San Jacinto County Local Demographic Profile
San Jacinto County, Texas — key demographics
Population size:
- 27,402 (2020 Decennial Census)
- Up 3.9% from 26,384 in 2010
Sex:
- Approximately 50% male, 50% female (2020 Census)
Age:
- Median age: mid-40s (2020/ACS)
- Age distribution: roughly 22% under 18; ~58% 18–64; ~20% 65+ (2020/ACS)
Race and ethnicity (2020 Census):
- White alone: ~81%
- Black or African American alone: ~8%
- American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
- Asian: <1%
- Some other race: ~4%
- Two or more races: ~6%
- Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~16%
- Non-Hispanic White: roughly two-thirds of the population
Households and housing (Census/ACS):
- Households: ~10–10.5k
- Average household size: ~2.6 persons
- Family households: ~70% of households; married-couple families comprise about half
- Housing units: ~17–18k, with a high owner-occupancy rate (around 80%)
Insights:
- The county is small and growing modestly.
- Demographics skew older than the Texas average, with about one in five residents age 65+.
- The population is predominantly non-Hispanic White, with a meaningful Hispanic/Latino and smaller Black population.
- Household structure is family-oriented with high homeownership and relatively small household sizes.
Email Usage in San Jacinto County
- Estimated email users: About 22,000 residents use email regularly in San Jacinto County. This reflects high adult email adoption applied to the county’s population 13+ and local internet access levels.
- Age distribution of email users: 13–24: 17%; 25–44: 28%; 45–64: 32%; 65+: 23%.
- Gender split among email users: ~51% female, 49% male (mirroring the county’s adult gender mix and the near‑parity of email adoption by gender).
Digital access and usage trends
- Household connectivity: ~88–90% of households have a computer or smartphone; ~75–80% have a broadband subscription; ~14–16% have no home internet. Around 18–20% are smartphone‑only users, which sustains email use even where wired broadband is limited.
- Access pattern: Email is near‑universal among working‑age adults and growing among seniors, with mobile email the primary access method in lower‑density areas.
- Growth drivers: Recent fixed‑wireless and fiber buildouts along main corridors (e.g., US‑59/I‑69/Shepherd–Coldspring area) are expanding reliable access; satellite fills remaining gaps.
Local density/connectivity facts
- Population density is low—about 48 people per square mile—indicating a predominantly rural service environment with dispersed addresses, which raises last‑mile costs and contributes to mixed wireline availability but strong mobile dependence for email.
Mobile Phone Usage in San Jacinto County
Mobile phone usage in San Jacinto County, Texas — 2025 snapshot
Key user estimates
- Adult population base: roughly 21,000–22,000 adults (county population ~27,000–29,000; U.S. Census 2020 plus modest growth)
- Smartphone users: about 16,500–18,000 adults (78–83% adult penetration). This is 5–8 percentage points lower than Texas’ large-metro norm.
- Basic/feature-phone users: about 1,700–2,100 adults (8–10%).
- Adults with no mobile phone: about 2,000–2,500 (9–12%).
- Mobile-only internet households (no fixed home broadband, reliant on cellular/FWA): approximately 20–26% of households, versus ~16–19% statewide.
Demographic breakdown of usage
- Age:
- San Jacinto County skews older than Texas overall (share of residents 65+ is materially higher than the state average). Applying Pew’s age-specific ownership rates yields:
- 18–49: ~92–96% smartphone ownership; near-parity with Texas.
- 50–64: ~80–85% smartphone ownership; modestly below state urban rates.
- 65+: ~55–65% smartphone ownership; well below Texas average, contributing most of the county’s non-smartphone and no-phone segment.
- San Jacinto County skews older than Texas overall (share of residents 65+ is materially higher than the state average). Applying Pew’s age-specific ownership rates yields:
- Income and education:
- Median household income is lower than the Texas average; accordingly, prepaid plans and budget Android devices are more common than in the state’s metros. Mobile-only internet reliance is elevated among lower-income households and renters.
- Race/ethnicity:
- The county is majority White non-Hispanic with notable Black and Hispanic communities. Ownership rates are broadly high across groups, but mobile-only internet dependence is higher among Hispanic and lower-income households than the county average (pattern mirrors statewide gaps).
Digital infrastructure highlights
- Networks present: AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile operate countywide. Public-safety and regional carriers roam on these networks.
- Coverage pattern:
- 4G LTE: Broad outdoor coverage along US-59 (Shepherd), TX-150/190, and around Coldspring/Point Blank, with patchier signal in forested interior areas and lake-adjacent hollows.
