Jim Wells County

Jim Wells County, Texas — key demographics (latest available)

Population

• Total: 38,900 (2023 estimate, U.S. Census Bureau)
• Change since 2020 Census: down roughly 3–4%

Age

• Median age: ~36 years
• Under 18: ~26%
• 18–64: ~60%
• 65 and over: ~14%

Gender

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive; Hispanic can be any race)

• Hispanic or Latino: ~84%
• Non-Hispanic White: ~14%
• Non-Hispanic Black: ~1%
• Non-Hispanic Asian: ~0.4%
• Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.3%
• Non-Hispanic Two or more races: ~0.3%

Households and housing

• Households: ~12,900
• Average household size: ~3.1 persons
• Family households: ~74% of all households
  • Married-couple families: ~49% of households
  • Female householder, no spouse: ~17%
• Households with children under 18: ~38%
• Tenure: ~70% owner-occupied, ~30% renter-occupied

Insights

• Predominantly Hispanic county with larger-than-U.S.-average household size.
• Slight population decline since 2020; age structure is somewhat younger than the U.S. overall.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; 2023 Population Estimates.

Jim Wells County, TX (2025 est.) email usage snapshot:

• Population ~39,700; density ~46 people per sq. mile across ~865 sq. miles. Largest hub: Alice.
• Estimated email users: ~26,800 adults (≈91% of adults), derived by applying Pew U.S. email adoption rates by age to the county’s age mix (U.S. Census/ACS).
• By age (users):
  • 18–29: ~6,000
  • 30–49: ~9,600
  • 50–64: ~5,700
  • 65+: ~5,400
• Gender split among users: 51% female (13,600) and 49% male (13,100), mirroring local demographics.

Digital access and trends:

• Internet access is broadly available but not universal; about 85–88% of households have an internet subscription, with ~75–80% having fixed broadband (cable/fiber/DSL). Approximately 15–18% are smartphone‑only, and ~12–15% have no home internet.
• Trend: steady increases in broadband subscriptions since the late 2010s and growing smartphone‑only dependence, meaning most email access occurs on mobile.
• Connectivity is strongest in and around Alice and along major corridors; rural tracts have lower fixed‑broadband take‑up and rely more on mobile data.

Notes: Estimates combine Census/ACS population structure with national email adoption by age from Pew Research to localize counts.

Jim Wells County, TX mobile phone usage: summary with estimates, demographics, and infrastructure, emphasizing how the county differs from Texas overall

Baseline population and context (official)

• Population: 40,037 (2020 Census). County seat: Alice; other population centers include Orange Grove, Premont, Sandia, and rural colonias.
• Demographics: Predominantly Hispanic/Latino (about 8 in 10 residents), a younger-than-U.S.-average profile but with a sizable senior cohort, and lower median household income and educational attainment than the Texas average. The county is largely non-metropolitan, with roughly half the population outside the main city of Alice.

User estimates and adoption patterns (modeled from Census/ACS/Pew and rural Texas market data)

• Estimated adult smartphone users: 28,000–31,000. Method: ~30,000 adults (about 75% of population) with 88–93% smartphone adoption. Adoption is boosted by mobile-first habits but moderated by cost constraints.
• Total active mobile lines (SIMs): 43,000–48,000. Lines-per-capita are typically 1.1–1.2 in rural counties due to secondary lines, hotspots, and machine-to-machine lines for agriculture, logistics, and oilfield support.
• Smartphone-only (no fixed home broadband) users: 7,000–9,000 adults; 22–28% of adult users. This share is materially higher than the Texas average (about 15–18%), driven by cost, rural last-mile gaps, and the 2024 wind-down of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).
• Plan mix: Prepaid and value MVNO lines are 50–65% of consumer lines (vs ~35–45% statewide). Budget sensitivity and credit barriers tilt the market toward prepaid.
• Data usage: 17–23 GB per smartphone per month on average, slightly above the Texas average because mobile hotspots and smartphone tethering substitute for home internet in many households. Evening and weekend peaks are pronounced during school months.

Demographic breakdown linked to mobile behavior

• Ethnicity: A majority Hispanic/Latino population increases family-plan adoption, WhatsApp and Facebook-centered communications, and cross-border calling features. Spanish-language customer support and promotions matter more than in most Texas markets.
• Income and affordability: Lower median income and higher poverty rates than Texas lead to:
  • Higher prepaid share and slower device upgrade cycles (3–4 years vs ~2–3 years statewide).
  • Greater reliance on installment plans for mid-tier Android devices; Apple share trails the Texas average.
  • Elevated smartphone-only reliance for internet access among students and service-sector workers.
• Age: Youth adoption and school-issued hotspots lift mobile data demand; seniors’ adoption lags the state but is rising with telehealth and benefits-portals usage.
• Work profile: Agriculture, oilfield/logistics, and service sectors drive multi-carrier setups, signal boosters in trucks, and hotspot use at job sites.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers present: AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon operate countywide macro coverage; multiple MVNOs ride these networks. AT&T and T-Mobile have the strongest in-town coverage in Alice; Verizon retains pockets of strength along major corridors and oilfield routes.
• 4G/5G footprint:
  • 4G LTE: Broad outdoor coverage in towns and along US-281, SH-44, and SH-359; patchier service on some farm-to-market roads and in low-population areas.
  • 5G low-band (coverage layer): Live in and around Alice and along primary corridors for AT&T and T-Mobile; fills in many LTE gaps but with modest speeds.
  • 5G mid-band (capacity layer like n41/n77): Concentrated in Alice and immediate surroundings; limited reach into outlying communities compared with Texas metros. Millimeter wave is not a factor.
• Capacity and speeds: Mid-band 5G capacity is sparser than the state average, so median speeds are lower and more variable, with noticeable evening congestion where smartphone-only households are common.
• Tower density and backhaul: Fewer macro sites per square mile than urban Texas; capacity upgrades are selective and track school zones and retail corridors first. Microwave backhaul persists on some rural sites; fiber-fed sites are concentrated near Alice.
• Fixed broadband context: Cable and some fiber exist in parts of Alice; many outlying areas rely on DSL remnants, fixed wireless ISPs, or satellite. This uneven fixed landscape elevates mobile substitution compared with the Texas norm.
• Emergency coverage and resiliency: Storm-related outages disproportionately affect rural sectors; residents commonly keep multi-carrier SIMs or boosters for redundancy.

