Ziebach County

Ziebach County, South Dakota — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau)

Population size

• 2,413 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: 26–27 years (very young population)
• Age distribution (2020): under 18: ~36%; 18–64: ~57%; 65+: ~7%

Sex

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity (2020 Census; race alone unless noted; Hispanic is of any race)

• American Indian and Alaska Native: ~75–77%
• White: ~19–21%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Black or African American, Asian, NH/PI, Some other race: each ~1% or less
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~3–5%

Households (ACS 5-year, most recent pre-2024)

• Households: ~650–700
• Average household size: ~3.5–3.8
• Family households: ~75–80% of households
• Married-couple households: ~30%
• Households with own children under 18: ~45–55%

Insights

• Small, entirely rural county with a predominantly American Indian population and one of the youngest age profiles in South Dakota.
• Larger-than-average household sizes and a high share of family households are consistent with reservation-based counties.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 5-year estimates (latest available).

Ziebach County, SD snapshot (2025):

• Population: 2,413 (2020 Census); land area ≈1,970 sq mi; density ≈1.2 people/sq mi; entirely rural and largely within the Cheyenne River Reservation.
• Estimated email users: ~1,250 residents maintain at least one active email account (method: adult population × local internet adoption using ACS broadband/smartphone access and Pew email-use rates).
• Age distribution of email users (share of users): 18–34: ~32%; 35–64: ~53%; 65+: ~15% (lower senior share reflects limited broadband and lower adoption among elders).
• Gender split among users: roughly even (≈51% male, 49% female), mirroring the county’s overall sex ratio.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Broadband subscription: about three-fifths of households (significantly below South Dakota’s statewide rate in the mid‑80s); steady gains since 2015 but still a sizable affordability and infrastructure gap.
  • Device access: most households have a computer or smartphone; reliance on smartphone‑only internet is elevated (~15–20%), which supports email use but constrains heavy attachments and multitasking.
  • Connectivity context: extremely low density raises last‑mile costs; many homes depend on fixed wireless and cellular. Public anchors (schools, libraries, tribal facilities) are important access points, and ongoing tribal telco/fiber projects are improving reliability, though adoption still lags state averages.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Ziebach County, South Dakota

Scope note: County-level mobile usage is not directly surveyed; figures below combine hard counts (U.S. Census/ACS, FCC) with conservative, method-based estimates derived from rural/tribal adoption patterns and statewide benchmarks to provide actionable, county-specific insights.

Population and demographics

• Population: 2,413 (2020 Census), spread across roughly 1,970 square miles (about 1.2 persons per square mile).
• Demographic makeup: Majority American Indian/Alaska Native (roughly three-quarters), with most residents on or adjacent to the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation; White non-Hispanic residents comprise about one-fifth. The population is younger than the state overall, with a larger share under age 18.
• Household economics: Among the lowest-income counties in the state, with higher poverty and lower home broadband subscription than the South Dakota average. These conditions materially increase reliance on mobile connectivity.

User estimates (people, not lines)

• Adults (18+): roughly 1,550–1,650.
• Smartphone users: approximately 1,250–1,450 adults (about 80–88% of adults), below or at the low end of the South Dakota range but above many similarly remote Plains counties due to mobile-first/only reliance.
• Mobile-only internet households: materially higher than the state average. Given low fixed-broadband adoption locally and typical rural/tribal patterns, an estimated 30–40% of households rely primarily or exclusively on mobile data for home internet (vs roughly one-fifth statewide).

Usage patterns that differ from the South Dakota average

• Heavier mobile dependence for primary internet: A larger share of residents rely on smartphones and hotspotting for everyday connectivity (banking, school portals, telehealth) compared with the state overall.
• More prepaid and shared plans: Price sensitivity and credit constraints push usage toward prepaid and shared family plans more than in metro South Dakota.
• Younger user base, but uneven device access: A relatively young population raises potential smartphone penetration, yet affordability and coverage gaps create more device- and plan-sharing than the state norm.
• Lower effective performance: Typical real-world speeds and indoor reliability lag the state median, especially away from highways and town centers.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Networks present: All three national carriers operate in and around the county; FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) coverage is corridor-focused. Tribal and regional providers (e.g., Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority) anchor fixed and middle‑mile services.
• Technology mix:
  • 4G LTE is the primary workhorse countywide, with usable outdoor coverage along US‑212, SD‑65, and SD‑73 and around communities like Dupree and Cherry Creek.
  • 5G low‑band is present only in limited pockets; mid‑band 5G (n41/n77–n78) that drives state‑level speeds in cities is sparse to absent in Ziebach. Result: the county’s median mobile speeds are well below statewide medians.
• Performance reality: In-town and highway corridor speeds commonly fall in the 5–25 Mbps range with higher variability and higher latency than the South Dakota median (which is shaped by 5G mid‑band in Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and regional hubs). Off‑corridor performance can drop below 5 Mbps or to voice/SMS only.
• Cell sites and backhaul: Very low site density for a county its size (a small number of macro sites cover large sectors). Backhaul is a mix of microwave and limited fiber; new fiber/middle‑mile projects tied to federal and tribal programs are the main lever for future mobile upgrades.
• Coverage gaps: Notable dead zones persist in river breaks, draws, and low‑density ranch areas; indoor coverage can be marginal in metal‑roof structures away from towns.

