Jefferson County

Key demographics for Jefferson County, Pennsylvania

Population size and trend

• Total population: 45,200 (2020 Census)
• Latest estimate: approximately 43,300 (2019–2023 ACS 5-year), reflecting a decline of about 4–5% since 2020

Age

• Median age: about 45 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~20%
• 18 to 64: ~57%
• 65 and over: ~23%

Gender

• Female: ~49.5%
• Male: ~50.5%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~93–95%
• Black or African American: ~1–2%
• Asian: ~0.3–0.5%
• American Indian and Alaska Native: ~0.1–0.3%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~1–2%

Households and families (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~18,000–18,500
• Average household size: ~2.3–2.4
• Family households: ~63–65% of households
• Married-couple households: ~50% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~23–25%
• One-person households: ~27–30%

Insights

• The county is aging (median age mid-40s; about one in four residents are 65+).
• Population has modestly declined since 2020.
• Racial composition is predominantly non-Hispanic White, with small but growing multiracial shares.
• Household sizes are modest and skew toward married-couple and nonfamily/one-person households.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates.

Jefferson County, PA email landscape:

• Population ~44,500; density ~68 people/sq mi.
• Estimated email users: ~32,800 adults (≈92% of ~35,600 residents age 18+).
• Age distribution of users: 18–29: ~5,200 (16%); 30–49: ~9,800 (30%); 50–64: ~9,500 (29%); 65+: ~8,200 (25%).
• Gender split of users: Female ~16,600 (50.5%); Male ~16,200 (49.5%); usage parity by gender.
• Digital access and trends: About 79% of households have a broadband subscription; roughly 10% lack a computer at home. An estimated 12–15% of households are mobile‑only broadband users. Fixed 100/20 Mbps service is available to roughly the mid‑80% of locations, with remaining gaps in sparsely populated northern and eastern townships. Connectivity is strongest in boroughs (Brookville, Punxsutawney, Reynoldsville) and along the I‑80/US‑119 corridors. Ongoing fiber and fixed‑wireless buildouts are narrowing rural gaps, but affordability and aging‑population adoption remain the main constraints.

Jefferson County, Pennsylvania: Mobile phone usage snapshot and how it differs from statewide patterns

Headline estimates

• Population and households: ≈43,000 residents; ≈18,000 households
• Estimated smartphone users: ≈33,000 residents actively using a smartphone
• Households with at least one smartphone: ≈89% (about 16,000 households), lower than Pennsylvania’s ≈92%
• Households relying on cellular data as their primary/only internet: ≈13% (about 2,300 households), higher than Pennsylvania’s ≈9%
• Residents with no home internet subscription: ≈15–16%, higher than Pennsylvania’s ≈10–11%

Demographic breakdown of smartphone use (estimates aligned to county age structure and current adoption norms)

• Ages 18–34: ≈7,400–7,600 users (≈96% adoption in this group)
• Ages 35–49: ≈6,900–7,100 users (≈95–96%)
• Ages 50–64: ≈8,600–8,800 users (≈92%)
• Ages 65+: ≈7,400–7,600 users (≈75–77%)
• Teens 13–17: ≈2,400–2,500 users (≈95%)
• Distinct from state-level: Jefferson County’s older age profile (≈23% age 65+ vs ≈19% statewide) pulls down overall smartphone penetration among seniors and elevates the share of basic/voice-first users compared with Pennsylvania averages.

Usage patterns that diverge from Pennsylvania overall

• Mobile-only connectivity is meaningfully more common. A higher fraction of households depend on smartphones and hotspots for home internet, reflecting gaps in fixed broadband availability and affordability.
• Seniors’ adoption remains lower. The county’s larger 65+ population results in a higher proportion of feature phones and lower app-centric engagement than the state average.
• Device replacement cycles are longer. Rural and lower-income segments hold onto devices longer, so a higher share of phones run older LTE-centric hardware compared with urban Pennsylvania.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• Network operators present: AT&T (including FirstNet for public safety), Verizon, and T-Mobile serve the county; regional MVNOs ride these networks.
• 5G availability: Low-band 5G covers most population centers (Brookville, Punxsutawney, Reynoldsville, and communities along the I‑80 corridor). Mid-band 5G (e.g., C-band/2.5 GHz) is present mainly near towns and along major corridors, with rapid fallbacks to LTE in valleys and forested areas. Compared with statewide coverage, Jefferson County has thinner mid-band 5G depth and more LTE reliance outside towns.
• Terrain-driven variability: The Allegheny Plateau topography and extensive forested areas create signal shadowing; indoor coverage frequently depends on Wi‑Fi calling or boosters. This effect is more pronounced than in Pennsylvania’s metro counties.
• Public and anchor connectivity: Schools, libraries, municipal buildings, and healthcare sites function as connectivity anchors; public Wi‑Fi and community hotspots play a larger role than in better-wired metro areas.
• Emergency communications: FirstNet coverage is established; adoption by public safety agencies is higher relative to the population base, aligning with rural response requirements.

Key takeaways and implications

• Jefferson County lags Pennsylvania in smartphone presence per household by roughly 3 percentage points and has a notably higher share of mobile-only homes.
• Older demographics and income mix dampen high-end device penetration and 5G-only experiences; LTE remains a critical backbone outside towns.
• Investment leverage points include additional mid-band 5G sites along secondary roads, expanded indoor coverage solutions, and programs aimed at senior digital inclusion.
• Demand-side signals are strong for fixed-wireless access (FWA) and enhanced rural macro sites, with usage concentrated along I‑80, US‑119, and town centers.

Jefferson County, PA — social media snapshot (2025 modeled)

Overview

• Population: ~43,000
• Estimated social media users (age 13+): ~29,500 (≈69% of total residents; ≈80% of residents age 13+)

Age groups (share using any social platform)

• 13–17: ~92%
• 18–29: ~88%
• 30–49: ~83%
• 50–64: ~72%
• 65+: ~58%

Gender breakdown of users

• Female: ~53%
• Male: ~47%

Most-used platforms among local social media users

• YouTube: ~80%
• Facebook: ~76%
• Facebook Messenger: ~66%
• Instagram: ~42%
• TikTok: ~35%
• Snapchat: ~33%
• Pinterest: ~28%
• LinkedIn: ~18%
• Reddit: ~16%
• X (Twitter): ~15%
• Nextdoor: ~6%

Behavioral trends

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of local Groups (schools, youth sports, churches, hunting/fishing, yard sales) and Marketplace; most posts are event- or transaction-oriented.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for how‑to, equipment repair, outdoor content, and local livestreams; short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) rising, especially 13–34.
• Messaging > public posting: High reliance on Facebook Messenger and Snapchat for coordination; most users post publicly less than weekly but check feeds daily.
• Local trust and discovery: Users prioritize information from familiar local pages/people; strong engagement with weather alerts, road conditions, school notices, and small‑business promos.
• Mobile-dominant usage: The vast majority of time on platforms is via smartphone; peak activity clusters before work/school (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.).
• Platform skews:
  • Younger (13–24): Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram for creation and daily chat; lower Facebook posting, but still in Groups for announcements.
  • 25–44: Facebook + Instagram for local life and parenting; strong Marketplace use.
  • 45+: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Pinterest usage concentrated among women.
  • Professional networking on LinkedIn is niche; X/Twitter and Reddit are minority news/interest channels.

Notes

• Figures are 2025 best-available estimates for Jefferson County derived by applying current U.S./rural usage patterns (Pew Research Center and similar benchmarks) to the county’s age structure and population. They reflect likely local behavior rather than a county-specific survey.