Castro County

Here are key, high-level demographics for Castro County, Texas. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates).

Population

• Total population: 7,371 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: about 30 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Age distribution: ~32% under 18; ~57% 18–64; ~11% 65+

Sex

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48%

Race and ethnicity (Hispanic is of any race; categories are mutually exclusive)

• Hispanic or Latino: ~87%
• Non-Hispanic White: ~11%
• Non-Hispanic Black: ~1%
• Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Two or more: each ~1% or less

Households

• Number of households: ~2,200
• Average household size: ~3.3 persons
• Average family size: ~3.9 persons
• Family households: ~75–80% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~45%

Notes: Figures are estimates from the ACS 2019–2023 5-year release (except total population from the 2020 Census). Rounding may cause totals to vary slightly.

Castro County, TX snapshot (estimates)

• Population/density: 7.3K residents across ~900 sq mi (8 people/sq mi); small towns (Dimmitt, Hart, Nazareth) with vast rural areas.
• Estimated email users: 4.5K–5.5K residents use email at least monthly (driven by adult internet access and high national email adoption).
• Age pattern (share using email):
  • 18–34: ~90–95%
  • 35–64: ~90–95%
  • 65+: ~60–75% (lower due to access and adoption gaps)
• Gender split among users: roughly even (≈50/50).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household internet/broadband subscription is typical of rural Texas, roughly 70–80%; many households rely on smartphones for access.
  • Mobile-only internet users likely 15–25% of adults; public Wi‑Fi (schools, libraries, city facilities) supplements home access.
  • Best fixed connections cluster in town centers; outlying farms/ranches more often use fixed wireless or satellite.
  • Affordability remains a constraint after federal subsidy changes; new state/federal builds (e.g., fiber under BEAD) are expanding but uneven.

Notes: Figures are derived from county population, ACS-style rural broadband patterns, and national email adoption rates; ranges reflect rural variability.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Castro County, Texas

Big picture

• Small, rural, majority-Hispanic county with lower household incomes than Texas overall. Those factors translate into very high reliance on mobile phones for connectivity, but with more prepaid/MVNO use and more “mobile-only” internet households than the state average.

User estimates

• Residents: roughly 7.3–7.5k people; about 5.0–5.5k adults.
• Adult smartphone users: approximately 4.2–4.8k (roughly mid–80s to low–90s percent ownership, a bit below large-metro Texas but in line with rural/Hispanic patterns).
• Mobile-only internet users: elevated. An estimated 20–28% of households rely primarily or solely on cellular data for home internet (vs roughly low–teens statewide), translating to about 450–650 households.
• Households with no home internet subscription: likely 18–25% (vs ~10% statewide), which further pushes day-to-day reliance onto smartphones and hotspots.

Demographic usage patterns

• Ethnicity/language: Hispanic/Latino majority. Higher Spanish-first or bilingual usage correlates with strong adoption of WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube, and Spanish-language content/apps. This differs from statewide trends mainly in the intensity of WhatsApp use and the share of plans purchased through value/prepaid channels.
• Age: A relatively young population share means high smartphone penetration among teens and young adults; older adults are less connected than the Texas average, maintaining a larger gap by age.
• Income/plan type: Lower median household income drives:
  • More prepaid and MVNO plans (Cricket, Metro, Boost, Straight Talk, etc.) versus postpaid carrier plans.
  • Tighter data caps and heavier use of tethering/hotspots to substitute for home broadband.
  • More device longevity/repair and slower upgrade cycles than the state average.
• Digital inclusion: With the Affordable Connectivity Program winding down in 2024, more households appear to have shifted toward mobile-only setups or downgraded fixed service, a shift that is more pronounced here than in metro Texas.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage: All three nationwide carriers are present. Coverage is strongest in and near towns and along main corridors, with noticeable gaps at farm/ranch distances between towns—more so than in most Texas counties.
• 5G: Low-band 5G covers most populated areas; mid-band 5G capacity (which delivers higher speeds) is spottier than in metro Texas. Users frequently fall back to LTE in outlying areas.
• Capacity and speeds: Fewer macro sites per square mile than urban Texas means more variable capacity and indoor performance. Peak speeds are lower and less consistent than statewide norms, particularly away from town centers.
• Backhaul: Macro sites mix fiber-fed and microwave backhaul. Where only microwave is available, peak speeds and resilience during storms or power events lag metro standards.
• Redundancy/power: Rural towers typically have limited backup power compared with urban Texas; extended outages after severe weather are more impactful on mobile connectivity.
• Complementary fixed options: Fiber-to-the-home is limited outside town centers; fixed wireless ISPs and legacy DSL fill in. Where those are weak or unavailable, households lean harder on mobile service.

