Perry County

Key demographics — Perry County, Pennsylvania

Population size

• Total population (2020 Census): 45,842

Age

• Median age (ACS 2019–2023): ~44 years
• Under 18: ~21%
• 65 and over: ~20%

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2019–2023)

• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~94–95%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~0.3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.2%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2%

Household data (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~17,800
• Average household size: ~2.55–2.60
• Owner-occupied housing unit rate: ~80%
• Married-couple households: ~55%
• Households with children under 18: ~28%

Insights

• Older-than-national age profile, with about one in five residents 65+.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White population with small minority and Hispanic shares.
• High homeownership and predominance of married-couple households typical of rural Pennsylvania.

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

• Population context: Perry County has about 45.5k residents and a population density near 83 people per sq. mile (2020 Census), making it a sparsely populated, largely rural county within the Harrisburg–Carlisle metro.

• Estimated email users: ~34,500 residents use email regularly. Method: apply national email adoption by age (Pew) to local age structure (Census/ACS). Adult users ≈ 32.1k; teens 13–17 add ≈ 2.4k.

• Age distribution of email use (share of each group using email; counts approximate): • 18–29: 95% (5.6k users) • 30–49: 94% (10.7k) • 50–64: 90% (8.2k) • 65+: 82% (7.6k) • Teens 13–17: 88% (2.4k)

• Gender split: Email usage is effectively even by gender and tracks population composition (~50% female, ~50% male), yielding ~17.3k female and ~17.2k male users.

• Digital access trends: Household broadband subscription in rural Pennsylvania counties like Perry typically sits in the low-to-mid 80% range (ACS), implying roughly one in six homes lacks a wireline subscription; smartphone-only internet access is common in a high single-digit to low double-digit share of households. Connectivity concentrates along the US‑11/15 corridor and river towns, with more limited fixed-broadband options and spotty mobile coverage in ridge-and-valley terrain inland.

Perry County, Pennsylvania: mobile usage snapshot and how it differs from state-level patterns

User base and adoption (best-available estimates)

• Population and households: Population roughly 46,000 (2023 estimate), with about 18,000–19,000 households. The county is predominantly rural with low population density.
• Mobile users: Approximately 38,000–41,000 residents use a mobile phone, reflecting near-universal mobile access among working-age adults and teens, but lower uptake among seniors compared with Pennsylvania overall.
• Smartphone users: On the order of 33,000–36,000 residents use smartphones. Smartphone adoption trails the statewide rate by several points, consistent with rural counties where older age structure and income mix dampen top-end device ownership.
• Mobile as primary internet: A noticeably higher share of households rely on cellular data for home internet compared with the Pennsylvania average. This is driven by gaps or cost barriers in fixed broadband in outlying townships.

Demographic factors shaping usage

• Age: The county skews older than the state average, which moderates smartphone and app-based service adoption and leaves a larger-than-average segment on basic or older devices. Younger commuters and families along the Susquehanna corridor show usage closer to statewide norms.
• Income and rurality: More rural, small-town communities and a higher share of trades and outdoor occupations translate into heavier reliance on voice/text and pragmatic app use, with selective uptake of data-intensive services. Cost sensitivity supports more prepaid/MVNO plans than the state average.
• Race/ethnicity and language: The population is predominantly White non-Hispanic, with limited language diversity. This yields less demand for multilingual carrier support and international calling bundles than in urban Pennsylvania counties.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Radio access: 4G LTE coverage from national carriers is strong along the main corridors (US 11/15, US 22/322, PA 34, and borough centers). Coverage becomes spotty in the interior valleys and forested ridge lines, producing localized dead zones and speed variability that are more pronounced than statewide patterns.
• 5G footprint: Low-band 5G reaches the river corridor and larger borough areas, but mid-band 5G capacity remains limited outside the main highways. As a result, median 5G speeds and availability trail Pennsylvania’s urban/suburban counties.
• Backhaul and capacity: Fiber-fed sites are concentrated near the river towns and along major routes; more remote sites rely on longer fiber laterals or microwave, constraining peak-hour capacity. This contributes to greater performance swings by location and time of day than the statewide average.
• Fixed broadband interplay: Because cable/fiber buildout is thinner than in metro counties, mobile broadband (hotspots and phone tethering) is used as a primary or backup connection more often than the Pennsylvania average, especially in western and northern townships.

