Polk County

Polk County, Texas — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates; ACS 2019–2023 5-year and July 1, 2023 population estimate)

• Population: ~52,900
• Age:
  • Median age: ~43 years
  • Under 18: ~21%
  • 65 and over: ~22%
• Gender:
  • Male: ~52%
  • Female: ~48%
• Race and ethnicity (percent of total population):
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~69–70%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~17–18%
  • Black or African American: ~9%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native: ~1–2%
  • Asian: ~0.5%
  • Two or more races: ~2–3%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~20,000
  • Average household size: ~2.5 persons
  • Family households: ~69% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~49% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~27%
  • Nonfamily households: ~31%
  • Living alone: ~26% of households; 65+ living alone: ~11%

Notes: Figures are rounded; totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding and multi-racial/ethnicity reporting. The county’s male share is elevated relative to national averages due in part to local correctional facilities.

Polk County, TX email usage (estimated, 2025)

• Estimated email users: ~43,000 (≈82% of ~52,500 residents), reflecting high adult internet adoption.
• Age distribution of users: 13–17: 6%; 18–34: 23%; 35–54: 34%; 55–64: 16%; 65+: 21%. The county’s older profile lifts the 55+ share slightly above national norms.
• Gender split among users: ~51% female, 49% male.
• Digital access and trends:
  • ~78% of households have a broadband subscription; ~85% have a computer or smartphone at home; ~14% are smartphone‑only internet users.
  • Mobile coverage: 4G/LTE blankets nearly all populated areas; 5G present along major corridors (US‑59/I‑69, TX‑190), with patchier rural reach.
  • Fixed speeds: 100–200 Mbps common in Livingston/Corrigan; outer rural tracts see lower speeds and more satellite/fixed‑wireless reliance.
• Local density/connectivity facts: ~50 residents per square mile across ~1,050 sq mi (well below Texas average ~116/sq mi), increasing last‑mile costs and contributing to lower fiber availability outside town centers. Public libraries, schools, and hotspots around Livingston and Onalaska play an outsized role in access and email onboarding for lower‑income and senior users.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Polk County, Texas

Headline estimates

• Population: ~53,500 residents; ~20,800 households
• Mobile phone users: ~42,000 residents actively use a mobile phone (≈86% of the total population; ≈92% of residents age 13+)
• Smartphone users: ~39,000 residents age 13+ (≈90% of residents 13+)
• Households with a smartphone: 88% (≈18,300 households)
• Households with any internet subscription: 82% (≈17,100)
• Households with a cellular data plan (any): 78% (≈16,200)
• Households that rely on cellular data only (no cable/fiber/DSL): 20% (≈4,200)
• Households with no internet subscription: 14% (≈2,900)
• Households with no computer device: 8% (≈1,700)

How Polk County differs from Texas statewide

• Higher reliance on mobile-only internet: 20% of households use cellular data only vs ≈12% statewide
• Lower wired broadband take‑up: 56% subscribe to cable/fiber/DSL vs ≈73% statewide
• Slightly lower smartphone penetration at the household level: 88% vs ≈93% statewide
• More households completely offline: 14% vs ≈7% statewide
• Greater use of satellite/fixed wireless as a complement or substitute for wired broadband, reflecting rural geography and lake/forest topography
• 5G is present along major corridors (US‑59/I‑69, US‑190, TX‑146 and around Livingston/Onalaska), but mid‑band 5G coverage is spottier off‑corridor than typical urban/suburban Texas markets

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age
  • 18–34: ~98% own smartphones; heavy mobile‑first behaviors for social, video, and messaging
  • 35–64: ~90% smartphone ownership; significant use of mobile banking, telehealth, and navigation
  • 65+: ~74% smartphone ownership; higher use of voice/SMS; lower app diversity and data consumption than younger cohorts
• Income
  • < $25k: ~28% of households are smartphone‑only for home internet (cellular‑only), substituting for the cost of wired service
  • $25k–$75k: ~20% smartphone‑only

  • $75k: ~10% smartphone‑only, higher incidence of dual subscriptions (wired + cellular)

• Race/ethnicity
  • Hispanic households: ~24% smartphone‑only internet
  • Black households: ~22% smartphone‑only internet
  • White, non‑Hispanic households: ~17% smartphone‑only internet
• Geography within the county
  • Livingston and corridors along US‑59/I‑69 show stronger 5G and better in‑building performance with more tower density
  • Outlying areas near the Sam Houston National Forest/Big Thicket fringes and around Lake Livingston experience more dead zones, lower signal quality, and greater dependence on fixed wireless/satellite

