Foard County

Here are the key demographics for Foard County, Texas.

Population

• Total: 1,095 (2020 Decennial Census)
• 2023 estimate: ~1,050–1,100 (U.S. Census Bureau estimates; small population, use caution)

Age

• Median age: ~47 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 65 and over: ~27%

Sex

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023, 5-year; shares may not sum to 100% because Hispanic is an ethnicity)

• White alone: ~85%
• Black or African American alone: ~3–4%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: <1%
• Two or more races: ~8–10%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~23–25%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~64–66%

Households (ACS 2019–2023, 5-year)

• Total households: ~480–500
• Average household size: ~2.2
• Family households: ~65–70% of households
• Married-couple families: ~50% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~25–30%
• Nonfamily/householder living alone: ~30–35%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (tables DP05, S0101, S1101). Estimates subject to sampling error due to the county’s small population.

Foard County, TX snapshot (estimates based on applying rural U.S./Texas adoption rates to local population):

• Population and density: 1,100 residents spread over ~700 sq mi (1.5 people/sq mi).
• Email users: ~750–800 residents with active email.
• Gender split of users: roughly even (about 50/50, mirroring the population).
• Age mix of email users:
  • 18–34: ~24%
  • 35–49: ~24%
  • 50–64: ~26%
  • 65+: ~20%
  • Teens (13–17): ~6%
• Digital access trends:
  • Low population density makes fixed broadband build‑out sparse; many households rely on mobile data or satellite.
  • Email use is near‑universal among working‑age adults; adoption drops among 65+, contributing to the lower share of senior users.
  • Subscription and speeds generally lag Texas averages; connectivity clusters in and around Crowell and community anchors (schools, county offices, library).
  • Smartphone‑only access is common, shaping email use toward webmail and mobile apps.

Notes: Figures are directional estimates; actual connectivity varies by road segment and provider footprint.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Foard County, Texas (2025)

Context

• Population base: roughly 1,000–1,200 residents (2020–2023), with an older-than-average age profile and lower median household income than the Texas average.
• Rural, sparsely populated land area with one small town (Crowell) and wide agricultural/ranchland coverage between road corridors.

User estimates (adults)

• Mobile phone ownership: 850–950 adults (about 88–91% of adults). Lower than Texas statewide, which is near universal among adults.
• Smartphone users: 650–750 adults (about 74–80% of adults). Texas statewide is closer to ~90%; the gap in Foard is mainly age- and income-driven.
• Households relying primarily on mobile data for home internet: about 30–35% of households (roughly 140–180 households, given ~450–550 total households). This is notably higher than Texas overall (roughly 15–20%).
• Hotspot use (phone or dedicated device) for home connectivity is common relative to the state, due to limited fixed-broadband options and long last-mile distances.

Demographic breakdown affecting usage

• Age: seniors (65+) are a much larger share of the population (roughly 25–30%) than Texas overall (~13–14%). This suppresses smartphone adoption and app-centric usage; voice/text and simpler feature phones are more prevalent than the state norm.
• Income/affordability: lower median incomes and the sunset of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (mid‑2024) increase price sensitivity. Prepaid plans and lower-cost Android devices are used at higher rates than statewide.
• Race/ethnicity and language: majority non-Hispanic White with a meaningful Hispanic minority. Spanish-language device settings/support are needed but at lower rates than the Texas average; family sharing of devices occurs more often in lower-income and multigenerational households.
• Work patterns: agriculture and trades drive daytime mobility across wide areas; users often prioritize coverage and battery life over high-end 5G performance.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Network generation: near‑ubiquitous 4G LTE in and around Crowell and along primary highways; patchier coverage in low-density ranchland. 5G is present mainly as low-band along corridors and in town, with far less mid-band 5G than in Texas metros; capacity and indoor penetration lag state norms.
• Carriers: all three national carriers have usable LTE in town corridors; practical “best” carrier varies by micro‑location. Roaming and band coverage differences matter more here than in urban Texas.
• Backhaul and density: few macro sites, wide cell radii, and reliance on microwave backhaul outside highway fiber routes constrain peak speeds and resiliency compared to Texas averages.
• Devices: a below‑average share of 5G‑capable handsets (due to older devices and prepaid mix) further limits realized 5G usage.

