Garza County Local Demographic Profile
Key demographics: Garza County, Texas
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates). Figures rounded.
Population
- Total: ~5,800 (2020 Census: 5,816)
- Trend: down vs. 2010
Age
- Median age: ~36–37
- Under 18: ~17–19%
- 18–64: ~73–75%
- 65 and over: ~8–10%
Sex
- Male: ~60–62%
- Female: ~38–40%
Race/ethnicity (Hispanic can be of any race)
- Hispanic/Latino: ~48–52%
- White, non-Hispanic: ~38–42%
- Black/African American, non-Hispanic: ~7–10%
- Other/Multiracial, non-Hispanic: ~2–4%
Households (ACS 2018–2022)
- Number of households: ~1,700–1,900
- Average household size: ~2.6–2.8
- Family households: ~65–70% of households
- Homeownership rate: ~70–72%
- Median household income: roughly $50k–$55k
- Persons in poverty: ~15–20%
Note: Presence of a correctional facility in the county influences the adult and male shares.
Email Usage in Garza County
Garza County, TX (pop. roughly 6.3–6.8k) is sparsely populated (~7–8 people per sq. mile), with most residents in and around Post along US‑84. Using ACS/Pew benchmarks for rural Texas:
- Estimated email users: 3.3k–4.2k adults. Assumes ~75–80% adult internet access and ~95% email adoption among connected adults. Daily users: ~2.0k–2.8k.
- Age distribution of email users (approx.): 18–29: 15–20%; 30–49: 30–35%; 50–64: 25–30%; 65+: 15–20%. Younger adults are near-universal users; 65+ lags due to lower internet adoption but is steadily rising.
- Gender split: roughly even among active users. (County-level institutional populations can skew raw male/female counts, but active email usage typically mirrors the non‑institutional population.)
- Digital access: About 70–80% of households likely have a broadband subscription; 10–15% are smartphone‑only. Fiber and cable are concentrated in Post; outside town, residents often rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite. Mobile LTE/5G is strongest along highways; coverage drops in ranchland.
- Trendline: Gradual gains in email use track improving rural broadband and smartphone penetration, with libraries/schools serving as important access points. State/federal rural broadband programs are expected to improve fixed connectivity over the next few years.
Mobile Phone Usage in Garza County
Garza County, TX mobile phone usage summary (with county-vs-Texas contrasts)
Scale and user estimates
- Population baseline: roughly 5,600 to 6,000 residents. Adults are about 72–77% of the population.
- Unique mobile users: 3,800–4,300 residents actively using a mobile phone (smartphone or basic), including most adults and a large majority of teens 13–17.
- Smartphone users: approximately 3,300–3,800 (about 80–88% of adults; rural counties tend to run a few points lower than Texas’ urban-heavy average).
- Wireless-only households: about 60–65% of households rely primarily or exclusively on mobile phones for voice (below large-metro Texas rates, which are higher, but above the levels typical a decade ago).
- Plan mix: prepaid and MVNO plans (Cricket, Straight Talk/Tracfone, Visible, Boost, etc.) account for a larger share than the Texas metro average, reflecting price sensitivity and coverage-driven carrier choices.
Demographic factors shaping usage
- Age: Slightly older median age than Texas overall. This correlates with
- Lower smartphone adoption among 65+ than state averages.
- Slower device replacement cycles and more price-conscious plans.
- Race/ethnicity: A majority or near-majority Hispanic population, with English/Spanish bilingual usage common. This supports above-average adoption of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and family-plan sharing to manage costs.
- Income and work patterns: Lower median household income than the Texas average, agricultural and small-business employment, and commuting links to Lubbock. These factors tilt usage toward
- Budget devices and prepaid/MVNO plans.
- Heavy daytime load along the US‑84 corridor due to commuting and freight traffic.
- Household composition: More multi-generational and multi-line family plans than in many urban areas; slightly higher likelihood of at least one basic/feature phone in older households.
How Garza County differs from Texas statewide
- Coverage and technology mix
- 5G availability is more limited and more dependent on low-band spectrum; LTE remains the primary workhorse outside the town of Post and major roads. In metros statewide, mid-band 5G is much more common.
- Carrier market share skews more toward AT&T and Verizon due to rural coverage; T‑Mobile adoption grows where its low-band and 2.5 GHz sites cover US‑84 and town centers, but it lags its metro market share.
- Usage patterns
- Higher reliance on mobile data as a substitute for scarce fixed broadband, especially for streaming at lower bitrates and hotspotting for schoolwork. In cities, mobile is more often a complement to robust home broadband.
- Voice and SMS usage are relatively higher per user than in urban Texas, reflecting work needs and patchier data performance in the rangeland.
- Slightly higher Android share and longer device lifecycles than the state average, driven by cost and rural durability preferences.
- Affordability
- Prepaid/MVNO penetration is higher than Texas metro norms; promotional postpaid plans with bundled streaming perks are less of a draw when mid-band 5G capacity is sparse.
Digital infrastructure snapshot
- Macro sites and coverage
- A small, sparse macro grid: on the order of 8–15 multi-carrier cell sites countywide, with sites clustered near Post, Justiceburg, and along US‑84 and FM corridors. Large unpopulated ranchland areas still have weak or no signal, especially away from highways.
- 5G: Predominantly low-band (AT&T n5/n12, T‑Mobile n71, Verizon n5). Limited or no broad mid-band 5G (n41/n77) away from highway sites; when present it tends to be sector-limited.
