Hansford County Local Demographic Profile
Key demographics for Hansford County, Texas (U.S. Census Bureau; 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates unless noted; population also from 2023 Population Estimates Program and 2020 Census)
Population
- 2023 estimate: ~5,300
- 2020 Census: 5,285
Age
- Median age: ~34
- Under 18: ~30%
- 65 and over: ~15%
Sex
- Male: ~51%
- Female: ~49%
Race/Ethnicity (mutually exclusive)
- Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~48%
- White, non-Hispanic: ~47%
- Black, non-Hispanic: ~1%
- Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
- Two or more races/Other, non-Hispanic: ~3%
Households and housing
- Households: ~2,000
- Average household size: ~2.8
- Family households: ~72% of households
- Married-couple families: ~58% of households
- Households with children under 18: ~38%
- Owner-occupied housing: ~73%
- Renter-occupied housing: ~27%
Insights: Small, rural county with a relatively young median age and a near-even split between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White populations; household structure is family- and owner-occupied–oriented with larger-than-average household size for the U.S.
Email Usage in Hansford County
Hansford County, TX snapshot
- Population and density: ≈5,300 residents over ~920 sq mi (≈5.7 people/sq mi).
- Estimated email users: ≈3,600 residents (≈68% of total; roughly 88–92% of connected adults use email regularly).
- Age distribution of email users (count, share of users):
- 13–17: ≈290 (8%)
- 18–34: ≈1,070 (30%)
- 35–64: ≈1,710 (47%)
- 65+: ≈530 (15%)
- Gender split among email users: ≈50% female, ≈50% male (near population parity).
- Digital access and connectivity:
- Household computer access: ≈85–90%.
- Home broadband subscription: ≈75–80% of households; urban cores higher, outlying ranchland lower.
- Access mix: Fiber in Spearman/Gruver cores; cable/DSL pockets; extensive fixed wireless and satellite coverage in rural tracts.
- Mobile networks: Countywide LTE; 5G concentrated in towns and along main corridors.
- Typical speeds: Town fixed 50–300 Mbps; rural fixed/wireless 10–50 Mbps.
- Smartphone-only internet households: ≈12–15%.
- Trends and insights: Email is near-universal among working-age adults and students and is rising among seniors via smartphones. Rural last-mile gaps keep a subset mobile-first, but ongoing fiber and fixed-wireless upgrades in town centers are gradually lifting adoption and reliability.
Mobile Phone Usage in Hansford County
Hansford County, TX mobile usage summary (with county-specific estimates and what differs from statewide patterns)
Topline
- Population: 5,285 (2020 Census). Roughly 1,900–2,000 households.
- Estimated unique mobile users: about 4,200–4,400 residents (80–85% of the population).
- Estimated smartphone users: about 3,800–4,100 residents (roughly 88–90% of adults; 72–78% of total residents).
- Mobile-only home internet (smartphone or mobile hotspot as the primary connection): approximately 30–33% of households, versus about 20–22% statewide.
Demographic breakdown and usage patterns
- Age:
- Under 18: roughly 27–30% of residents. Teen smartphone adoption is very high (around the mid-90% range), consistent with national figures.
- 18–64: roughly 55–58% of residents; smartphone adoption near 90%.
- 65+: roughly 14–17% of residents; smartphone adoption materially lower than younger cohorts (about 65–75%). Flip‑phone/voice‑only use is a visible minority, higher than state average.
- Race/ethnicity:
- Hispanic/Latino: roughly 40–50% of residents.
- Non‑Hispanic White: roughly 45–55%.
- Other groups: small shares.
- Hispanic households show higher smartphone‑only internet reliance (about mid‑30s percent) than non‑Hispanic White households (about mid‑20s percent), reflecting income, housing, and wireline availability differences.
- Income and plan type:
- A larger share of households below the state median income contributes to higher prepaid plan usage (roughly 40–50% of lines, versus roughly 25–30% statewide).
- Multi‑line family plans are common in town centers; single‑line prepaid is more prevalent among seasonal/agricultural workers.
Digital infrastructure and coverage
- Cellular networks:
- 4G LTE: Broad outdoor coverage across population centers (Spearman, Gruver) and main corridors (US‑83, TX‑15). Indoor coverage can be inconsistent in metal‑roof or metal‑sided buildings common in agriculture.
- 5G: Low‑band 5G service from major carriers is present in and around towns and along primary roads; mid‑band 5G capacity is limited compared with metro Texas. Small‑cell density is minimal.
- Network choice: AT&T and Verizon are the most reliable countywide; T‑Mobile coverage is solid in town centers and along primary roads but can drop off between towns. Residents often pick carriers based on specific home and work locations rather than price alone.
- Backhaul and resilience:
- Fiber backhaul exists to schools, public safety, and along primary utility/transport routes; several macro sites rely on microwave backhaul. This constrains peak performance compared with urban Texas but provides good rural reach.
- FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) is deployed on key sites serving public safety, improving rural coverage and priority access.
- Fixed wireless access (FWA) and hotspots:
- 5G/LTE FWA from national carriers is available to a large share of addresses and is being adopted as a primary home internet option where DSL/cable is limited or costly.
- Mobile hotspots are commonly used by farm operations and for student connectivity.
- Public safety and alerts:
- Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) are supported; county emergency services leverage cellular for redundancy.
How Hansford County trends differ from Texas overall
- Higher mobile substitution: A meaningfully larger share of households rely on smartphones or mobile hotspots as their primary home internet (about one‑third in Hansford vs about one‑fifth statewide).
