Jim Hogg County

Jim Hogg County, Texas – key demographics

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census (population and race/ethnicity) and 2018–2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (age, sex, households). ACS figures for small counties have margins of error but reflect the best available multi-year estimates.

• Population size

  • 4,838 (2020 Census)

• Age

  • Median age: ~33 years (ACS 2018–2022)
  • Age distribution: ~27% under 18; ~58% 18–64; ~15% 65+ (ACS)

• Gender (sex)

  • Male ~51%; Female ~49% (ACS)

• Racial/ethnic composition (2020 Census; Hispanic is an ethnicity, any race)

  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~93%
  • Non-Hispanic White alone: ~6%
  • All other groups combined: ~1% (each category <1%)

• Households (ACS 2018–2022)

  • Households: ~1,650
  • Average household size: ~3.0
  • Family households: ~75% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~45% of all households
  • Households with children under 18: ~35%
  • Housing tenure: ~72% owner-occupied, ~28% renter-occupied

Insights: Jim Hogg County is overwhelmingly Hispanic, relatively young, and characterized by larger households and higher homeownership than the U.S. overall.

• Population baseline: ~4,800 residents (Jim Hogg County, 2020), spread over ~1,136 sq mi (≈4.2 people/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: ≈2,800 residents (≈80% of adults; ≈58% of total population).
• Gender split among email users: ~51% male, ~49% female, mirroring the county’s population.
• Age distribution of email users (est. share):
  • 18–34: 30%
  • 35–54: 38%
  • 55–64: 16%
  • 65+: 12%
  • Teens 13–17: 4% This reflects near-universal use in working ages and lower adoption among seniors.
• Digital access and usage context:
  • Households with a computer/smartphone: ~88%.
  • Households with a broadband subscription: ~68% (ACS 5-year range for similar rural South Texas counties), indicating a notable access gap.
  • Smartphone-only internet reliance is common in rural South Texas and likely near one-fifth of connected households locally, reinforcing mobile-first email habits.
  • Connectivity is concentrated in and around Hebbronville; outlying ranch areas face weaker signals and longer last-mile loops, affecting consistent email access.
• Key insight: Email is the default communication tool for most adults, but overall penetration is capped by broadband adoption and sparse settlement patterns, making mobile access a critical channel.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Jim Hogg County, Texas (2024–2025)

User estimates and adoption

• Resident smartphone users (modeled 2024 estimate): 3,600–3,900 people, representing roughly 88–92% of adults. Overall mobile-phone users of any type are 4,100–4,300.
• Household smartphone availability (ACS-based): about 88–92% of households report having at least one smartphone.
• Cellular data for home internet: approximately 62–70% of households have a cellular data plan; 30–36% are cellular-only (no wireline subscription at home). Both figures are notably higher than typical urban Texas patterns.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age: Younger residents (under 35) approach near-universal smartphone use; older adults (65+) show a larger gap than the Texas average, with adoption in the mid-70s to low-80s percent range. This widens intra-county disparities in app-based services and telehealth uptake.
• Income and plan type: A higher share of prepaid and budget plans than the statewide mix, reflecting lower median household income and larger multi-line family plans. Churn is modest; device replacement cycles run longer than state average.
• Language and apps: A predominantly Hispanic/Latino population relies heavily on bilingual (Spanish/English) messaging, social media, and OTT voice/video apps; local businesses commonly use WhatsApp and Facebook for customer contact, more so than the Texas average.
• Mobile as primary internet: Due to limited fixed broadband options outside Hebbronville, reliance on smartphones for homework, streaming, and government services is materially higher than statewide.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage footprint: Strongest signal along SH 16, US 359, and SH 285 corridors and in Hebbronville. Coverage drops across ranchland interiors, with spotty indoor performance in metal-roof structures.
• 5G availability: Low-band 5G from major carriers covers Hebbronville and main roads; mid-band 5G capacity is limited and highly localized. mmWave is absent. As a result, in-town download speeds of 50–200 Mbps are common where mid-band is present, while outlying areas frequently see 5–20 Mbps on LTE/low-band 5G.
• Backhaul: A mix of fiber and microwave; non-fiber sites are more capacity-constrained, which suppresses peak speeds and contributes to higher evening congestion than the Texas average.
• Resilience: Extended rural power outages can degrade service because not all macro sites have long-duration backup power; restoration priority generally favors town sites and highway corridors.
• Fixed alternatives: Cable/fiber availability is limited outside the town center. Satellite internet penetration is higher than average and often used as a complement to mobile data.

How Jim Hogg County differs from Texas statewide

• Higher mobile dependence: The county has a meaningfully larger share of cellular-only households (about 30–36% vs roughly 18–22% statewide), driven by sparse wireline infrastructure.
• Lower wired-broadband take-up: Fixed broadband subscription rates trail the Texas average by more than 10 percentage points, keeping smartphones central for day-to-day connectivity.
• Capacity rather than coverage: Basic outdoor coverage is generally present where people live and travel, but capacity (mid-band spectrum, fiber backhaul) is the binding constraint, leading to lower median speeds and higher peak-time congestion than state averages.
• Plan mix: Greater prevalence of prepaid and value plans and longer device lifecycles than the state norm.
• Digital inclusion gap: Age- and income-related gaps in advanced smartphone use (telehealth, remote learning platforms, secure digital ID, and online banking) are wider than statewide, reflecting both skills and network-capacity limitations.

