Frio County Local Demographic Profile
Here are concise, recent demographics for Frio County, Texas.
Reference years: 2020 Census (population count) and 2018–2022 ACS 5-year estimates (composition/households). Figures are estimates; margins of error apply.
Population size
- 2020 Census: 18,385
- ACS 2018–2022 estimate: ~19,100
Age
- Median age: ~33 years
- Under 18: ~26%
- 65 and over: ~12%
Gender
- Male: ~56%
- Female: ~44%
Race and Hispanic/Latino origin (shares of total population)
- Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~83%
- White alone, non-Hispanic: ~13%
- Black/African American alone, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%
- Asian alone, non-Hispanic: <1%
- American Indian/Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic: <1%
- Two or more races/other, non-Hispanic: ~1%
Households and housing
- Households: ~5,300
- Average household size: ~3.2–3.3
- Family households: ~77%
- Households with children under 18: ~40%
- Housing units: ~6,100
- Occupied (owner-occupied): ~66%
- Occupied (renter-occupied): ~34%
Email Usage in Frio County
Frio County, TX (pop. ≈21,000) email usage snapshot — estimates based on ACS-style broadband/device access in rural Texas, Pew email adoption, and local density:
- Estimated email users: 12,000–14,000 people (roughly 60–70% of residents), driven by adult internet access and near-universal email use among internet users.
- Age pattern (share using email):
- 13–17: 60–75% (often school-driven; less frequent use)
- 18–34: 95%+
- 35–64: 90–95%
- 65+: 70–85% and rising
- Gender split: ~50/50; no material difference in usage rates.
- Digital access trends:
- Household broadband subscription likely ~70–80%; smartphone ownership >85%.
- 20–30% of households are mobile-only (cellular data instead of wired broadband), common in rural areas.
- Public Wi‑Fi (schools, library) complements access for students and low-income residents.
- Affordability pressures post-2024 subsidy changes may modestly reduce consistent connectivity for some households.
- Local density/connectivity facts:
- Low population density (~18/sq mi) with service concentrated in Pearsall and Dilley.
- I‑35 corridor provides stronger mobile coverage and fiber backbones; outlying ranchland has spottier fixed-broadband options, shaping heavier mobile/email reliance.
Note: Ranges reflect rural Texas benchmarks applied to Frio’s demographics and infrastructure.
Mobile Phone Usage in Frio County
Below is a county-level snapshot based on public demographic patterns, rural adoption research (e.g., Pew Research Center), FCC coverage filings, and Texas market dynamics. Figures are indicative ranges rather than precise counts and are meant to highlight ways Frio County differs from Texas overall.
Context and user estimates
- Population baseline: Frio County has roughly 20–22k residents (centered on Pearsall, Dilley, and rural precincts).
- Adult smartphone users: Assuming 70–75% adults and 80–90% smartphone adoption among adults, Frio likely has about 12k–15k active smartphone users.
- Mobile-only internet reliance: Due to limited wired broadband outside town centers, a notably higher share of adults rely on smartphones as their primary home internet compared with the Texas average—roughly one-quarter to one-third of adults is a reasonable local estimate (statewide is lower).
Demographic usage patterns (how Frio differs from Texas)
- Language and apps: With a majority Hispanic/Latino population, Spanish/bilingual usage is well above the Texas average; WhatsApp, Facebook, Messenger, and YouTube see outsized use for family, work crews, and cross-community communication.
- Plan types and affordability: Prepaid and budget MVNO plans are more common than statewide, reflecting income and credit profiles; multi-line family plans and data-sharing/hotspotting are prevalent.
- Device mix and replacement cycles: Android share is likely higher than the Texas average, with longer device replacement cycles and more refurbished/previous‑gen phones in circulation.
- Smartphone dependency: A higher rate of smartphone‑only households and hotspot use for homework and streaming, tied to gaps in wired broadband.
- Age/household patterns: Larger households and many school‑age children increase shared device use and hotspotting; college‑age out‑migration lowers uptake of premium postpaid plans relative to metros.
- Work-driven behaviors: Shift and seasonal work (agriculture/logistics along I‑35, energy services) produces pronounced peaks in messaging and navigation during commute windows; group chats and PTT/dispatch-style apps are common.
Digital infrastructure highlights
- Coverage geography: Strongest 4G/5G coverage clusters along I‑35 and in Pearsall/Dilley; service degrades faster than the state average in outlying ranchlands where tower spacing is wider and terrain/vegetation affect signal.