How Castro County differs most from Texas overall

• Higher share of mobile-only households and smartphone-dependent internet use.
• Greater reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and Spanish-language apps/services.
• More variable coverage and lower mid-band 5G capacity, especially between towns.
• Larger age and income “digital gap,” with older and lower-income residents less connected than the Texas average.
• Post-ACP affordability shock appears stronger, pushing additional households onto mobile-only connectivity.

Notes on method and uncertainty

• Estimates synthesize recent ACS 5-year county demographics, rural vs. statewide smartphone adoption patterns from national surveys, and typical rural Texas network deployment characteristics. Small-county margins of error are larger than for the state; figures are best read as ranges and directional differences rather than precise counts.

Below is a concise, best-available snapshot for Castro County, TX. True county-level platform stats aren’t published; figures are estimates derived from Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. social media adoption, rural-user patterns, and Castro County’s demographics (majority Hispanic/Latino) applied to a county population of roughly 7.5k.

Headline snapshot

• Estimated monthly social media users: ~4.2k–4.8k (roughly 60–75% of residents; 75–85% of ages 13+)
• Usage is mobile-first; bilingual (English/Spanish) content performs best; Facebook and YouTube dominate for community info.

Age mix of local social users (estimated share of social user base)

• 13–17: ~10–12% (heavy on Snapchat/TikTok; minimal Facebook posting)
• 18–29: ~18–22% (Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; YouTube universal)
• 30–49: ~32–36% (Facebook, Messenger, YouTube; growing Instagram/TikTok for short video)
• 50–64: ~20–24% (Facebook, YouTube; some Pinterest)
• 65+: ~12–16% (Facebook, YouTube; lower multi-platform use)

Gender breakdown (social user base)

• Roughly even: ~49–51% male and ~49–51% female
• Women over-index on Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest; men on YouTube/Reddit/X

Most-used platforms in Castro County (share of local social media users; estimates)

• YouTube: 85–90%
• Facebook: 70–78%
• Facebook Messenger: 65–75%
• Instagram: 40–48% (higher among 18–39; used by small businesses)
• TikTok: 35–42% (strong with under-35; short-form local content)
• Snapchat: 32–38% (teens/young adults; private-by-default communication)
• WhatsApp: 30–40% (elevated by Hispanic/Latino households and extended-family comms)
• Pinterest: 18–25% (women 25–54)
• X (Twitter): 15–20% (news/sports niche)
• LinkedIn/Reddit/Nextdoor combined: mostly niche (5–15% each; Nextdoor coverage limited)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: Facebook Groups/pages are the hub for school sports, FFA/4-H, churches, city/county notices, buy–sell–trade, and severe weather updates.
• Language and family networks: More bilingual posts perform better; WhatsApp group chats connect extended families and church circles.
• Short-form video growth: Reels/TikTok clips (15–45 sec) drive reach for local businesses, events, and ag-related tips; cross-posting to Facebook Reels boosts older-audience exposure.
• Trust and recommendations: Word-of-mouth in Facebook Groups outperforms ads; UGC and testimonials matter.
• Timing: Highest engagement evenings (8–10 pm) and weekends; school-calendar events spike activity.
• Youth patterns: Teens favor Snapchat for messaging and TikTok for entertainment; they consume local info passively via parents’ Facebook feeds.
• Older users: Facebook is the default for news, obituaries, church and civic updates; YouTube for how-to and ag equipment content.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are modeled from national/rural adoption patterns (Pew Research Center 2024; The Infinite Dial 2024; DataReportal 2024) scaled to Castro County’s size and Hispanic-majority profile. Treat percentages as directional estimates rather than official counts.