Hemphill County

Hemphill County, Texas — key demographics

Population

• Total population: 3,382 (2020 Census)
• Recent estimate: ~3,300–3,400 (ACS 2019–2023 5-year)

Age

• Median age: ~37 years
• Age distribution: ~27–29% under 18; ~57–60% 18–64; ~13–15% 65+

Sex

• Approximately 51% male, 49% female

Race and ethnicity (Hispanic is an ethnicity overlapping race; figures are ACS 5-year estimates)

• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~40–41%
• White, non-Hispanic: ~53–55%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.5–1%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%

Households and housing

• Households: ~1,270–1,300
• Average household size: ~2.6–2.7
• Family households: ~65–70% of households; average family size ~3.1–3.2
• Owner-occupied: ~70–75% of occupied units; renter-occupied: ~25–30%
• Housing units: ~1,500–1,650; vacancy rate roughly mid-teens

Notes: Totals are from the 2020 Decennial Census; age, race/ethnicity, and household figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (2019–2023 5-year), which provides the most current county-level estimates for small populations.

Hemphill County, TX snapshot (derived from 2020 Census, 2022 ACS, and Pew email adoption rates)

• Population and density: ≈3,380 residents across ≈912 sq mi (~3.7 people/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: ≈2,000 residents use email regularly (~59% of total population; ~80% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users (share of users): 18–34: ~24%; 35–54: ~33%; 55–64: ~18%; 65+: ~25%. Adoption is highest among 18–54 and slightly lower in 65+ due to lower internet use.
• Gender split of users: ~51% male, ~49% female, mirroring the county’s slight male majority.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Households with a computer: ~90%.
  • Households with a broadband subscription: ~81%, up ~8–10 percentage points since 2016.
  • Adults with internet access (home broadband and/or mobile): ~85%.
  • Smartphone-only internet households: ~14% indicate reliance on mobile data plans.
• Connectivity context: Very low population density increases last‑mile costs and dependence on fixed wireless and mobile broadband outside the city of Canadian; coverage and speeds are strongest along primary corridors, with more variability across ranchland.

These figures align with rural Texas norms and indicate solid but not universal digital and email penetration.

Hemphill County, TX mobile phone usage summary (focus on differences from Texas overall)

Population baseline

• Residents: 3,380–3,450 (2020 Census count 3,382; modest change since 2020). Adults (18+): about 2,600–2,700.
• Very low population density (~3.7 people per square mile vs ~115 statewide), which materially affects network build economics and performance.

User estimates (adults, 2024)

• Any mobile phone: ~2,500 adults (≈96% of adults), slightly below Texas’ ~97–98%.
• Smartphone users: ~2,200 adults (≈84% of adults), below Texas’ ~89–90%.
• Smartphone-only internet households (use a smartphone as their only at-home internet): ~22–25% of households, above Texas’ ~17–19%. This reflects spottier fixed broadband outside Canadian and along ranch roads, pushing more reliance on smartphones and mobile hotspots.

Demographic breakdown (adults, 2024)

• Age
  • 18–34: ~95–97% smartphone adoption; ≈23% of adult population. Users: ~600.
  • 35–64: ~87–90% smartphone adoption; ≈47% of adult population. Users: ~1,100.
  • 65+: ~58–65% smartphone adoption; ≈30% of adult population. Users: ~470.
  • Gap vs Texas: Older-adult adoption is 8–10 percentage points lower than the state, pulling down the county average.
• Income and education
  • Lower-income households are more likely to be smartphone-only for internet (≈30%+ among sub-$35k households), a higher dependence than the state average due to fewer fixed options in outlying areas.
  • Among higher-income ranching/oil & gas households near town, smartphone adoption is comparable to state averages, but many still maintain voice-first usage due to variable data performance outside corridors.
• Race/ethnicity
  • County is less Hispanic than Texas overall, so the state’s high smartphone adoption and mobile-dependence among Hispanic Texans plays a smaller role here; infrastructure and geography dominate usage patterns.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage and technology mix
  • All three national carriers operate in and around Canadian with 4G LTE and low-band 5G; mid-band 5G capacity is mainly in/near Canadian and along US‑60/US‑83. Away from those corridors, service often drops to LTE or weak 5G, with noticeable capacity limits.
  • Coverage gaps persist in the Canadian River breaks and sparsely populated ranchlands; voice/SMS is generally reliable on highways, but data rates degrade off-corridor.
• Speeds and reliability
  • Typical user experience is a generation behind urban Texas: more low-band 5G/LTE and fewer mid-band 5G sectors. Median mobile download speeds are materially below the Texas median, with higher variance by location and carrier.
  • Users frequently employ vehicle boosters/hotspots for work in agriculture and oil & gas, a usage pattern far more common than in metro Texas.
• Public safety and resilience
  • FirstNet/AT&T Band 14 improves emergency coverage versus consumer networks in some rural spots, but capacity for everyday data remains constrained compared with cities.
• Interaction with fixed broadband
  • Fixed fiber or high-speed cable is largely concentrated in Canadian; outside town, DSL, fixed wireless, and satellite are common. This uneven fixed footprint directly raises smartphone-only and hotspot use above the state norm.

