Harrison County

Harrison County, Texas — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau; 2020 Decennial Census, Vintage 2023 Population Estimates, and 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates)

Population size

• 2020 Census: 68,839
• 2023 estimate: ~71,000

Age

• Median age: ~39 years
• Under 18: ~24%
• 18 to 64: ~60%
• 65 and over: ~16%

Gender

• Female: ~50–51%
• Male: ~49–50%

Race/ethnicity (Hispanic is any race; shares approximate)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~56%
• Black or African American: ~21%
• Hispanic/Latino: ~17%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Asian: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Other: ~1%

Households and housing

• Total households: ~25,500–26,000
• Average household size: ~2.6
• Family households: ~69%
• Households with children under 18: ~30–32%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~70–74%
• Median household income: mid–$50,000s

Insights

• Modest population growth since 2020
• Age profile slightly older than the Texas median
• Racial/ethnic composition is majority non-Hispanic White with sizable Black and Hispanic communities
• Homeownership is higher than the Texas statewide average, with predominantly family households

• Estimated email users: ≈51,000 in Harrison County (population ~71,000), reflecting widespread adult email adoption.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–24: 16%
  • 25–44: 34%
  • 45–64: 32%
  • 65+: 18%
• Gender split among users: ~51% female, 49% male (mirrors county demographics).
• Digital access and device trends:
  • Households with a computer: ~90–92%.
  • Households with a broadband subscription: ~80–83%.
  • Smartphone‑only internet users: ~17–20% of adults; email usage remains strong via mobile clients.
  • Older‑adult email adoption is rising, driven by telehealth, government services, and banking; younger cohorts rely on mobile-first apps but maintain email for school/work.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density roughly 75–80 people per square mile across ~900 square miles, with highest connectivity along the I‑20 corridor (Marshall–Hallsville) and more gaps in northern/eastern rural areas.
  • Ongoing state/federal broadband investments are expanding fiber coverage, increasing access to 100/20 Mbps+ service and improving reliability.

Bottom line: Email is near‑universal among connected adults in Harrison County, with roughly half the population actively using it, balanced by gender, skewing most toward working‑age groups, and supported by improving—though uneven—rural broadband access.

Mobile phone usage in Harrison County, Texas — 2024 snapshot

User estimates

• Population and mobile users: Harrison County has about 71,000 residents and roughly 27,000 households. An estimated 86–90% of residents use a mobile phone, translating to approximately 61,000–64,000 unique mobile users. This is a few points below Texas overall (typically 90%+).
• Smartphone penetration: About 89–91% of households have at least one smartphone (Texas: ~93–95%). That equates to roughly 24,000–25,000 local households with a smartphone.
• Mobile-only internet reliance: Approximately 19–22% of households rely on a cellular data plan for home internet without a fixed broadband subscription, higher than the Texas average (~14–16%). This is a key differentiator from the state.
• Prepaid vs. postpaid: Prepaid participation is materially higher than the state average (estimated mid-30s to low-40s percent of active lines vs. roughly mid-20s to low-30s statewide), reflecting income mix and coverage-driven carrier switching.

Demographic breakdown and how it shapes usage

• Age: Adults 65+ comprise a larger share of the population (roughly 18–20% vs. ~14% statewide). Smartphone adoption among older adults is lower than among younger cohorts, contributing to the county’s slightly lower overall adoption and higher voice/SMS dependence in this group.
• Income and affordability: Median household income is several thousand dollars below the Texas median, and the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program in 2024 has increased mobile-only reliance and plan downgrades. Lower-income households in the county are more likely to be smartphone-only for internet access than their peers statewide.
• Race/ethnicity: Harrison County’s demographic mix skews toward a higher Black share and a lower Hispanic share than Texas overall. This translates to less overall demand for Spanish-language mobile support than the state average, and relatively strong adoption of mainstream national carriers with better East Texas coverage footprints.
• Urban–rural divide: Residents in Marshall and Hallsville have higher smartphone and mobile-broadband usage and faster 5G rates than those in unincorporated areas. Rural tracts show more single-carrier dominance and dead zones, increasing churn and driving the higher prepaid share.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage: 4G LTE is effectively ubiquitous across populated areas, with small no-service or weak-signal pockets in heavily forested northern tracts and around Caddo Lake. 5G coverage is widespread along I‑20 and US‑59 corridors (Marshall, Hallsville, Waskom) but becomes spotty in low-density areas. Relative to Texas as a whole, 5G availability is lower and less consistent indoors.
• Technology mix:
  • T-Mobile: Strong mid-band 5G (2.5 GHz) along major corridors and towns; performance degrades off-corridor.
  • AT&T: Broad low-band 5G footprint across the county; mid-band capacity concentrated near Marshall/Hallsville and the I‑20 corridor.
  • Verizon: C-band concentrated on primary routes and population centers; extensive LTE fallback elsewhere.
• Speeds: Median 5G download speeds in town centers commonly reach tens to low hundreds of Mbps, but rural medians frequently drop to the 30–70 Mbps range on 5G and lower on LTE. County medians are noticeably below the Texas statewide median, reflecting sparser tower density and more low-band usage.
• Capacity and backhaul: Macro sites cluster along I‑20/US‑59, industrial areas, and in and around Marshall. Away from these hubs, sites rely more on low-band spectrum and longer inter-site distances, limiting capacity compared with urban Texas counties. Fiber backhaul is improving along main corridors but remains thinner in outlying tracts.
• Reliability/resilience: Severe weather and tree cover create more frequent localized outages and signal attenuation than the state average. Carriers rely on a smaller set of high-power macro sites and portable generators during storms; indoor coverage in metal-roof structures is a recurring pain point.

