Morris County

Key demographics for Morris County, Texas (latest Census/ACS data)

Population size

• Total population: 12,934 (2020 Census)
• Recent estimate: roughly 12.5–12.7k (Census/ACS 2019–2023)

Age

• Median age: about 43 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 18–64: ~57%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition

• White (non-Hispanic): ~57%
• Black/African American: ~23%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~14%
• Two or more races: ~4%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Asian and other groups: <1%

Households and housing

• Households: ~4,900–5,100
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~2/3 of all households
• Owner-occupied: ~70–75%; renter-occupied: ~25–30%
• Median household income: about $50–52k
• Poverty rate: ~18–20%

Insights

• Older age profile than Texas overall (median age ~43 vs. ~35 statewide).
• Higher Black share and lower Hispanic share than the Texas average.
• Homeownership is higher than the state average, reflecting a more rural profile.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program)

Morris County, TX email usage snapshot

• Estimated users: ~9,100 adult email users (≈90% of ~10,100 adults in a ~12,900-population county).
• Age distribution of email users (approx.):
  • 18–34: 24%
  • 35–49: 23%
  • 50–64: 26%
  • 65+: 27% Older-skewing demographics mean a larger share of users are 50+ than in urban Texas.
• Gender split: ~51% female, 49% male among users, mirroring the county’s slight female majority.
• Digital access trends:
  • Broadband adoption is typical of rural Texas: roughly 80% of households maintain a home broadband subscription; computer access is mid-to-high 80%.
  • Smartphone-only internet reliance is material (≈15–20%), influencing email access via mobile apps over desktop clients.
  • Access and speeds are strongest near town centers and highway corridors; outlying areas see more DSL/fixed wireless and lower speeds.
• Local density/connectivity context: Rural county of about 259 square miles with ≈50 people per square mile. Low density raises per-mile infrastructure costs, which slows fiber build-outs; public Wi‑Fi (libraries/schools) and cellular networks play an important role.

Net insight: Email penetration is high and stable across adults, with usage concentrated on mobile and a notable share of older users due to the county’s age profile.

Mobile phone usage in Morris County, Texas (modeled, current through 2024)

County context

• Population: ~12,700; adults 18+: ~9,800; households: ~4,900
• Predominantly rural with small towns (Daingerfield, Lone Star, Omaha, Naples); older age structure and lower median household income than the Texas average

User estimates (modeled from current Pew Research adoption rates by rurality/age/income and recent ACS county demographics)

• Adults with any mobile phone: ~9,000 (≈92% of adults; Texas ≈96%)
• Adult smartphone users: ~8,100 (≈82% of adults; Texas ≈88%)
• Prepaid share of smartphone lines: ~32% locally vs ~26% statewide (higher price sensitivity and patchier credit profiles increase prepaid use)
• Households that are mobile-only for home internet (smartphone or fixed wireless as primary, no wired plan): ~1,075 households (≈22%); Texas ≈16%

Demographic breakdown of mobile use (estimates)

• By age (share of adults; smartphone adoption in parentheses):
  • 18–34: ~22% of adults; ~96% adoption → ~2,070 users
  • 35–64: ~57% of adults; ~85% adoption → ~4,750 users
  • 65+: ~21% of adults; ~62% adoption → ~1,280 users
  • Implication: older skew depresses overall smartphone penetration by ~4–6 points vs Texas
• By income (household-level patterns; smartphone adoption and mobile-only reliance):
  • <$35k: ~36% of households; smartphone adoption ~76%; mobile-only ~30% → ~530 low-income mobile-only households
  • $35–75k: ~39% of households; adoption ~86%; mobile-only ~21% → ~400 households
  • $75k+: ~25% of households; adoption ~92%; mobile-only ~13% → ~160 households
  • Implication: cost and limited wired options drive higher mobile-only dependence than the state average
• By race/ethnicity (broad patterns aligned with Pew): Black and Hispanic residents show slightly higher smartphone dependence (mobile-only as primary internet) than White residents, contributing disproportionately to the county’s above-average mobile-only rate

Digital infrastructure points (what residents experience on the ground)

• Coverage and technology mix
  • All three national carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) provide countywide LTE coverage; service is strongest in and along Daingerfield–Lone Star and the US‑67/US‑259 corridors
  • 5G is present but uneven: mid-band 5G (fastest) is concentrated in/near towns; many rural stretches fall back to LTE or low-band 5G
• Performance
  • Typical downloads: 5–20 Mbps on rural roads/forested areas; 25–100 Mbps in towns on LTE/low-band 5G; 100–300+ Mbps where mid-band 5G is present (most often T‑Mobile footprints)
  • Evening congestion is common on town-adjacent sectors; uplink often <10–20 Mbps outside town centers
• Fixed wireless and “mobile-as-home” usage
  • 4G/5G fixed wireless (e.g., T‑Mobile, some Verizon sectors) is available in and around towns and is a common alternative where cable/fiber are absent
  • This availability underpins the county’s higher mobile-only household share
• Wireline backdrop (drives mobile behavior)
  • Cable and fiber are limited mainly to town cores and select subdivisions; many out-of-town addresses rely on legacy DSL, WISPs, or satellite
  • Result: more residents use smartphones and 5G fixed wireless as their primary broadband than the Texas average

