Jackson County Local Demographic Profile

Jackson County, Texas — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau data; primarily 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates; population from 2023 Population Estimates):

Population size

  • Total population (2023 estimate): ~15,500

Age

  • Under 5 years: ~6%
  • Under 18 years: ~25%
  • 18 to 64 years: ~57%
  • 65 years and over: ~18%
  • Median age: ~38–39 years

Gender

  • Female: ~50%
  • Male: ~50%

Racial/ethnic composition

  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~36–38%
  • White alone, non-Hispanic: ~48–50%
  • Black or African American alone: ~6–7%
  • Asian alone: ~1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
  • Two or more races: ~3%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0–0.1%

Households and housing

  • Total households: ~5,600–5,800
  • Persons per household (avg): ~2.7–2.8
  • Family households: ~68% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~50–55% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~30–33%
  • Nonfamily households: ~30–32%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~72–75%
  • Average family size: ~3.2

Insights

  • Stable, small-population rural county with a sizable Hispanic community and a majority White non-Hispanic share.
  • Age structure skews slightly older than the U.S. overall, with a higher 65+ share.
  • Household size is modestly above the U.S. average, and homeownership is comparatively high.

Email Usage in Jackson County

  • Context: Jackson County, TX is a rural county (2020 population 14,988; ~18 people per square mile).

  • Estimated email users: 11,000–12,000 residents use email regularly (≈88–92% of adults; ≈70–80% of total population), applying current U.S. adoption benchmarks to the county’s age profile.

  • Age distribution of email users (estimated share):

    • 18–29: 10–14%
    • 30–49: 32–36%
    • 50–64: 28–32%
    • 65+: 20–24%
  • Gender split: Approximately 50% female and 50% male; usage gap is typically under 2 percentage points.

  • Digital access trends:

    • ~78–84% of households have a home broadband subscription; 12–16% are smartphone‑only; 14–20% have no home internet.
    • Adoption is strongest in and around Edna and Ganado; more remote farm/ranch areas rely on fixed‑wireless and satellite.
    • Mobile coverage is broad along US‑59/I‑69 and US‑77 corridors, with reduced capacity in sparsely populated zones.
    • Work/school requirements and healthcare portals sustain near‑universal email use among working‑age adults; seniors’ adoption continues rising via telehealth and benefits access.
  • Notes: Estimates synthesize 2020 Census population, ACS broadband indicators for rural Texas, and recent Pew Research email adoption rates by age to reflect local conditions.

Mobile Phone Usage in Jackson County

Jackson County, TX mobile phone usage: a concise, county-specific profile

Executive snapshot

  • Population base: ~15–16 thousand residents and ~5,600–6,000 households, predominantly rural and dispersed outside the towns of Edna and Ganado.
  • Overall mobile uptake is high but modestly below Texas’ big-metro averages; mid-band 5G capacity is notably patchier than in urban Texas, shaping speeds and how people use mobile data.

User estimates

  • Adult smartphone users: 9,800–10,800 residents (roughly 85–90% of adults), a few points below typical Texas metro rates (which are near 90–92%).
  • Households that are wireless-only (no landline): 60–68% of households locally versus roughly low-70s statewide. Older residents and legacy rural landline habits keep Jackson County a bit lower than the state.
  • Primary internet via cellular (phone hotspot or fixed wireless): 10–18% of households countywide; this is higher than Texas’ urban counties, reflecting patchy wired options outside town cores.
  • Prepaid share of lines: estimated 35–45% locally versus high-20s to low-30s statewide, consistent with rural and price-sensitive segments.
  • Platform split: Android 60–70% and iPhone 30–40% among smartphones; the local mix skews more Android than large Texas metros due to price tiers and prepaid prevalence.
  • Typical monthly mobile data use per smartphone: 12–20 GB (rises into the 20s when mid-band 5G is available regularly). Fixed wireless (LTE/5G home internet) users commonly consume 200–400 GB/month.

Demographic factors shaping usage (county vs Texas)

  • Older age structure: The county’s 65+ share is higher than Texas overall, which pulls down smartphone and wireless-only adoption slightly and sustains some landline use.
  • Income and plan mix: Median household income trails the Texas average; residents show higher uptake of prepaid, multi-line discounts, and MVNOs, and slower upgrade cycles on devices.
  • Work patterns: A larger share of outdoor, energy, agriculture, and trades employment increases reliance on wide-area coverage, PTT/LMR interop, rugged devices, and hotspot use at job sites.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

  • 4G/LTE coverage is broad along US‑59 (I‑69 corridor), TX‑111, TX‑172, and in and around Edna and Ganado. Coverage thins in river bottoms and far western/southern ranchlands, leading to dead zones in low-lying terrain and behind tree lines.
  • 5G availability: Low‑band 5G from the national carriers reaches most populated corridors; capacity 5G (mid‑band) is concentrated in/near towns and along the US‑59 corridor, with large rural gaps. As a result, 5G speeds fluctuate more than in Texas metros and often fall back to LTE in outlying areas.
  • Tower grid: Fewer macro sites per square mile than urban Texas; inter‑site distances are long, which limits indoor coverage on the fringes and reduces uplink performance for video, telehealth, and live work reporting.
  • Backhaul: Mixed fiber/microwave. Fiber backhaul is strongest near Edna/Ganado and along US‑59; microwave persists at rural sites. This constrains peak capacity compared with metro Texas where dense fiber is the norm.
  • Wired broadband competition: Cable and/or fiber serve town centers; many rural addresses rely on older DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite (including newer LEO options). Where homes lack competitive wired service, mobile networks carry more of the household data burden.
  • Resiliency: Storms and extended power outages typical of the coastal plain can knock out remote sites lacking multi‑day backup. Carriers prioritize restoration along US‑59 and town hubs first.