- 5G reality: Mid-band 5G is present along the corridor; outside town centers, users often fall back to LTE. Real-world speeds vary more than in urban Texas.
- Backhaul and resilience: Outside town cores, carriers rely more on microwave backhaul than fiber, which can constrain capacity during peak periods or weather events.
- Wired alternatives: Cable/fiber choices are limited beyond town grids. Fixed wireless and satellite (including newer LEO options) fill gaps; this pushes higher-than-average mobile and hotspot dependence.
- Public and anchor connectivity: Libraries, schools, clinics, and municipal buildings serve as key Wi‑Fi anchors; usage of parking-lot Wi‑Fi and library hotspots is more common than statewide.
- Emergency services: FirstNet/priority access along I‑35 and in town centers is comparatively robust; dead zones in distant precincts persist more than the state norm.
Key differences from statewide trends
- Higher smartphone-only/home-internet dependency than Texas overall.
- More prepaid and MVNO adoption; tighter data budgets and data‑saving behaviors.
- Higher Spanish/bilingual engagement and heavier use of over-the-top messaging (WhatsApp) relative to carrier SMS/MMS.
- Greater variability in speed and reliability with sharper urban–rural drop-off than typical for Texas.
- Likely higher Android share and longer device lifecycles.
Notes on method and where to validate
- Population and age structure: U.S. Census/ACS.
- Smartphone adoption and smartphone-only trends: Pew Research Center and NTIA/ACS internet-use supplements (rural and Hispanic breakouts).
- Coverage and infrastructure: FCC National Broadband Map, carrier coverage disclosures, and local government/public library resources.
Social Media Trends in Frio County
Below is a concise, county-scaled estimate based on 2023–2024 Pew Research platform usage, ACS demographics for Frio County (~20K residents; majority Hispanic; relatively young), and typical rural Texas patterns. Exact, platform-verified figures at the county level aren’t published, so treat these as directional ranges.
Headline user stats (adults 18+)
- Adult population: ~14,000
- Social media penetration (at least one platform): ~70–75% of adults ≈ 9,800–10,500 users
- Daily users: ~65–70% of social users ≈ 6,500–7,300 people
- Mobile-first usage: high (many rely primarily on smartphones; desktop use relatively low)
Age mix (share of adult social media users)
- 18–29: ~25–30%
- 30–49: ~38–42% (largest cohort)
- 50–64: ~20–23%
- 65+: ~8–12%
Gender breakdown
- Women: ~52–55% of social media users
- Men: ~45–48%
Most-used platforms among adult social media users (reach)
- YouTube: ~80–85%
- Facebook: ~65–70%
- Instagram: ~40–50%
- TikTok: ~30–40% (skews younger)
- WhatsApp: ~30–40% (above U.S. average; boosted by Hispanic adoption and family cross-border ties)
- Snapchat: ~20–30% (younger users)
- Pinterest: ~25–35% (skews female)
- X (Twitter): ~15–20%
- Reddit: ~12–18% (skews male/younger)
- LinkedIn: ~10–15% (lower in rural, non-metro labor markets)
- Nextdoor: ~5–10% (limited footprint outside dense neighborhoods)
Behavioral trends to know
- Community-first on Facebook: Heavy use of Groups and Marketplace for local news, school/booster and church updates, events, and buy/sell/trade. Comments drive visibility more than shares.
- Bilingual content performs: English/Spanish posts and captions improve reach; family/kinship networks amplify distribution.
- Short-form video wins: Reels/TikTok/Shorts outperform static posts for restaurants, events, high school sports, rodeo/ranching, and local businesses; authenticity beats polish.
- Messaging is the CTA: Many residents prefer Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp for inquiries, bookings, and customer service.
- Local info discovery: Weather, road conditions along I-35, school alerts, and public safety updates spread quickly via Facebook Groups and shareable videos.
- Younger behaviors: 18–29s split attention across Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; lower Facebook posting but still use it for events/family. Music, food, fitness, and creator-led recommendations drive action.
- Women’s engagement: Strong on Facebook Groups, Instagram, and Pinterest (shopping, recipes, decor, school activities). Marketplace is a frequent touchpoint.
- Posting vs. lurking: Majority consume/engage lightly (likes, reacts); a minority of creators drive most local content.