Key statistics (sources: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2018–2022 5-year tables on Computer and Internet Use; modeled 2024 local estimates; carrier public coverage disclosures; rural network performance benchmarks)

• Households with at least one smartphone: approximately 88–92%
• Households with a cellular data plan for home internet: approximately 62–70%
• Cellular-only households (no wireline internet): approximately 30–36%
• Typical observed speeds: 50–200 Mbps in-town on 5G where mid-band exists; 5–20 Mbps in outlying areas on LTE/low-band 5G
• Population profile: largely Hispanic/Latino, younger median age than many rural peers, and lower median income, all of which correlate with higher mobile reliance

Implications

• Public services and local businesses should optimize for mobile-first access (low-bandwidth web, text/WhatsApp support, offline-capable apps).
• Education and healthcare programs that assume stable wireline broadband will underperform unless paired with mobile-friendly delivery and device support.
• The most impactful infrastructure upgrades are mid-band spectrum densification and fiber backhaul to existing towers rather than additional low-band coverage, which is already relatively broad along primary corridors.

Jim Hogg County, TX social media snapshot (modeled 2025 estimates)

Population base and methodology

• Population: 4,838 (2020 Census). Adult (18+) population used for rates is estimated at ~3,600.
• Rates are modeled from Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. social media adoption by rural location and Hispanic ethnicity, applied to county demographics; figures rounded for clarity.

Overall usage

• Adults using any social platform: ~80% (≈2,900 adults)
• Mobile-first usage dominates; desktop use is limited in rural areas.

Most-used platforms (share of adults; approximate local counts)

• YouTube: 78% (≈2,800)
• Facebook: 62% (≈2,200)
• WhatsApp: 44% (≈1,600) — elevated due to Hispanic-majority population
• Instagram: 38% (≈1,350)
• TikTok: 28% (≈1,000)
• Snapchat: 22% (≈800)
• X (Twitter): 12% (≈430)
• LinkedIn: 6% (≈220)
• Nextdoor: ~3% (≈110)

Age-group breakdown (share within each age group using the platform)

• Teens (13–17): Instagram ~70%, Snapchat ~65%, TikTok ~75%, YouTube ~95%, Facebook ~35%
• 18–29: YouTube ~95%, Instagram ~76%, TikTok ~62%, Snapchat ~55%, Facebook ~70%, WhatsApp ~50%
• 30–49: Any social ~90%; YouTube ~88%, Facebook ~72%, Instagram ~50%, WhatsApp ~50%, TikTok ~30%
• 50–64: Any social ~80%; Facebook ~67%, YouTube ~80%, WhatsApp ~40%, Instagram ~32%, TikTok ~17%
• 65+: Any social ~60%; Facebook ~50%, YouTube ~55%, WhatsApp ~25%, Instagram ~15%, TikTok ~8%

Gender breakdown (share of adult men vs. women using the platform)

• Facebook: women ~66%, men ~58%
• Instagram: women ~42%, men ~34%
• TikTok: women ~31%, men ~26%
• YouTube: men ~80%, women ~76%
• WhatsApp: women ~46%, men ~42%
• X (Twitter): men ~14%, women ~10%
• Snapchat: women ~25%, men ~18%

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups and Pages for school updates, county services, local news, severe weather, hunting season info, road closures, and church activities; Marketplace is a primary buy/sell channel.
• WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger are everyday utilities: widespread family and work coordination (ranching/oilfield shifts, small business orders), bilingual texting, and voice notes; WhatsApp group chats are common.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for regional Spanish/English music, how‑to repairs, church streams, and sports highlights; TikTok/Instagram Reels for short, local lifestyle content.
• Language and content style: high bilingual engagement; code-switching is common; Spanish-language posts and captions materially increase reach and shares.
• Youth skew: Teens and 18–29s concentrate on TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat; Facebook is still used but mainly for events and family.
• News and trust: Local information spreads via known connectors (school district, churches, county offices, and popular community admins). Official pages and timely posts significantly boost credibility.
• Timing: Engagement peaks early morning (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.), plus Sunday afternoons; mobile check-ins drive midday spikes.
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace is the primary channel; Instagram DMs and WhatsApp are preferred for inquiries and appointments; limited LinkedIn utility.
• Connectivity reality: Mobile data constraints favor short vertical video, compressed images, and concise bilingual captions.

Key sources

• U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (population base for Jim Hogg County)
• Pew Research Center (2024) Social Media Use in 2024; platform adoption by age, gender, and community type (rural); elevated WhatsApp usage among Hispanic adults
• Model assumptions: Rural adoption rates applied to local adult population; Hispanic-majority adjustment for WhatsApp and Facebook usage.