Digital infrastructure notes

• Mobile networks: AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile provide countywide LTE with 5G concentrated along primary highways and population centers; land‑area coverage off corridors is weaker than in Texas metros
• Backhaul and capacity: Lower tower density and more microwave backhaul segments than urban Texas reduce peak speeds and capacity in rural tracts, especially during evening hours and on weekends near recreation areas
• Wired broadband: Cable and copper DSL are concentrated in/near Livingston and a few towns; fiber is present but limited to select neighborhoods and new builds; many outlying households default to fixed wireless or satellite
• Public access: Libraries, schools, and some civic buildings anchor Wi‑Fi access in towns; coverage thins quickly outside town limits, contributing to higher smartphone‑only reliance

What the trends mean

• Mobile is the default on‑ramp: Polk County residents lean more on smartphones and cellular data for everyday connectivity than the average Texan, driven by older copper infrastructure, fiber gaps, and income constraints
• Closing the wired gap matters: The county’s higher offline rate (14%) and cellular‑only reliance (20%) indicate that incremental fiber/wired buildouts or stronger fixed‑wireless alternatives would materially shift usage off congested mobile networks
• Equity lens: Smartphone‑only dependence is notably higher among lower‑income and minority households, making device affordability, signal quality, and generous mobile data allowances disproportionately important locally

Notes on sources and methodology

• Figures are derived from the latest available American Community Survey 5‑year estimates (2019–2023) for computer and internet use, combined with standard demographic shares and county population/household counts; mobile coverage characterizations reflect statewide carrier deployments and known rural East Texas patterns as of 2024. Estimates are rounded for clarity.

Polk County, TX — social media snapshot (2025)

User base

• Population: ~53,000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2023 estimate)
• Estimated active social media users: ~38,500 (≈72–73% of residents; ≈84% of adults)
• Gender mix among social media users: ≈51% female, 49% male (mirrors the county’s slight female majority and national usage skew)

Age mix (share of social media users)

• 13–17: ~7%
• 18–29: ~18%
• 30–49: ~34%
• 50–64: ~24%
• 65+: ~17%

Most‑used platforms (share of adults who use the platform; Polk County tracks closely with U.S. adoption)

• YouTube: 83%
• Facebook: 68%
• Instagram: 47%
• TikTok: 33%
• Pinterest: 30%
• Snapchat: 27%
• LinkedIn: 30%
• WhatsApp: 23%
• X (Twitter): 22%
• Reddit: 22%
• Nextdoor: 19%

Age and gender patterns

• 18–29: Very video‑forward. YouTube and Instagram dominate; Snapchat and TikTok both strong. Facebook comparatively low in this cohort.
• 30–49: Facebook + YouTube are core; Instagram usage is solid and TikTok use is moderate. Parents in this band drive school, sports, and community updates.
• 50–64: Facebook is the daily habit; YouTube for how‑tos and product research. Instagram and TikTok are secondary but growing.
• 65+: Facebook is the anchor for local news, churches, community groups; YouTube usage is steady; other platforms are niche.
• Gender: Women over‑index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over‑index on YouTube and Reddit. Local buy/sell activity skews female; hobby/outdoors video content skews male.

Behavioral trends in Polk County

• Community-first Facebook use: High engagement with local groups and pages (county offices, sheriff, fire/EMS, school districts, churches). Fast spikes during weather, road closures, outages, and elections.
• Marketplace culture: Strong buy/sell/trade behavior on Facebook; practical goods, vehicles, equipment, and services perform well with photo-first listings and evening/weekend posting.
• Short‑form video growth: Reels/TikTok used by small businesses (food, home services, real estate, outdoor/recreation). Authentic, locally shot clips outperform polished ads.
• Event‑driven engagement: Fairs, festivals, sports, and faith events drive peaks. Facebook Events and cross‑posting into local groups materially lift turnout.
• Messaging for commerce: Facebook Messenger is a primary contact channel for appointments, quotes, and customer service; fast responses correlate with conversions.
• Trust and locality: Posts from known local entities and neighbors carry outsized credibility; “face‑in‑frame” owner videos and behind‑the‑scenes content outperform generic creatives.

Notes on method

• Population from U.S. Census Bureau (2023 estimates). Social‑media user count derived by applying current U.S. social‑media penetration (~72–73% of total population; ≈84% of adults) to the county population. Platform percentages reflect Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. adult adoption rates and are used as the best available proxy at the county level. Age/gender mix of users aligns county demographics with these usage patterns.