Deaf Smith County Local Demographic Profile

Key demographics for Deaf Smith County, Texas

Population size

  • 18,583 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

  • Median age: ~31 years (ACS 2018–2022)
  • Under 18: ~32%
  • 18 to 64: ~57%
  • 65 and over: ~11%

Gender

  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (Hispanic can be any race; ACS 2018–2022)

  • Hispanic/Latino: ~79–80%
  • White alone, non-Hispanic: ~18–19%
  • Black/African American alone: ~1–2%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
  • Asian alone: <1%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~1–2%

Households and housing (ACS 2018–2022)

  • Households: ~6,200
  • Persons per household: ~3.3
  • Family households: ~74% of households
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~65%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates (rounded).

Email Usage in Deaf Smith County

Summary for Deaf Smith County, Texas (estimates)

  • Population and density: ~18–19k residents; ~12 people per square mile. Most residents live in Hereford; outlying ranch/farm areas are very sparse.

  • Email users: 12–14k residents (ages 13+) likely use email. Basis: Pew-reported email adoption of ~90–95% among adults applied to local age mix.

  • Age pattern:

    • 18–49: near-universal email use (≈95%+).
    • 50–64: high (≈90%+).
    • 65+: lower but majority (≈80–85%); more intermittent use.
  • Gender split: Roughly even (minor differences seen nationally).

  • Digital access and trends:

    • Households with internet subscriptions: roughly 78–85%, likely a few points below Texas statewide averages (ACS-like patterns for rural Panhandle counties).
    • Smartphone-only internet: ~10–15% of households.
    • Availability vs use: Fixed broadband is widely available in Hereford; actual high-speed use lags in low-density areas, where DSL, fixed wireless, or mobile hotspots are more common.
    • Ongoing upgrades: State/federal rural broadband programs (including BEAD-era projects) are expanding fiber in 2024–2026, improving reliability and speeds.

Notes: Figures are synthesized from county-level ACS-style connectivity patterns and national email adoption research; they should be treated as informed estimates.

Mobile Phone Usage in Deaf Smith County

Summary of mobile phone usage in Deaf Smith County, Texas (with emphasis on how it differs from Texas overall)

Context and user estimates

  • Population base: About 18–19k residents; roughly 13.5–14.5k are adults. County is majority Hispanic/Latino and largely rural, centered on Hereford.
  • Estimated mobile users: 12,500–14,000 residents use a mobile phone regularly.
    • Method: Applied Pew-like smartphone adoption rates to an estimated adult population and high teen adoption; adjusted downward for rural, lower‐income seniors and upward for youth.
  • Smartphone dependence for internet: Likely 20–30% of residents rely primarily on a smartphone/data plan for home internet (vs roughly mid‑teens statewide), driven by lower fixed‑broadband availability and affordability outside Hereford.

Demographic and behavioral patterns that diverge from Texas averages

  • Language and apps: A higher share of Spanish‑first users than statewide; stronger use of WhatsApp, Facebook, and YouTube for communication and news than in many suburban Texas markets.
  • Income and plans: Lower median household income than the state leads to:
    • Greater reliance on prepaid and budget plans (often family/multi‑line) and bring‑your‑own‑device.
    • Higher Android share than urban Texas markets (price sensitivity), with longer device replacement cycles.
  • Age: Younger working‑age population drives high daily mobile data and messaging use; at the same time, smartphone adoption among seniors lags the Texas average, widening the intra‑county digital gap.
  • Home broadband gap: A larger slice of households lacks wired broadband compared with the state, so more people tether or use mobile hotspots for school/work, especially in outlying farm and ranch areas.
  • Workforce mobility: Agriculture, meat‑processing, and logistics jobs create more shift‑based and on‑the‑move usage, with peak traffic early morning and late evening compared with urban office‑hour peaks.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes (what’s different from the Texas norm)