- 5G: Low-band 5G covers most traveled corridors; mid-band 5G (faster) is available in limited pockets near towns and along US-59. Indoor coverage varies in metal-roof homes; Wi‑Fi calling is commonly used.
- Performance (typical observed ranges for rural East Texas of similar topology):
- LTE: ~10–40 Mbps down, sub-5–15 Mbps up; congestion can pull speeds lower at peak times.
- Low-band 5G: ~30–100 Mbps down, 5–20 Mbps up.
- Mid-band 5G where present: ~150–400 Mbps down, 15–50 Mbps up.
- Alternatives and backhaul:
- Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) from T-Mobile and Verizon is available in parts of the county and is a key driver of mobile-only household internet.
- Fiber-to-the-home is present in limited pockets; many areas still depend on legacy DSL or cable. Starlink is an option where tree cover and roofline allow.
- Tower siting follows highways and towns; terrain, timber, and lake inlets create localized dead zones and higher-than-average reliance on external antennas/boosters.
How San Jacinto County differs from Texas overall
- Adoption gap: Adult smartphone penetration is several points lower than major Texas metros, driven by a larger 65+ share and lower incomes.
- Higher mobile-only reliance: A notably larger share of households rely on cellular/FWA instead of fixed broadband, reflecting limited fiber availability and cost sensitivity.
- Device and plan mix: Higher prevalence of Android and prepaid/value plans than the state urban average; iPhone and premium postpaid plans under-index.
- Usage profile: Voice/SMS reliability and coverage footprint matter more than peak speeds; app/social/video use is robust among younger adults but trails metro patterns among older residents.
- 5G reality: Low-band 5G is widespread enough for coverage, but mid-band 5G capacity is less available than in metros, so the speed uplift over LTE is less dramatic outside corridor pockets.
- Infrastructure cadence: New macro sites and fiber backhaul upgrades occur, but at a slower tempo than metro Texas; service quality varies sharply within short distances due to forest density and lake topography.
- Seasonal load: Recreation around Lake Livingston and weekend travel on US-59 create predictable congestion spikes not as pronounced in urban cores.
Notes on method and sources
- County population and age structure are based on U.S. Census (2020) with modest growth to 2025. Smartphone ownership rates by age, rurality, and income draw on recent Pew Research Center findings; mobile-only household shares are inferred from ACS “computer and internet use” patterns plus carrier-reported FWA footprints in rural Texas. Coverage/performance characterizations reflect FCC Broadband Data Collection filings, carrier maps, and typical rural East Texas RF performance ranges. Figures are presented as bounded estimates to remain faithful to available county-level evidence while offering actionable precision.
Social Media Trends in San Jacinto County
San Jacinto County, TX — social media snapshot (2025)
Overall usage
- Adult social media adoption: 70–75% of residents 18+ use at least one platform; 60–65% are daily users.
- Typical user behavior: multi‑platform (3–4 platforms per person), mobile‑first usage dominates; activity peaks early morning (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.), with weekend Marketplace spikes.
Age and gender
- Adoption by age (share of each age group using social media):
- 18–29: 90–95%
- 30–49: 80–85%
- 50–64: 70–75%
- 65+: 45–55%
- Gender among users: approximately 52–55% female, 45–48% male. Women over‑index on Facebook Groups and Pinterest; men over‑index on YouTube and Reddit.
Most‑used platforms (share of adult social media users in the county using each at least monthly; overlaps expected)
- YouTube: 78–82%
- Facebook: 72–76% (Marketplace and Groups are primary drivers)
- Facebook Messenger: 60–65%
- Instagram: 32–38%
- Pinterest: 28–33% (strong among women 25–54)
- TikTok: 25–30% (heaviest under 35; growth via Reels cross‑posting)
- Snapchat: 20–24% (concentrated under 30)
- WhatsApp: 18–22% (family/closed group chats; bilingual households)
- X (Twitter): 13–17% (niche for sports/news)
- Reddit: 12–16% (tech/outdoors/DIY communities)
- Nextdoor: 10–15% (higher in HOA/subdivision areas near Lake Livingston)
- LinkedIn: 10–14% (commuters/white‑collar workers)
Behavioral trends
- Facebook as the civic square: local news, school athletics, churches, weather/emergency updates, buy/sell/trade. Marketplace is the default for P2P commerce and local services discovery.
- Video‑first habits: YouTube for how‑to, homestead/DIY, outdoor recreation, and church services; short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) drives discovery for small businesses and events.
- Messaging gravity: Most coordination happens in Facebook Messenger group chats; WhatsApp is secondary but rising among younger adults.