Trends that diverge from Pennsylvania overall

• Adoption gap at the margins: Core mobile adoption is widespread, but smartphone penetration and 5G utilization are several points lower than the state average due to age mix, terrain, and fixed-network alternatives.
• Higher cellular dependence for home access: A larger slice of households uses cellular data as their main or fallback internet, reflecting fewer fixed gigabit options than in most Pennsylvania counties.
• Coverage variability: Service quality varies sharply with topography—good along highways and boroughs, weaker in hollows and ridge shadows—whereas Pennsylvania’s urban/suburban counties exhibit more uniform performance.
• Plan mix and spend: Prepaid and MVNO plans command a higher share than the state norm, indicating price-sensitive adoption and lower average revenue per user, with careful data budgeting.
• Device lifecycle: Longer device replacement cycles than the state average, driven by cost and coverage considerations; this keeps a higher share of users on older LTE-only handsets.

Implications

• Network build priorities that add mid-band 5G and backhaul to existing rural sites will yield outsized gains versus current experience.
• Programs that bundle affordable fixed wireless access in hard-to-serve areas match local needs, given the above-average cellular reliance for home internet.
• Digital equity work that targets seniors with device upgrades and training would close much of the remaining usage gap relative to statewide levels.

Perry County, PA social media snapshot (2025)

Population context

• Rural county with an older age profile; internet and smartphone access are widespread but slightly below national urban levels.
• Internet access (home broadband or mobile data): 85–88% of households.
• Smartphone adoption (adults): 83–86%.

Overall social media reach

• Residents 13+: 84–87% use at least one social platform.
• Adults 18+: 81–84%.
• Adults 65+: 60–65%.

Most‑used platforms in Perry County (adults 18+)

• YouTube: 79–82%
• Facebook: 66–69%
• Instagram: 30–33%
• TikTok: 23–26%
• Pinterest: 25–28%
• Snapchat: 20–22%
• X (Twitter): 14–17%
• LinkedIn: 10–13%
• Reddit: 9–12%

Teens (13–17) platform use

• YouTube: ~93%
• TikTok: ~60–65%
• Snapchat: ~60–65%
• Instagram: ~55–60%
• Facebook: ~30–35%

Age-group patterns (adults)

• 18–29: Very high multi‑platform use; YouTube ~93%, Instagram ~75–80%, Snapchat ~60–65%, TikTok ~55–65%, Facebook ~60–70%.
• 30–49: Heavy YouTube and Facebook; Instagram ~45–55%, TikTok ~30–40%, Snapchat ~25–30%.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram ~25–35%, TikTok ~15–25%.
• 65+: Facebook ~50–60%, YouTube ~50–55%; limited Instagram/TikTok (<15–20%).

Gender breakdown (adults)

• Women: Facebook 72–74%, Instagram 34–37%, Pinterest 41–45%, TikTok 26–29%, YouTube 74–78%, X 12–15%, Reddit 7–10%.
• Men: YouTube 84–86%, Facebook 61–64%, Instagram 26–29%, TikTok 20–23%, Reddit 12–15%, X 16–19%, Pinterest 10–13%.

Behavioral trends

• Facebook as the community hub: High engagement in local Groups and Pages for township updates, school districts, churches, youth sports, volunteer fire companies, yard sales, and lost/found pets. Facebook Events drive attendance for fairs and community fundraisers.
• Video‑first consumption: YouTube and Facebook video are primary across ages; short‑form (Reels/TikTok) gains among under‑35 for local sports highlights, outdoor/recreational content, and DIY.
• Messaging split: Facebook Messenger is the default for adults; Snapchat dominates teen peer communication. WhatsApp usage is modest.
• Timing: Engagement peaks on weekday evenings (6–9 pm) and weekend late mornings/early afternoons; weather alerts and road conditions spike engagement at any time.
• Trust dynamics: Posts from known local institutions, schools, emergency services, and established community admins earn higher interaction and shares; rumor‑control posts from those entities get strong reach.
• Commerce and services: Buy/sell/swap Facebook groups see steady activity; local service providers (home repair, landscaping, auto, healthcare) perform best with geotargeted Facebook/Instagram ads within 10–20 miles and call/DM CTAs.
• Youth patterns: Teens favor Snapchat/TikTok for daily socializing; Instagram for team/club updates; Facebook primarily for family or event info.
• Rural constraint effects: Pockets with weaker broadband lean more on mobile‑friendly formats; shorter videos and image posts outperform long streams.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are localized estimates derived from Pew Research national platform usage (2023–2024), rural vs. urban differentials, and Perry County’s age/gender profile from recent ACS/Census data. Percentages reflect adult or teen cohorts as labeled.