- LTE bands commonly in use: Verizon (B13/B66/B2, some CBRS B48 on select sites), AT&T (B12/B17/B2/B30), T‑Mobile (B71/B2/B66; n41 where available).
- Backhaul
- Mixed fiber and licensed microwave backhaul. Microwave is more common on outlying sites, which can constrain capacity versus urban Texas. Weather and power events can cause longer restoration times than in cities.
- Public safety and resiliency
- AT&T FirstNet coverage is present (common across Texas), prioritized for EMS/sheriff/fire. Generator-backed sites are fewer than in metros; extended outages can still impact coverage in the most remote areas.
- Fixed alternatives that shape mobile usage
- Fiber and cable are limited outside town centers; telephone cooperatives and small ISPs serve pockets, but many rural addresses rely on fixed wireless or satellite.
- As a result, cellular hotspotting is notably higher than the Texas average, and T‑Mobile/Verizon 4G/5G home internet is an option in and near Post but not universally across the county.
Adoption and plan behavior notes
- Business and agriculture users favor Verizon and AT&T for coverage on ranchland and county roads; external antennas and boosters are common.
- Family plans often mix smartphones with at least one basic phone for seniors.
- Content use trends favor lower-bitrate streaming and offline media due to variable capacity; messaging apps with efficient data use are popular.
- Number portability churn is modest; residents tend to stick with the carrier that works at their home and on their commute, switching only when a new site lights up.
Implications and opportunities
- The biggest delta from state-level trends is not demand but supply: mid-band 5G and fiber backhaul scarcity limit speeds and consistency. Strategic upgrades of a handful of highway-adjacent and town-center sites could unlock much better user experience.
- Prepaid and home-internet bundles priced for light-to-moderate usage, plus signal-boosting accessories, align well with local needs.
- Community Wi‑Fi and school/clinic hotspots remain important complements where indoor coverage is weak.
Notes on methodology
- Estimates derive from recent population levels, rural-vs-urban smartphone adoption gaps observed in Texas and nationally, typical household composition in rural counties, and known carrier deployment patterns along US‑84 and in West Texas. Exact counts of towers, spectrum-by-site, and 5G sectors vary and change; figures above are presented as reasonable ranges rather than precise totals.
Social Media Trends in Garza County
Below is a concise, county‑level snapshot built from 2023–2024 U.S./Texas social-media benchmarks (Pew and similar) weighted to Garza County’s age/ethnic profile and rural context. Because there’s no direct, published county dataset, treat figures as modeled estimates (±5–10 percentage points). Adult estimates exclude the incarcerated population.
Headline adoption
- Adults using at least one social platform monthly: ~78–82%
- Daily users (any platform): ~65–70%
Most‑used platforms in Garza County (estimated share of adult residents, monthly)
- YouTube: ~72–76%
- Facebook: ~62–68%
- Instagram: ~33–39%
- TikTok: ~28–34%
- WhatsApp: ~26–32% (higher among Hispanic households)
- Snapchat: ~22–28% (skews <30)
- X (Twitter): ~12–18%
- Nextdoor: ~5–9% (limited by rural housing pattern)
Age group patterns
- Teens (13–17): Heavy on YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat; Instagram moderate; Facebook mostly for school/sports updates.
- 18–29: Near‑universal YouTube; high Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok; Facebook used for community ties and Marketplace.
- 30–49: Facebook + YouTube dominate; Instagram moderate; TikTok growing; heavy Marketplace use.
- 50–64: Facebook strong; YouTube for how‑tos, news, sports; light Instagram/TikTok.
- 65+: Facebook and YouTube only, mostly; others minimal.
Gender tendencies
- Women: Slightly higher on Facebook/Instagram; strong engagement in school, church, and buy/sell groups; more commenting/sharing.
- Men: Higher on YouTube and X; more sports, outdoors, farm/ranch, and repair content; more viewing than posting.
Local behavioral trends
- Community first: Highest engagement on hyper‑local news, weather alerts, HS sports, school closures, church events, obituaries, and local business updates.
- Groups and Marketplace: Facebook Groups and Marketplace are primary commerce channels for buying/selling, services, and job leads.
- Short video wins: Reels/shorts of local events, behind‑the‑scenes at businesses, and before/after projects perform best; photos of familiar faces/places drive shares.
- Language mix: Bilingual (English/Spanish) content extends reach; WhatsApp family/group chats are common for coordination and promotions.
- Timing: Evening scroll (7–9 pm) and early morning (6–8 am) see the most activity; spikes during severe weather and Friday‑night sports.
- Trust signals: Content from known locals and community pages outperforms brand‑only posts; overtly political/outsider messaging underperforms.
- Regional spillover: Residents also follow Lubbock‑area pages; events and deals there influence behavior in Garza County.
Practical takeaways
- For reach: Use Facebook + YouTube; post community‑relevant, face‑forward content; lean on Groups/Marketplace.
- For younger audiences: TikTok/Snapchat creative with local faces/locations.
- For families/Hispanic audiences: Include WhatsApp touchpoints and Spanish captions.
- Targeting: 15–30 mile radius around Post, with selective Lubbock inclusion; evenings posting; emphasize weather, sports, deals, and giveaways.
Method note: Estimates synthesize national/Texas platform adoption by age/ethnicity with Garza County’s rural and demographic profile; expect small‑sample uncertainty (±5–10 pts).
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
- Frio
- Gaines
- Galveston
- 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