- Youth split: Teens/young adults prioritize Snapchat/TikTok for daily communication and entertainment; Instagram for DMs and highlights; Facebook mainly for family/school notices.
- Local commerce and promotion: Small businesses rely on Facebook/Instagram with tight geo‑targeting (15–25 miles). Reviews and recommendations in Facebook Groups strongly influence service choices.
- Access realities: Patchy home broadband pushes heavier mobile use and download‑to‑watch behaviors; engagement surges during storms, outages, and election cycles.
Notes on figures
- Percentages are county‑level estimates derived from 2024 Pew Research Center platform adoption benchmarks, adjusted for San Jacinto County’s older/rural profile using recent ACS age/sex mix for the county. Platform shares are of adult social media users, not the total population.
Table of Contents
Other Counties in Texas
- Anderson
- Andrews
- Angelina
- Aransas
- Archer
- Armstrong
- Atascosa
- Austin
- Bailey
- Bandera
- Bastrop
- Baylor
- Bee
- Bell
- Bexar
- Blanco
- Borden
- Bosque
- Bowie
- Brazoria
- Brazos
- Brewster
- Briscoe
- Brooks
- Brown
- Burleson
- Burnet
- Caldwell
- Calhoun
- Callahan
- Cameron
- Camp
- Carson
- Cass
- Castro
- Chambers
- Cherokee
- Childress
- Clay
- Cochran
- Coke
- Coleman
- Collin
- Collingsworth
- Colorado
- Comal
- Comanche
- Concho
- Cooke
- Coryell
- Cottle
- Crane
- Crockett
- Crosby
- Culberson
- Dallam
- Dallas
- Dawson
- De Witt
- Deaf Smith
- Delta
- Denton
- Dickens
- Dimmit
- Donley
- Duval
- Eastland
- Ector
- Edwards
- El Paso
- Ellis
- Erath
- Falls
- Fannin
- Fayette
- Fisher
- Floyd
- Foard
- Fort Bend
- Franklin
- Freestone
- Frio
- Gaines
- Galveston
- Garza
- Gillespie
- Glasscock
- Goliad
- Gonzales
- Gray
- Grayson
- Gregg
- Grimes
- Guadalupe
- Hale
- Hall
- Hamilton
- Hansford
- Hardeman
- Hardin
- Harris
- Harrison
- Hartley
- Haskell
- Hays
- Hemphill
- Henderson
- Hidalgo
- Hill
- Hockley
- Hood
- Hopkins
- Houston
- Howard
- Hudspeth
- Hunt
- Hutchinson
- Irion
- Jack
- Jackson
- Jasper
- Jeff Davis
- Jefferson
- Jim Hogg
- Jim Wells
- Johnson
- Jones
- Karnes
- Kaufman
- Kendall
- Kenedy
- Kent
- Kerr
- Kimble
- King
- Kinney
- Kleberg
- Knox
- La Salle
- Lamar
- Lamb
- Lampasas
- Lavaca
- Lee
- Leon
- Liberty
- Limestone
- Lipscomb
- Live Oak
- Llano
- Loving
- Lubbock
- Lynn
- Madison
- Marion
- Martin
- Mason
- Matagorda
- Maverick
- Mcculloch
- Mclennan
- Mcmullen
- Medina
- Menard
- Midland
- Milam
- Mills
- Mitchell
- Montague
- Montgomery
- Moore
- Morris
- Motley
- Nacogdoches
- Navarro
- Newton
- Nolan
- Nueces
- Ochiltree
- Oldham
- Orange
- Palo Pinto
- Panola
- Parker
- Parmer
- Pecos
- Polk
- Potter
- Presidio
- Rains
- Randall
- Reagan
- Real
- Red River
- Reeves
- Refugio
- Roberts
- Robertson
- Rockwall
- Runnels
- Rusk
- Sabine
- San Augustine
- San Patricio
- San Saba
- Schleicher
- Scurry
- Shackelford
- Shelby
- Sherman
- Smith
- Somervell
- Starr
- Stephens
- Sterling
- Stonewall
- Sutton
- Swisher
- Tarrant
- Taylor
- Terrell
- Terry
- Throckmorton
- Titus
- Tom Green
- Travis
- Trinity
- Tyler
- Upshur
- Upton
- Uvalde
- Val Verde
- Van Zandt
- Victoria
- Walker
- Waller
- Ward
- Washington
- Webb
- Wharton
- Wheeler
- Wichita
- Wilbarger
- Willacy
- Williamson
- Wilson
- Winkler
- Wise
- Wood
- Yoakum
- Young
- Zapata
- Zavala