instagram: 47% → ~31,400
• Pinterest: 35% → ~23,400
• TikTok: 33% → ~22,000
• Snapchat: 30% → ~20,000
• LinkedIn: 30% → ~20,000
• X (Twitter): 22% → ~14,700
• Reddit: 22% → ~14,700
• WhatsApp: 21% → ~14,000
• Nextdoor: 20% → ~13,400

Age-group usage patterns (Pew national benchmarks; applies directionally to the county, which skews younger around Indiana Borough/IUP)

• Ages 18–29: YouTube ~93%, Instagram ~78%, Snapchat ~65%, TikTok ~62%, Facebook ~53%. Highly video- and messaging-centric; heavy Stories/Reels and short-form video.
• Ages 30–49: YouTube ~92%, Facebook ~77%, Instagram ~55%, TikTok ~39%, LinkedIn ~37%, Pinterest ~40%. Mix of family/community updates, how-to video, and shopping discovery.
• Ages 50–64: Facebook ~73%, YouTube ~83%, Pinterest ~36%, Instagram ~29%, TikTok ~24%. Community news, local services, health, DIY and home content.
• Ages 65+: Facebook ~49%, YouTube ~60%, Instagram ~15%, TikTok ~11%. Emphasis on local updates, public services, churches, health info.

Gender breakdown

• County population is roughly balanced by sex (about 50% female, 50% male).
• Platform skews (national patterns reflected locally):
  • Pinterest is strongly female (about 50% of women vs ~18% of men use it).
  • Reddit and X skew male; LinkedIn slightly male-leaning.
  • Facebook and Instagram are near-balanced, with Facebook modestly female-leaning and Instagram slightly younger-female leaning.

Behavioral trends observed/expected locally

• Facebook is the community backbone: borough/county updates, school districts, volunteer fire departments, churches, yard-sale and buy/sell groups, lost-and-found pets, high-school and IUP sports. Facebook Marketplace is a primary local commerce channel.
• College gravity (IUP) lifts TikTok/Snapchat/Instagram: student orgs, nightlife, dining specials, athletics, housing, and event discovery run through short video and Stories. Peak engagement typically evenings and weekends.
• Video is the default: YouTube for long-form (local meetings/streams, how-tos); TikTok/Reels/Shorts for discovery and local personality-driven content.
• Local businesses: rely on Facebook Pages + IG for updates and promos; many use radius-targeted ads. Restaurants and boutiques see strong ROI from IG Reels/TikTok; service providers and healthcare do well with Facebook Groups and informational YouTube.
• Information flow during weather and emergencies: fastest on Facebook (department pages/groups) and X for media/alerts; cross-posting to Instagram Stories is common.
• Neighborhood/nextdoor-style chatter: Nextdoor exists but adoption is patchier outside denser borough neighborhoods; Facebook Groups often substitute for neighborhood forums.
• Messaging ecosystems: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous; WhatsApp usage clusters among international students and some professional communities.

Notes on method and sources

• Counts are modeled by applying Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. adult platform-use percentages to the U.S. Census Bureau 2023 adult population estimate for Indiana County. Platform counts overlap because people use multiple platforms.
• Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2023 Population Estimates for Indiana County, PA); Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (adult adoption by platform, age, and gender).