Houston County Local Demographic Profile

Houston County, Texas — key demographics (most recent U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates unless noted)

Population

  • Total population: ~22,400 (2023 ACS). 2020 Census: 22,066; down from 23,732 in 2010.

Age

  • Median age: ~44 years
  • Age distribution: under 18: ~19–20%; 18–64: ~59–60%; 65 and over: ~21%

Gender

  • Male: ~54%
  • Female: ~46%

Race and Hispanic origin (mutually exclusive where noted; Hispanic may be any race)

  • White, non-Hispanic: ~59–61%
  • Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~20–22%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~14–16%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.3–0.5%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~0.4–0.6%
  • Other (including NHPI), non-Hispanic: <1%

Households and families

  • Households: ~8,200–8,500
  • Average household size: ~2.4–2.5
  • Family households: ~63–66% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~44–46% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~23–25%
  • Households with someone 65+ living alone: ~12–14%
  • Average family size: ~3.0

Insights

  • Older age profile than Texas overall; higher share 65+
  • Male share elevated, influenced by correctional facilities in the county
  • Racial/ethnic mix skews more White non-Hispanic and Black, and less Hispanic, than the Texas average

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates; 2020 Decennial Census.

Email Usage in Houston County

  • Scope: Houston County, Texas (2020 pop. 22,066; land area ~1,231 sq mi; density ~18 people/sq mi).
  • Estimated email users: ~15,900 adults. Method: adults ≈ 79% of population and 92% email adoption among U.S. adults (Pew), adjusted by age mix.
  • Age distribution of email users (est.):
    • 18–34: 24% (3,800 users)
    • 35–64: 50% (8,000 users)
    • 65+: 26% (4,100 users)
  • Gender split (est., mirrors county demographics): 51% female (8,100 users), 49% male (7,800 users).
  • Digital access and trends:
    • Rural profile with dispersed households increases last‑mile costs; connectivity is densest around Crockett and along major corridors, sparser in outlying areas.
    • Smartphone reliance is significant in rural Texas; email access via mobile is common even where fixed broadband is limited.
    • Fixed broadband availability and speeds have been improving since 2021 due to state/federal investments (BEAD and other programs), but adoption typically lags urban Texas, with a notable share of households remaining smartphone‑only or without a home subscription.
  • Takeaway: Email usage is widespread—especially among 18–64—while seniors participate at slightly lower rates. Local density and infrastructure constraints shape access, pushing more mobile‑centric email use outside town centers.

Mobile Phone Usage in Houston County

Mobile phone usage in Houston County, Texas — summary and trends distinct from the state

Overview

  • Rural county in East Texas (county seat: Crockett) with a 2020 Census population of 22,066 across a large, heavily forested area that includes portions of Davy Crockett National Forest. Low population density and older age structure shape both usage and network investment patterns.

User estimates (2024)

  • Adult smartphone users: approximately 14,000–15,000. Basis: adult population roughly 80% of total; rural smartphone adoption typically 80–85%, a few points below Texas’s urban-weighted average.
  • Wireless-only adults (no landline): about 12,000–13,000 (roughly 70–75% of adults), consistent with national rural trends where landline use has fallen but remains slightly higher than in major Texas metros.
  • Households using mobile data as their primary home internet: approximately 20–25% countywide, materially higher than Texas’s statewide rate (generally in the low- to mid-teens) due to limited fixed-broadband options outside Crockett and a larger share of lower-income and older households.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

  • Age: The county’s older age profile pulls down overall smartphone penetration versus Texas. Expected adoption by cohort: 18–29 ~95%+, 30–49 ~90%+, 50–64 ~80%+, 65+ ~60%+. Seniors’ lower smartphone adoption and more basic device use are more prominent here than at the state level.
  • Income: Lower median household income than the Texas median correlates with higher reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and mobile-only internet for essential services (banking, benefits, telehealth). Data budgeting and hotspot use are more common than in urban Texas.
  • Race/ethnicity: Black and Hispanic residents in the county are more likely to be smartphone-dependent for internet access compared with White residents, mirroring national patterns. In a county with constrained wireline options, that dependence gap is wider than in metro Texas.
  • Device mix and upgrade cadence: A higher share of budget Android devices and longer replacement cycles than in urban Texas dampen 5G feature uptake and advanced app usage (for example, high-bandwidth video or AR).

Digital infrastructure

  • Carriers: AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile provide LTE across population centers and arterial highways (US‑287, US‑190, SH‑19). AT&T’s FirstNet build has reinforced coverage in and around Crockett and along key corridors serving public safety.
  • 5G footprint: Predominantly low-band “coverage 5G” countywide; mid-band (capacity 5G) is present mainly in and around Crockett and along major road segments. True high-capacity mid-band is sparse compared with Texas metros; mmWave is effectively absent.
  • Coverage gaps: Forested terrain and low tower density create dead zones and edge-of-cell performance in parts of the National Forest and between smaller communities (e.g., corridors toward Kennard, Ratcliff, and segments south of Grapeland and north of Lovelady). In-building coverage can be weak in metal-roof homes and larger commercial buildings outside Crockett.
  • Performance: Typical speeds range from 5–25 Mbps on LTE in fringe areas to 50–200 Mbps where mid-band 5G is available near Crockett and along primary highways. Evening and event-time slowdowns are noticeable where sectors serve wide rural footprints.
  • Redundancy and backhaul: Microwave backhaul remains important outside the county seat, which can limit capacity relative to fiber-fed urban sites. Fiber-to-tower is improving but still lags the state average, constraining consistent mid-band 5G deployment.
  • Fixed broadband interplay: Cable or fiber is mainly limited to Crockett and immediate neighborhoods; many outlying households rely on LTE/5G fixed wireless, WISPs, or satellite. This scarcity of wireline competes with and increases load on mobile networks.