- Greater prepaid share: Prepaid and budget MVNO plans make up a larger portion of lines than the Texas average due to income mix and seasonal labor patterns.
- Carrier concentration by location: Residents are more likely to be “single‑carrier dependent” for reliable indoor service, whereas metro Texans often have two or three viable choices.
- 5G capacity gaps: Low‑band 5G coverage is present, but mid‑band capacity (and thus median speeds) lags state urban/suburban areas. Practical download speeds trend lower and are more variable during peak hours.
- Device mix and upgrade cycles: A higher share of basic phones and older smartphones remains in use, and upgrade cycles are longer than in metro Texas.
- Network optimization behaviors: Wi‑Fi calling, external antennas, and signal boosters are used more frequently to overcome metal building attenuation and edge‑of‑sector coverage.
Key quantitative takeaways (county estimates)
- Unique mobile users: 4.2–4.4k residents
- Smartphone users: 3.8–4.1k residents
- Households primarily using mobile for home internet: roughly 580–650
- Prepaid share of mobile lines: roughly 40–50%
- 65+ smartphone adoption: roughly 65–75% (vs ~80%+ in Texas metros)
Implications
- Strengthening mid‑band 5G and fiber backhaul to existing towers would notably improve peak speeds and indoor reliability.
- Continued expansion of FWA is likely to remain the fastest path to higher‑speed home internet, reducing the mobile‑only burden on households.
- Public facilities and employers benefit from indoor coverage solutions (repeaters, CEL‑Fi, DAS) due to metal construction common in the county.
Social Media Trends in Hansford County
Hansford County, TX — social media usage snapshot (2025)
Most-used platforms (benchmarks used to size local use; rural Texas counties closely track these U.S. rates)
- Adults (Pew Research Center, 2024, share of U.S. adults who use):
- YouTube: 83%
- Facebook: 68%
- Instagram: 47%
- TikTok: 33%
- Pinterest: 35%
- LinkedIn: 30%
- WhatsApp: 29%
- Snapchat: 27%
- X (Twitter): 22%
- Reddit: 22%
- Teens 13–17 (Pew Research Center, 2023, share who use):
- YouTube: 95%
- Instagram: 62%
- TikTok: 67%
- Snapchat: 60%
- Facebook: 33%
Age-group profile (how usage clusters locally)
- 13–17: Very high social media participation; TikTok and Snapchat are daily habit; YouTube is near-universal for entertainment and how-to; Instagram central for sports, school, and peer updates; Facebook mostly for family connections.
- 18–24: Heavy Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat; YouTube for how-to, fitness, gaming; Facebook use is more passive (events, marketplace, local groups).
- 25–34: Mix of Instagram and Facebook; frequent YouTube; TikTok growing for recipes, DIY, parenting hacks; Marketplace is a key Facebook feature.
- 35–49: Facebook is the hub (groups, school/sports updates, buy–sell–trade); YouTube for home/auto repairs; Instagram used but less than under-35; TikTok usage rising for short-form news and tips.
- 50–64: Facebook dominant for community, church, civic info; YouTube for tutorials and news; lower but rising TikTok and Instagram adoption.
- 65+: Facebook and YouTube lead; messaging via Messenger; minimal TikTok/Snapchat.
Gender breakdown (local pattern mirrors rural U.S. norms)
- Women: Slightly more active overall; over-index on Facebook (groups, Marketplace), Instagram (family/kids, local businesses), and Pinterest (recipes, crafts, home).
- Men: Over-index on YouTube (how-to, ag/ranch, repairs, sports), Reddit (news, hobbies), and X/Twitter (sports, markets); Facebook used for groups and local info but less posting.
- Messaging: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous across genders; WhatsApp usage increases where Spanish-speaking households are more common; Snapchat heavily skewed toward younger women.
Behavioral trends (what people actually do)
- Facebook as the community backbone: School/sports updates, city/county announcements, churches, civic groups, local news pages, and buy–sell–trade dominate engagement. Events and Marketplace drive routine visits.
- Video-first habits: YouTube used for home/auto repair, small engine fixes, ag/ranch techniques, and product research; TikTok short-form tips and local happenings gaining time share, especially under 40.
- Local discovery: Residents often find local businesses, contractors, and listings through Facebook Groups and personal referrals; Instagram used for food/retail discovery in town and nearby hubs.
- News and alerts: Weather, road conditions, and emergency notices most often spread via Facebook Pages/Groups; SMS and Messenger amplify reach.
- Youth culture: Snapchat for daily communication and location-sharing; Instagram/TikTok for trends and highlights; Facebook used for family visibility rather than peer interaction.
- Professional networking: LinkedIn usage is niche and concentrated among educators, healthcare, energy, and public-sector professionals; recruitment often still happens via Facebook posts and word of mouth.
- Commerce: Facebook Marketplace is the dominant peer-to-peer channel; short-form video (Reels/TikTok) increasingly influences local service and retail decisions.
Most-used platforms locally (practical ranking)
- Adults: Facebook and YouTube are top; Instagram next; TikTok and Pinterest mid-tier; WhatsApp, Snapchat, LinkedIn, X/Twitter, and Reddit are niche but present.
- Teens: YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat lead; Instagram strong; Facebook secondary.
Notes on figures
- Percentages shown are the latest Pew Research Center benchmarks (2024 adults; 2023 teens) and serve as the best available proxies for Hansford County, which follows rural Texas usage patterns.
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
- Garza
- Gillespie
- Glasscock
- Goliad
- Gonzales
- Gray
- Grayson
- Gregg
- Grimes
- Guadalupe
- Hale
- Hall
- Hamilton
- 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