  • Carrier footprint:
    • All three national carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T‑Mobile) cover Hereford and major corridors (e.g., US‑60/US‑385), but tower density is sparse outside town, so edge‑of‑county coverage is more variable than typical metro Texas counties.
    • 5G: Low‑band 5G is common on highways and in Hereford; mid‑band “ultra‑capacity/5G+” is likely limited to town centers and high‑traffic sites. mmWave is unlikely. This means lower median 5G speeds and more LTE fallback than in Texas metros.
  • Capacity and reliability:
    • Fewer sector/carrier options per site can lead to congestion during school commute windows, events, or plant shift changes, more so than in urban counties with denser small‑cell builds.
    • In fields and feedlots, line‑of‑sight and distance to macro sites cause upload dips and intermittent VoLTE call quality compared with statewide urban performance.
  • Fixed wireless and broadband interplay:
    • T‑Mobile 5G Home and other LTE/5G fixed‑wireless options are often available in town and on some fringes; they fill gaps where cable/DSL is limited. Availability is more constrained than in big‑city Texas due to signal and backhaul.
    • Regional WISPs operating across the Panhandle (e.g., fixed‑wireless providers serving farms and ranches) are more prominent here than in urban Texas, and they complement mobile data use.
    • Wired options are concentrated in Hereford; outside town, residents more often default to cellular data or WISPs, increasing smartphone‑only households relative to state averages.
  • Backhaul and transport:
    • Fiber backhaul tends to follow highways/rail corridors; off‑corridor sites may use longer microwave hops, which can limit upgrade cadence and peak throughput compared with fiber‑dense Texas metros.
  • Public connectivity:
    • Schools, libraries, and community centers in Hereford play a larger role as Wi‑Fi anchors than in most suburban counties, reducing mobile data costs for students and families.

Quantitative guideposts to compare with Texas

  • Overall smartphone ownership: Slightly below the ~90% adult benchmark seen in statewide/US surveys, primarily due to older rural residents.
  • Smartphone‑dependent internet users: Higher (roughly 20–30% locally vs mid‑teens statewide).
  • Prepaid share: Higher than Texas average (often 30–40% of lines locally vs ~20–25% nationally), reflecting price sensitivity and seasonal/migrant users.
  • 5G mid‑band availability and speeds: Lower and more localized than in Texas metros; more LTE/low‑band 5G usage day‑to‑day.

Notes on sources and estimation

  • Estimates synthesize: recent Pew Research smartphone adoption patterns; American Community Survey device/subscription indicators for rural Texas counties; FCC coverage/availability patterns; and known rural Panhandle infrastructure characteristics. Because county‑level mobile metrics are not published uniformly, figures are given as ranges with rationale rather than single‑point claims.

Social Media Trends in Deaf Smith County

Deaf Smith County, TX — social media snapshot (modeled estimates)

Context

  • Population: ~18.5k; residents 13+ ≈ 15k.
  • Access: Predominantly smartphone-first; many mobile-only connections. Spanish and bilingual use is common.

Overall uptake

  • Adults using at least one social platform: ~80–85% (teens ~90%+).

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

  • YouTube: 75–85%
  • Facebook: 60–70%
  • WhatsApp: 40–50% (elevated due to large Hispanic population)
  • Instagram: 35–45%
  • TikTok: 30–40%
  • Snapchat: 25–35% (concentrated among teens/young adults)
  • Pinterest: 20–30% (skews female)
  • X/Twitter: 10–15%
  • LinkedIn: 8–12% (lower given local industry mix)

Age patterns

  • 13–17: Near-universal YouTube; heavy Snapchat/TikTok; Instagram moderate; Facebook mainly for school/teams.
  • 18–34: Instagram/TikTok daily; Snapchat for close friends; Facebook for Groups/Marketplace; WhatsApp for family.
  • 35–54: Facebook is the hub (Groups, Marketplace, school/church updates); WhatsApp widely used; YouTube for how‑to/local news.
  • 55+: Facebook and YouTube dominate; growing WhatsApp use; limited TikTok/Instagram but rising.

Gender breakdown (directional)

  • Women: Higher Facebook (≈65–75%), Instagram (≈40–50%), Pinterest (≈30–40%); heavy use of Facebook Groups and Marketplace.
  • Men: Higher YouTube (≈80%+), X/Twitter and Reddit (low but male‑skewed); more how‑to, sports, ag/mechanical content on YouTube.

Behavioral trends

  • Community-first: Facebook Groups are the primary hubs for local info (schools, churches, youth sports, city/county notices). Bilingual posts perform best.
  • Messaging over email: Business inquiries often come via Messenger and WhatsApp; quick replies matter.
  • Local commerce: Facebook Marketplace is the go-to for buy/sell and service referrals.
  • Short-form video: Vertical video (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) drives reach; YouTube remains strong for tutorials and product research.
  • Timing: Peaks in evenings and weekends; noticeable mobile usage during work breaks.
  • Trust signals: Content from known community figures/groups outperforms generic brand posts.

Notes on method

  • No official platform-by-county stats exist. Figures are modeled from: Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. platform adoption (with rural adjustments), Hispanic user patterns (higher WhatsApp/Facebook/Instagram), and ACS demographics for Deaf Smith County. Treat as planning estimates; validate with platform ad tools (Meta/TikTok/Snap) for campaign-specific targeting.

Other Counties in Texas