How Jackson County trends differ from Texas overall

  • Slightly lower smartphone and wireless‑only adoption: Driven by an older population and a rural service footprint; Texas metros are at the high end nationally, while Jackson County tracks closer to rural U.S. norms.
  • Heavier prepaid and MVNO usage: Price sensitivity and variable credit profiles lift prepaid’s share several points above the state average.
  • Greater reliance on cellular for home connectivity outside towns: A higher fraction of households use phone hotspots or fixed wireless due to limited wired options, a pattern much less common in cities like Houston, Austin, or Dallas.
  • Patchier mid‑band 5G and more LTE fallback: Capacity 5G coverage is discontinuous outside the main corridors, so real‑world speeds and latency vary more than in metro Texas, particularly indoors and in low‑lying areas.
  • Device mix tilts Android: Cost considerations and prepaid plans raise Android share relative to large Texas metros where iPhone penetration is higher.
  • Usage patterns: Mobile data use grows fastest among fixed wireless adopters and families without cable/fiber, not from uniformly higher smartphone use. In metros, growth is led by dense mid‑band 5G and video-heavy smartphone behavior.

Implications

  • Network upgrades that prioritize additional mid‑band 5G sectors on existing macro sites near Edna, Ganado, and along US‑59 would yield outsized gains for everyday speeds.
  • Adding rural small cells or repeaters at known weak spots (lowlands, tree‑covered corridors) would improve indoor coverage and telehealth reliability.
  • Fixed wireless capacity expansions can materially narrow the rural broadband gap, since demand is already present and higher than in the state’s urban counties.

Note on figures: Counts are derived by applying current national and Texas rural adoption benchmarks to Jackson County’s population and household base and are intended as conservative, decision‑grade estimates specific to a small, rural Texas county.

Social Media Trends in Jackson County

Social media usage in Jackson County, TX (2025)

Snapshot

  • Population baseline: ~15.5–15.8k residents; ~12–12.5k adults (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023).
  • Adult social media participation: estimated 78–83% use at least one platform (modeled from Pew Research Center 2024 rates and county age mix).

Most-used platforms among adults (estimated penetration)

  • YouTube: 80–85%
  • Facebook: 70–75%
  • Instagram: 40–45%
  • TikTok: 28–32%
  • Snapchat: 20–25%
  • X (Twitter): 15–20%
  • WhatsApp: 18–22%
  • Pinterest: 30–35% (skews female)
  • Reddit: 10–15%
  • LinkedIn: 12–18%
  • Nextdoor: 5–10% (lower in rural areas)

Age profile and usage

  • Share of adult social users by age: 18–29: 18–20%; 30–49: 36–40%; 50–64: 24–27%; 65+: 18–22%.
  • Platform tendencies by age (approximate):
    • 18–29: YouTube ~95%, Instagram ~75–80%, TikTok ~60–65%, Snapchat ~60–65%.
    • 30–49: YouTube ~90%, Facebook ~73–78%, Instagram ~50–55%, TikTok ~35–40%.
    • 50–64: YouTube ~83–86%, Facebook ~70–72%, Instagram ~30–35%, TikTok ~20–25%.
    • 65+: Facebook ~55–60%, YouTube ~50–55%, Instagram ~15–20%, TikTok ~10–15%.

Gender breakdown (among adult social users)

  • Overall split: ~52–54% women, ~46–48% men.
  • Skews by platform:
    • Women over-index on Facebook (+5–8 percentage points vs men) and Pinterest (women ~45–50% vs men ~10–15%).
    • Men over-index on YouTube (+3–5 pp), X/Twitter (+5–8 pp), and Reddit (+8–12 pp).

Behavioral trends

  • Facebook is the community backbone: city/county pages, schools, churches, youth sports, buy–sell–trade groups; Marketplace is heavily used.
  • Short-form video is surging: Facebook Reels and TikTok clips (15–30s) on local events, high school sports, agriculture/ranching, hunting/fishing perform best.
  • Local news, weather alerts, school updates, power/water outages drive peak engagement and rapid sharing.
  • Messaging-first habits: Facebook Messenger dominates; WhatsApp is meaningful among Hispanic residents and small businesses.
  • Best posting windows: weekday evenings (7–9 p.m.), weekend mornings; lunch hours work for services and food.
  • Advertising: Facebook/Instagram deliver the lowest local CPMs; precise geo-targeting (ZIPs around Edna/Ganado/industrial corridors) and interests (FFA/4‑H, hunting, HS sports) lift CTR; TikTok is effective for 18–34.
  • Trust is hyperlocal: micro-influencers (coaches, teachers, small-business owners) outperform generic creators for calls-to-action and events.

Notes on methodology

  • Population and age/sex mix from U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2019–2023).
  • Platform penetration modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media usage by age and gender, adjusted for rural Texas patterns. Percentages represent best-available local estimates for 2025.

Other Counties in Texas