How Jim Wells County differs from Texas overall (key trends)

• Higher smartphone-only dependence: A markedly larger share of households rely on mobile service as their primary or sole internet connection than the Texas average.
• More prepaid and MVNO usage: Budget and credit realities push the market toward prepaid/value plans at rates well above statewide norms.
• Slower 5G capacity buildout: Low-band 5G coverage is present, but mid-band 5G depth lags larger Texas markets, yielding lower median speeds and more congestion.
• Device and plan economics: Longer replacement cycles, more mid-range Android mix, and heavier hotspot use than the state overall.
• Infrastructure reliance: Mobile networks carry a greater share of total internet traffic because fixed broadband availability outside Alice is thinner than typical in Texas.

Implications for providers and stakeholders

• Network investment returns skew toward adding mid-band 5G sectors and fiber backhaul in Alice first, then extending to school zones and along US-281/SH-44.
• Prepaid-centric offers, bilingual support, and hotspot-friendly plans address local demand more effectively than premium postpaid-only lineups.
• Public-private initiatives that extend fiber or fixed wireless to outlying areas would directly reduce mobile congestion and narrow the smartphone-only gap.

Note on figures: Population and core demographics reflect 2020 Census baselines. User counts and market shares are estimates derived from county population and age structure, Texas and national smartphone adoption research, ACS computer/internet-use patterns for rural Texas, and observed rural carrier deployment practices through 2024.

Jim Wells County, TX — social media usage snapshot (modeled from U.S. Census and Pew Research Center 2024)

Baseline

• Population: ~39,500 (U.S. Census 2023 est.); adults 18+: ~29,400 (≈74% of residents)
• Gender: ~50–51% female, ~49–50% male
• Ethnicity: ~3 in 4 residents are Hispanic/Latino, which elevates WhatsApp and Instagram usage locally

Overall penetration (adults)

• Share of adults using at least one social platform: ~72% (Pew U.S. adult benchmark; used here as the local baseline)
  • That implies ~21,000 adult social media users in the county
• Usage is multi-platform: the typical adult uses 2–3 platforms

Most-used platforms (adults) — estimated local share and adult user counts

• YouTube: 83% of adults (24,400 users)
• Facebook: 68% (20,000)
• Instagram: 47% (13,800) — higher among 18–34 and Hispanic adults
• WhatsApp: 40% local estimate (11,800) — higher than the U.S. adult average due to the county’s Hispanic majority
• TikTok: 33% (9,700) — strongest under 30
• Pinterest: 35% (10,300) — skews female
• Snapchat: 30% (8,800) — teens/young adults
• X (Twitter): 22% (6,500)
• LinkedIn: 30% (8,800) — concentrates among 25–49, college-educated workers

Age-group usage tendencies (local patterns mapped from national benchmarks)

• Teens (13–17): YouTube near-universal; heavy Snapchat and TikTok; Instagram active; limited Facebook except for school/sports groups
• 18–29: Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube dominate; Facebook used mostly for groups, events, Marketplace
• 30–44: Facebook and Instagram are primary; YouTube for how‑to/news; WhatsApp common for family coordination
• 45–64: Facebook is the hub (groups, local news, Marketplace); YouTube for tutorials and regional news; WhatsApp used in Hispanic households
• 65+: Facebook first; YouTube second; lower adoption of Instagram/TikTok but growing

Gender breakdown (directional)

• Women: Overindexed on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; strong participation in community groups and Marketplace
• Men: Overindexed on YouTube, X, Reddit; higher engagement with sports, automotive, tech content
• Platform gender skew notes: Pinterest and Instagram skew female; Reddit, YouTube, and X skew male; Facebook is close to even

Behavioral trends observed locally

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups for schools, sports, churches, civic alerts, weather updates; Facebook Events for fairs and fundraisers
• Marketplace-driven commerce: High reliance on Facebook Marketplace and local buy/sell/trade groups for used goods and services
• Messaging layer: WhatsApp and Messenger are default channels for family and neighborhood coordination; bilingual (English/Spanish) group chats are common
• Video-first consumption: Short-form video (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) drives discovery; YouTube used for longer “how-to” and local news recaps
• Language and culture: Bilingual content performs best; Spanish-preferred among older residents; community/faith/family-oriented themes outperform generic brand messaging
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (6–9 pm) and weekends; school-year calendars and local sports seasons noticeably shift activity patterns
• Trust and verification: Posts from known local people, schools, churches, and county/city pages outperform brand pages; recommendations in groups carry outsized weight

Notes on methodology and sources

• Counts and percentages are estimates for Jim Wells County adults derived by applying Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. adult platform usage rates to the county’s adult population (U.S. Census Bureau 2023 estimates).
• WhatsApp’s local share is adjusted upward to reflect significantly higher adoption among Hispanic adults compared with the overall U.S. average, consistent with Pew’s race/ethnicity breakouts.
• Users commonly maintain multiple accounts; platform counts are not mutually exclusive.