How Morris County differs from Texas overall

• Lower adult smartphone penetration (≈82% vs ≈88% statewide) due to older population, lower incomes, and rural coverage constraints
• Higher reliance on mobile-only internet (≈22% of households vs ≈16% statewide), reflecting scarce, slower, or costlier wired options outside town centers
• Higher prepaid share (≈32% vs ≈26%), indicating price sensitivity and uneven credit profiles; also reflects desire for flexibility where coverage varies by location
• 5G experience is more location-dependent: mid-band 5G footprints are smaller and more fragmented than in urban Texas, creating wider speed swings across short distances
• Greater network variability by time of day, with more pronounced evening slowdowns than in metro counties

Practical takeaways

• Active mobile users: ~9,000 adults; smartphone users: ~8,100
• Mobile-only households: ~1,075; concentrated among lower-income and out-of-town residents
• Infrastructure priorities likely to shift impact: expanding mid-band 5G beyond towns, adding rural infill sites, and accelerating fiber-to-the-home builds on the county’s outskirts would close the gap with state-level usage and performance norms

Social media usage in Morris County, Texas (2025 snapshot)

Scope and method

• Figures are derived by applying the latest Pew Research Center platform-adoption rates (2023–2024) to local population totals from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; ACS). Where county-specific survey data do not exist, rural-United-States patterns are used as the closest proxy. Counts below are estimates; percentages are of the adult (18+) population unless noted.

Population anchor

• Total population: 12,934 (2020 Census)
• Estimated adults (18+): ≈10,100
• Sex split (population): ≈50.7% female, 49.3% male (ACS)

Most-used platforms (adult penetration; estimated local counts)

• YouTube: 83% of adults ≈ 8,400
• Facebook: 68% ≈ 6,900
• Instagram: 47% ≈ 4,700
• Pinterest: 35% ≈ 3,500
• TikTok: 33% ≈ 3,300
• Snapchat: 30% ≈ 3,000
• LinkedIn: 30% ≈ 3,000 (practically lower in rural counties with fewer white‑collar occupations)
• X (Twitter): 22% ≈ 2,200
• WhatsApp: 21% ≈ 2,100
• Nextdoor: 17% ≈ 1,700 (coverage limitations in low‑density areas reduce effective use)

Age-group usage patterns (apply to local age groups)

• 13–17 (teens, national benchmarks): YouTube ~95%; TikTok ~63%; Instagram ~62%; Snapchat ~60%; Facebook ~33%
• 18–29: near‑universal social use; heaviest on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube; Facebook secondary for events and groups
• 30–49: high daily use; Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram growing; TikTok moderate
• 50–64: solid majority on Facebook and YouTube; Pinterest meaningful; TikTok/Instagram lighter but rising
• 65+: roughly half use social media; Facebook is primary; YouTube for news/how‑to

Gender breakdown

• Overall user base skews slightly female due to Facebook and Pinterest adoption (≈52% female, 48% male among social users is a reasonable local estimate)
• Platform skews: Pinterest female-skewed; Reddit/X/YouTube more male; Facebook balanced but slightly female in rural counties

Behavioral trends observed in rural Texas counties of similar size (applicable locally)

• Community-first Facebook: Heavy engagement in school, church, civic, and buy/sell/Marketplace groups; local officials and services use Facebook for notices and severe‑weather updates
• Short‑form video growth: Vertical video (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) is the fastest‑rising format for local businesses, events, and high school sports highlights
• Utility content on YouTube: Strong demand for DIY, small‑engine and equipment repair, homestead, hunting/fishing, and how‑to content
• Messaging over “posting” among youth: Snapchat and Instagram DMs are primary for teens/young adults; public posting is selective
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace is the default local classifieds; Instagram Shops and TikTok Shop are emerging but niche
• Access patterns: Mobile‑first usage with evening peaks (7–9 p.m.); engagement spikes around school calendars, severe weather, road closures, and high‑profile local sports
• Trust and localness: Posts from known community members, pastors, coaches, and small‑business owners outperform brand pages; photos of people and locally recognizable places drive the highest CTR
• Nextdoor footprint limited: Neighborhood app usage is constrained by sparse neighborhood networks; Facebook groups fill that role

Notes on sources

• U.S. Census Bureau: 2020 Decennial Census; ACS for sex split
• Pew Research Center: Social Media Use and platform adoption (2023–2024), Teens and Social Media (2023)
• Platform percentages are national adult benchmarks; counts are computed by applying those rates to Morris County’s adult population and should be treated as well-grounded estimates rather than direct local survey results