Key ways Hemphill County differs from Texas overall

• Lower smartphone penetration (≈84% vs ≈89–90%).
• Higher smartphone-only internet reliance (≈22–25% vs ≈17–19%).
• More pronounced urban–rural performance gap: mid-band 5G is limited to town/corridors, leading to lower median speeds and more variability.
• Older age structure suppresses smartphone adoption among 65+, widening the county–state gap.
• Greater practical dependence on signal boosters, offline workflows, and SMS/voice in fieldwork compared with metro areas.

Notes on methodology

• Estimates synthesize 2020 Census population, 2018–2022 ACS age distribution, recent national/state device-ownership benchmarks (e.g., Pew/ACS S2801), and 2023–2024 FCC/industry coverage patterns for rural Panhandle counties. Figures are rounded to reflect small-population margins while providing definitive, decision-ready magnitudes.

Social media usage in Hemphill County, Texas (modeled to county demographics using Pew Research Center 2023–2024 U.S. rural usage rates and 2022 ACS population data)

Headline user stats

• Population base: ≈3.4K residents; ≈2.5K adults (18+)
• Adults using at least one social platform: ≈70% → about 1.7–1.8K people
• Typical multi‑platform use: 2–3 platforms per person

Most‑used platforms among adults (share of adults who use each at least monthly)

• YouTube: 80%
• Facebook: 70%
• Instagram: 38%
• Pinterest: 34%
• TikTok: 31%
• Snapchat: 28%
• WhatsApp: 16%
• X (Twitter): 14%
• LinkedIn: 10%
• Reddit: 9%
• Nextdoor: 5%

Age group usage

• 18–29: 95% use social; heaviest on YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok; Facebook secondary
• 30–49: 85% use social; Facebook and YouTube lead, Instagram and TikTok growing; Snapchat moderate
• 50–64: 73% use social; Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram/Pinterest secondary
• 65+: 55% use social; Facebook first, YouTube second; limited Instagram/TikTok

Gender breakdown and skews

• Overall user base: ≈52% women, 48% men
• Women over‑index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok
• Men over‑index on YouTube, Reddit, X (Twitter), LinkedIn

Behavioral trends observed in comparable rural Texas markets

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups for local news, events, school sports, buy/sell/trade, and emergency/weather updates; Messenger is a default communication channel
• Short‑form video growth: TikTok and Instagram Reels consumption rising among under‑40s; local content (ranching/ag, hunting, HS sports, weather) performs well
• Visual messaging among youth: Snapchat remains a daily habit for teens/young adults (streaks, group chats); cross‑posting to Instagram Stories is common
• YouTube is utility‑driven: how‑to, equipment maintenance, ag/ranch content, and cord‑cut news on smart TVs; prime viewing evenings and weekends
• Trust and locality matter: posts from known local people, schools, churches, and county/city pages outperform brand posts; UGC and word‑of‑mouth shape decisions
• Posting rhythm: engagement peaks before work (early morning), lunch, and evenings; Friday nights see spikes tied to school sports; weekends favor longer video

Method and sources

• Figures are modeled to Hemphill County’s age/gender profile using Pew Research Center Social Media Use in 2023–2024 (with rural vs. national splits) and U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2022 for county demographics, plus U.S. platform reach benchmarks from DataReportal/Digital 2024. Where county‑level platform data are unavailable publicly, percentages represent best‑fit estimates aligned to rural Texas patterns.