Usage patterns that differ from Texas statewide

• Lower smartphone penetration but higher mobile-dependence: fewer adults own smartphones, yet a higher share of households depend on mobile data as their primary internet.
• More prepaid and budget plans: plan churn and data cap sensitivity are higher; unlimited premium data is less common than in urban Texas.
• Hotspot- and SMS-centric behavior: more tethering for home use; SMS/voice remain comparatively important (including for local business and civic communication) versus app-first messaging.
• Performance variability: speeds and reliability swing more with distance from highways and towers; in-building coverage issues are more frequent (metal roofs, larger lots).
• Slower 5G adoption: less mid-band 5G availability and fewer 5G handsets depress 5G usage rates relative to state averages.

Implications for stakeholders

• Carriers: adding mid-band 5G sectors on existing towers, improving microwave/fiber backhaul, and optimizing coverage on ranchland roads would yield outsized benefits.
• Public sector and community groups: with ACP ended, targeted device and service subsidies (e.g., Lifeline enrollment, local vouchers) and digital skills training for seniors can close gaps.
• Businesses and services: keep SMS and voice as core channels; design mobile experiences to work well on older Android devices and variable LTE connections.

Notes on method

• Estimates synthesize county population and age structure from recent Census/ACS releases, rural adoption patterns from national surveys (Pew/NTIA), and FCC mobile coverage map trends for rural Texas. Because official, device-level data at the county level are limited, figures are presented as ranges and should be refined with local carrier performance tests and household surveys.

Here’s a concise, practical snapshot for Foard County, TX (very small, rural). Because there’s no published county-level social media dataset, figures below are estimates derived from Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. social media use, rural vs. urban gaps, and a rural Texas age mix. Treat them as directional ranges.

Overall user base

• Population context: ≈1,000 residents; adults ≈700–850.
• Social media adoption: ~65–75% of total residents and ~75–85% of adults use at least one platform.
• Estimated active users: roughly 500–800 people (including teens).

Age mix (share using at least one platform; dominant platforms)

• Teens (13–17): 90–95%; YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat; Instagram rising.
• 18–29: 85–90%; YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; lighter on Facebook.
• 30–49: 80–85%; Facebook and YouTube core; Instagram secondary; TikTok moderate.
• 50–64: 70–75%; Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram/TikTok smaller.
• 65+: 45–55%; Mostly Facebook; some YouTube; notable non-user segment.

Gender tendencies (directional)

• Women: More likely to use Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok; heavier in local FB Groups and Marketplace.
• Men: More likely to use YouTube, X (Twitter), Reddit; frequent use of buy/sell posts for equipment, sports, hunting, ag topics.

Most-used platforms (estimated share of adults)

• YouTube: 70–80%
• Facebook: 60–70%
• Facebook Messenger: 50–60%
• Instagram: 35–45%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Snapchat: 20–30% (skews teen/20s)
• Pinterest: 20–30% (mostly women)
• X (Twitter): 15–20%
• Reddit: 10–15% (mostly men/younger)
• WhatsApp: 5–10% (family ties/work contacts); Nextdoor: <5%

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: Heavy reliance on local Facebook Groups and Pages (county/city updates, schools, church events, youth sports, weather alerts, road conditions, lost/found).
• Marketplace-driven: High engagement with Facebook Marketplace and local buy-sell-trade groups; evenings/weekends peak.
• Video habits: YouTube for how‑to/DIY, ag/ranch content, school sports highlights, weather briefings; shorter clips (Reels/TikTok) among under‑40.
• Messaging > posting: Many prefer private sharing via Messenger or group chats over public posting.
• Trust/local proof: Posts from known locals, schools, churches, and county officials see higher engagement than “outside” sources.
• Access patterns: Mobile‑first usage; engagement spikes early morning (weather/road checks) and 7–10 pm (after work/chores); occasional connectivity constraints shape video length and quality.
• Seasonality: Spikes around severe weather, school athletics, hunting seasons, county events, and harvest/market cycles.

Notes on uncertainty

• Small population and limited public microdata mean county-specific percentages aren’t directly published; ranges above reflect rural Texas patterns adjusted from recent Pew findings and ACS-like age structures.