How Harrison County differs from Texas overall

• Slightly lower overall mobile and smartphone adoption, driven by an older population share and income mix.
• Significantly higher mobile-only internet reliance among households, making cellular data a primary on-ramp to the internet more often than elsewhere in Texas.
• Lower and more variable 5G performance, with service concentrated along highway corridors and town centers; indoor 5G gaps are more common.
• Higher prepaid share and greater carrier switching, reflecting coverage variance across rural tracts and affordability pressures.
• Network investment is more focused on corridor capacity upgrades (mid-band 5G and fiber backhaul) than on uniformly dense rural coverage, widening the experience gap with the state’s metro counties.

Implications

• Public services, healthcare, and education efforts should assume a sizable smartphone-only audience and design mobile-first experiences with offline and low-bandwidth modes.
• Emergency communications should continue to leverage SMS and WEA, and agencies should plan for corridor-centric network resilience with deployable assets for rural zones.
• Carriers and local stakeholders can yield outsized benefits by adding mid-band 5G and fiber backhaul on the periphery of Marshall/Hallsville and along secondary routes, which would narrow the county’s performance gap with the state.

Harrison County, TX social media snapshot (2025)

Scope and base

• Residents: ≈71,700 (ACS 2023). Age 13+ ≈59,500.
• Estimated social media users (13+): ≈52,000 (about 87% of 13+ residents).

Most‑used platforms in Harrison County (share of residents 13+; modeled from Pew adult/teen adoption weighted to county demographics)

• YouTube: ~84% (≈50,000 users)
• Facebook: ~66% (≈39,000)
• Instagram: ~48% (≈29,000)
• TikTok: ~35% (≈21,000)
• Pinterest: ~34% (≈20,000)
• Snapchat: ~32% (≈19,000)
• LinkedIn: ~28% (≈17,000)
• X (Twitter): ~22% (≈13,000)
• Reddit: ~22% (≈13,000)
• WhatsApp: ~21% (≈12,500)

Age profile of local social media users (share of users)

• 13–17: ~7% of users; heavy on YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram
• 18–29: ~19%; broad use, strongest on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube
• 30–49: ~37%; multi‑platform; Facebook, YouTube, Instagram lead
• 50–64: ~22%; Facebook and YouTube dominant; growing on Pinterest
• 65+: ~15%; Facebook and YouTube primary; lighter on others

Gender breakdown

• Residents: ~51% female, ~49% male
• Among social media users: ~52% female, ~48% male
• Platform skews: Facebook/Instagram/TikTok/Pinterest skew female; Reddit/X skew male; YouTube slightly male‑leaning but broadly used by both

Behavioral trends observed in similar East Texas counties and reflected in local usage patterns

• Facebook as the community hub: school, church, civic and buy/sell groups; high Marketplace activity; weather, road conditions, and public‑service updates drive spikes
• Video‑first consumption: YouTube for long‑form/how‑to/local events; TikTok and Instagram Reels for short‑form discovery; high engagement for local sports and community highlights
• Messaging as utility: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are primary for coordination among families and teens; WhatsApp usage present but niche
• Local commerce: Small businesses rely on Facebook/Instagram posts, Stories, and Reels; Marketplace and promo posts convert older shoppers; short‑form video performs best with younger buyers
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (7–10 pm CT) and weekends; secondary bumps at weekday lunch hours; mobile‑first usage favors vertical video
• Content cues: Community‑centric, family‑friendly, faith‑adjacent, school and sports content over‑indexes; practical how‑to and local deals perform consistently

Method notes

• Statistics are modeled estimates using U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2023 demographics for Harrison County and Pew Research Center 2024 (U.S. adults) and 2023 (U.S. teens) social media adoption rates, weighted to the county’s age/sex mix and rounded. Actual platform logs may vary slightly.