- Timing: Evenings (7–10 pm) and weekend windows see the highest engagement; morning checks for news/alerts.
Notes on interpretation
- Ranges reflect applying national/rural Texas usage patterns to Frio County’s demographics; specific platform ad tools may show slightly different reach on any given week.
- For campaigns, test bilingual creative, emphasize video, and use Group-friendly formats and Messenger/WhatsApp CTAs; geotarget along the I‑35 corridor and around schools/churches for efficient reach.
Table of Contents
Other Counties in Texas
- Anderson
- Andrews
- Angelina
- Aransas
- Archer
- Armstrong
- Atascosa
- Austin
- Bailey
- Bandera
- Bastrop
- Baylor
- Bee
- Bell
- Bexar
- Blanco
- Borden
- Bosque
- Bowie
- Brazoria
- Brazos
- Brewster
- Briscoe
- Brooks
- Brown
- Burleson
- Burnet
- Caldwell
- Calhoun
- Callahan
- Cameron
- Camp
- Carson
- Cass
- Castro
- Chambers
- Cherokee
- Childress
- Clay
- Cochran
- Coke
- Coleman
- Collin
- Collingsworth
- Colorado
- Comal
- Comanche
- Concho
- Cooke
- Coryell
- Cottle
- Crane
- Crockett
- Crosby
- Culberson
- Dallam
- Dallas
- Dawson
- De Witt
- Deaf Smith
- Delta
- Denton
- Dickens
- Dimmit
- Donley
- Duval
- Eastland
- Ector
- Edwards
- El Paso
- Ellis
- Erath
- Falls
- Fannin
- Fayette
- Fisher
- Floyd
- Foard
- Fort Bend
- Franklin
- Freestone
- Gaines
- Galveston
- Garza
- Gillespie
- Glasscock
- Goliad
- Gonzales
- Gray
- Grayson
- Gregg
- Grimes
- Guadalupe
- Hale
- Hall
- Hamilton
- Hansford
- Hardeman
- Hardin
- Harris
- Harrison
- Hartley
- Haskell
- Hays
- Hemphill
- Henderson
- Hidalgo
- Hill
- Hockley
- Hood
- Hopkins
- Houston
- Howard
- Hudspeth
- Hunt
- Hutchinson
- Irion
- Jack
- Jackson
- Jasper
- Jeff Davis
- Jefferson
- Jim Hogg
- Jim Wells
- Johnson
- Jones
- Karnes
- Kaufman
- Kendall
- Kenedy
- Kent
- Kerr
- Kimble
- King
- Kinney
- Kleberg
- Knox
- La Salle
- Lamar
- Lamb
- Lampasas
- Lavaca
- Lee
- Leon
- Liberty
- Limestone
- Lipscomb
- Live Oak
- Llano
- Loving
- Lubbock
- Lynn
- Madison
- Marion
- Martin
- Mason
- Matagorda
- Maverick
- Mcculloch
- Mclennan
- Mcmullen
- Medina
- Menard
- Midland
- Milam
- Mills
- Mitchell
- Montague
- Montgomery
- Moore
- Morris
- Motley
- Nacogdoches
- Navarro
- Newton
- Nolan
- Nueces
- Ochiltree
- Oldham
- Orange
- Palo Pinto
- Panola
- Parker
- Parmer
- Pecos
- Polk
- Potter
- Presidio
- Rains
- Randall
- Reagan
- Real
- Red River
- Reeves
- Refugio
- Roberts
- Robertson
- Rockwall
- Runnels
- Rusk
- Sabine
- San Augustine
- San Jacinto
- San Patricio
- San Saba
- Schleicher
- Scurry
- Shackelford
- Shelby
- Sherman
- Smith
- Somervell
- Starr
- Stephens
- Sterling
- Stonewall
- Sutton
- Swisher
- Tarrant
- Taylor
- Terrell
- Terry
- Throckmorton
- Titus
- Tom Green
- Travis
- Trinity
- Tyler
- Upshur
- Upton
- Uvalde
- Val Verde
- Van Zandt
- Victoria
- Walker
- Waller
- Ward
- Washington
- Webb
- Wharton
- Wheeler
- Wichita
- Wilbarger
- Willacy
- Williamson
- Wilson
- Winkler
- Wise
- Wood
- Yoakum
- Young
- Zapata
- Zavala