Adoption and affordability context

• Mobile adoption is constrained less by interest than by cost and coverage. Where fixed broadband is absent or unaffordable, residents prioritize mobile service but may throttle usage to control costs.
• The lapse of the Affordable Connectivity Program in 2024 increased price pressure, likely nudging more households toward prepaid and lower‑cap plans or shared service, widening the performance gap with the state average.

What this means relative to South Dakota overall

• More mobile‑only, fewer fixed alternatives: Ziebach residents are notably more dependent on mobile for primary internet use than the state average.
• Slower speeds and less 5G mid‑band: State performance gains from mid‑band 5G are not yet realized in much of Ziebach, depressing typical user experience.
• Coverage is corridor‑centric: Reliable service is tied to highways and towns; off‑corridor reliability lags state norms.
• Demographic and economic profile amplifies reliance on prepaid/mobile: Younger, lower‑income, majority‑Native communities lean into mobile solutions but face affordability and indoor coverage barriers that are less acute in much of the state.

Key takeaways

• Estimated 1.25k–1.45k adult smartphone users countywide, with 30–40% of households likely mobile‑primary for home internet.
• 4G LTE is prevalent along main corridors; 5G is limited and mostly low‑band, keeping median speeds well below state norms.
• Infrastructure constraints (low site density, limited fiber backhaul) and affordability issues drive a distinct, mobile‑first usage pattern that differs markedly from the South Dakota average.

Ziebach County, SD social media snapshot (best-available, modeled estimates as of 2024 using recent Census/ACS demographics, rural adjustments, and national platform adoption; percentages rounded)

Overall usage

• Social media penetration (residents 13+): 78–85%
• Daily active social users (13+): 55–62% of residents
• Primary access: mobile-first; >80% of social sessions occur on smartphones; fixed broadband access is limited, so Wi‑Fi hotspots (homes, schools, tribal/community centers) matter for video

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+ using monthly)

• YouTube: 72–78%
• Facebook: 60–66%
• Facebook Messenger: 55–61%
• TikTok: 35–41% (higher among under 30)
• Instagram: 30–36%
• Snapchat: 30–35% (concentrated among teens/young adults)
• Pinterest: 18–22% (skews female)
• X (Twitter): 8–12%
• Reddit: 6–9%
• WhatsApp: 7–10% Note: Facebook Groups and Facebook Live are disproportionately important locally relative to national averages.

Age-group usage patterns (share of each age group using any social media; key platform skews)

• Ages 13–17: 93–97%; YouTube 90%+, TikTok ~80%, Snapchat ~78%, Instagram ~58%, Facebook ~30%
• Ages 18–24: 92–96%; YouTube 90%+, TikTok ~72%, Snapchat ~68%, Instagram ~62%, Facebook ~52%
• Ages 25–34: 88–92%; YouTube ~90%, Facebook ~68%, Instagram ~56%, TikTok ~52%, Snapchat ~42%
• Ages 35–49: 82–88%; Facebook ~76%, YouTube ~85%, Instagram ~38%, TikTok ~32%
• Ages 50–64: 72–80%; Facebook ~80%, YouTube ~76%, Instagram ~22%, TikTok ~18%
• Ages 65+: 55–62%; Facebook ~72%, YouTube ~62%, Instagram ~10–12%

Gender breakdown (approximate among social media users)

• Female: 50–55% of social users; over-index on Facebook (+5–8 pp vs men), Instagram (+3–5 pp), Pinterest (female 14–18% vs male 5–7%)
• Male: 45–50% of social users; over-index on YouTube (+5–10 pp vs women), Reddit (6–8% vs 2–3%), X/Twitter (10–12% vs 6–8%)

Behavioral trends

• Community-first Facebook usage: Local news, school sports, tribal/government updates, mutual aid, event coordination, and buy/sell groups primarily run through Facebook Pages/Groups; Facebook Live widely used for events.
• Messaging dominance: Messenger (family/kin networks) and Snapchat (younger users) are primary communication channels; group chats drive repeat daily engagement.
• Short-form video growth: TikTok and Facebook/Instagram Reels are rising for entertainment and local storytelling; creators often cross-post the same clips.
• Mobile bandwidth economizing: Users favor compressed short video and off-peak viewing due to limited home broadband and data caps; YouTube watched more when Wi‑Fi is available.
• Trust and virality dynamics: Posts from known local institutions, schools, and community leaders see higher trust and share rates than national sources; information spreads rapidly within kinship networks.
• Temporal patterns: Evening (7–10 pm) and weekend activity peaks; winter months show higher scrolling and video watch time.
• Discovery vs utility split: YouTube/TikTok for entertainment and discovery; Facebook/Groups for practical, hyperlocal info; Messenger/Snapchat for coordination; Instagram used more by under‑35s for creators and visual culture.

Data confidence notes

• Ziebach County’s small population and limited public county-level panels mean figures are modeled from national/rural benchmarks and Native-majority community patterns; treat estimates as directional with a moderate margin of error.