How Houston County differs from Texas overall

  • Adoption level: Overall smartphone adoption is several points lower than the Texas average due to an older age structure and lower incomes; basic and midrange devices are more common, and replacement cycles are longer.
  • Mobile dependence: A substantially higher share of households rely on mobile data as their primary home connection than the statewide average, reflecting limited wireline choices outside Crockett.
  • Network capacity: 5G is more coverage-oriented (low-band) and less capacity-oriented (mid-band) than in metro Texas, yielding lower median speeds and more variability. mmWave seen in big Texas cities is absent.
  • Provider dynamics: AT&T’s coverage (bolstered by FirstNet) is relatively strong for public-safety and general users; T-Mobile’s low-band 5G offers broad reach with spotty mid-band; Verizon’s low-band 5G/LTE is solid on main corridors but has more rural holes. Choice and redundancy are narrower than in major Texas markets.
  • Usage behavior: Prepaid/MVNO plan use and smartphone-only internet access are more prevalent; hotspotting for home use is common. Video streaming quality and telehealth sessions are more sensitive to location and time-of-day than in urban Texas.

Key takeaways

  • Expect solid LTE/low-band 5G in towns and along highways, with mid-band 5G capacity mainly in and near Crockett.
  • Mobile-only connectivity is a pragmatic norm for many households, materially above the state rate.
  • The county’s older, rural profile and limited backhaul/fixed broadband keep smartphone adoption and 5G performance below Texas urban benchmarks, even as coverage has broadly improved since 2020.

Social Media Trends in Houston County

Houston County, TX — Social Media Usage Snapshot and Trends

Overall adoption

  • Expect roughly 7 in 10 adults to use at least one social media platform (rural U.S. benchmark from Pew Research Center). Given Houston County’s rural, older-leaning profile, usage skews toward Facebook and YouTube, with modestly lower Instagram/TikTok adoption than major metros.

Most-used platforms (U.S. adult usage rates; Pew Research Center, 2024) and local implications

  • YouTube: 83% — Strongest overall; high utility for how-to, faith, local government, and community content. Expect very high local reach.
  • Facebook: 68% — Dominant in rural communities for news, school/athletics, churches, local government, and Marketplace. Typically the top local engagement channel.
  • Instagram: 47% — Solid among under-45s; effective for visual storytelling, events, and local businesses.
  • Pinterest: 35% — Strong among women; effective for home, crafts, recipes, and local retail inspiration.
  • TikTok: 33% — Growing among under-35; short-form video performs, but overall county penetration below YouTube/Facebook.
  • LinkedIn: 30% — Niche locally; best for healthcare, education, government, and professional services recruiting.
  • Snapchat: 27% — Concentrated in teens/younger adults; limited reach beyond those cohorts.
  • X (Twitter): 22% — Smaller, news-oriented audience; limited local penetration vs Facebook.
  • Reddit: 22% — Skews male; interest-based communities rather than local geography.
  • WhatsApp: 21% — Usage strongest in Hispanic and international family networks; varies by community composition.

Age-group patterns (local application of national usage patterns)

  • 18–29: Very high YouTube usage; Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok are core daily apps. Facebook is secondary.
  • 30–49: YouTube and Facebook lead; Instagram meaningful; TikTok adoption moderate and rising.
  • 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram used by a minority; TikTok limited but growing for entertainment.
  • 65+: Facebook (for family, groups, churches) and YouTube (tutorials, sermons, local meetings) are primary.

Gender breakdown (directional patterns; Pew 2024)

  • Women: More likely to use Facebook and Instagram; Pinterest has a pronounced female skew (about half of U.S. women vs about one-fifth of men).
  • Men: More likely to use Reddit and X; YouTube slightly higher among men, but high for both genders.

Behavioral trends in Houston County (what residents do on these platforms)

  • Facebook is the “virtual town square”: heavy use of Groups for schools, youth sports, churches, hunting/fishing, buy/sell/trade, and county/city updates; Marketplace is widely used.
  • Video-first consumption: YouTube for DIY, equipment repair, sermons, music, and recorded council/commissioners’ meetings; short-form video (Reels/TikTok) expanding among under-35s.
  • Event-driven spikes: Fairs, festivals, athletics, and church events drive concentrated bursts of engagement and sharing.
  • Messaging ecosystems: Facebook Messenger is common; WhatsApp used within some family/community networks.
  • Local commerce behavior: Discovery via Facebook/Instagram posts, with conversion through messages, calls, or in-person visits; reviews and recommendations in Groups strongly influence decisions.

Practical channel prioritization for the county

  • Primary reach and engagement: Facebook, YouTube.
  • Secondary (under-45 focus): Instagram; TikTok for short-form video reach and creator partnerships.
  • Niche/role-specific: Pinterest (women, retail/home/food), LinkedIn (professional recruitment), Snapchat (teens/young adults).

Notes

  • Platform percentages above are definitive U.S. adult usage rates from Pew Research Center (2024). Rural counties like Houston County consistently over-index on Facebook and YouTube and under-index on Instagram/TikTok versus urban Texas metros, while retaining the same overall platform ranking.

Other Counties in Texas