San Patricio County

San Patricio County, Texas — key demographics (latest Census/ACS)

Population

• Total population: ~69,000 (2023 ACS estimate)
• 2020 Census count: 68,755

Age

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

Gender

• Female: ~49%
• Male: ~51%

Race and ethnicity

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~63%
• White alone, non-Hispanic: ~30%
• Black or African American alone: ~2–3%
• Asian alone: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0.1%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~2–3%

Households

• Total households: ~23,500
• Average household size: ~2.9
• Family households: ~74% of households; average family size ~3.3
• Tenure: ~70% owner-occupied, ~30% renter-occupied

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

San Patricio County, TX snapshot (2025):

• Population ~70,000; adults ~53,000. Estimated adult email users: 48,000 (90%).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–29: 9,100
  • 30–49: 13,500
  • 50–64: 12,800
  • 65+: 12,400
• Gender split of email users: women 51% (24,500), men 49% (23,500).

Digital access and connectivity:

• Households 24,000; with home broadband 85% (20,500). Smartphone‑only home internet 11% (2,600). No home internet 9% (2,200).
• Population density ~100 people/sq mi across ~700 sq mi.
• Fixed broadband is strongest along the US‑181 corridor (Portland–Ingleside–Gregory–Taft–Sinton) with multiple fiber/cable options; western/rural zones rely more on DSL and fixed wireless, where sub‑100 Mbps service is more common.
• Mobile coverage: near‑universal 4G LTE; 5G concentrated in population centers and along major highways.

Trends:

• Home broadband subscription up ~7 percentage points since 2018; smartphone access up, driving more mobile‑first email use.
• Email usage remains near‑universal among working‑age adults and strong among seniors, with daily checking rates highest in the 30–49 cohort.

Mobile phone usage in San Patricio County, Texas — 2025 snapshot

At-a-glance user estimates

• Population base: ≈70,000 residents (2023 Census estimate; 2020 Census was just under 69,000)
• Mobile phone users (any cellphone): 60,000–63,000 (≈86–90% of total residents), slightly below the Texas benchmark (≈92–95%)
• Smartphone users: 53,000–57,000 (≈76–82% of residents; ≈88–91% of adults), 2–4 percentage points lower than Texas adults overall
• Active wireless subscriptions (SIMs, including data-only/IoT): 105,000–115,000 (≈150–165 lines per 100 residents), broadly in line with Texas’ high device-per-person ratio

Demographic breakdown (how the county differs from the Texas profile)

• Age
  • 18–29: Near-saturation smartphone use comparable to Texas (≈95%+), driven by work, school, and social apps
  • 30–64: Within 1–2 points of the state; heavy work-related messaging and navigation due to commuting patterns into Corpus Christi and local industrial sites
  • 65+: Noticeably lower smartphone adoption than the Texas average (≈5–8 points lower); feature-phone retention and shared family plans are more common
• Income and education
  • Households under $35k are more likely to be mobile-only for home internet (estimated 25–30% vs 18–22% statewide), reflecting patchier fixed broadband in rural tracts and price sensitivity to wireline plans
  • Prepaid plans make up a larger share of lines (estimated 30–35% vs ≈22–25% statewide); multi-line discounts and month-to-month flexibility are key drivers
• Race/ethnicity and language
  • A majority-Hispanic county (≈60%) with above-average reliance on smartphones for primary internet access compared with the Texas average; Spanish-first plans, OTT calling, and WhatsApp usage are widespread
• Household structure
  • Slightly larger household sizes than the state median translate into higher device-per-household counts, but not higher per-capita adoption due to multi-user sharing and budget-conscious plan choices

Usage patterns and behavior

• Work-driven mobility: Shift-based traffic tied to petrochemical, fabrication, logistics, and port-adjacent jobs produces predictable peaks around shift changes on US-181/US-77/SH-35 corridors
• Mobile-only reliance: Higher rates of smartphone-only internet use for everyday tasks (banking, school portals, job applications) than the state average, especially in unincorporated areas
• Emergency readiness: Elevated attention to hurricane season pushes a larger share of residents to maintain battery packs, car chargers, and wireless alerts; text/voice fallback use is higher during severe weather than in most Texas metros

Digital infrastructure points (current landscape and gaps)

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE: Near-universal population coverage across incorporated areas (Portland, Ingleside, Aransas Pass portion, Sinton, Taft, Odem, Mathis), with persistent weak spots in low-lying and fringe rural zones
  • 5G: Low-band 5G covers all major population centers; mid-band 5G is strongest in Portland/Ingleside–industrial corridors and along US-181 and SH-35, tapering in agricultural interiors
• Capacity and performance
  • Densification around industrial sites has improved peak-hour capacity compared with 2021–2022, but rural sectors still see larger speed swings than statewide averages, especially during evening hours and bad-weather propagation
  • Fixed wireless access (FWA) 5G is widely available in incorporated places; take-up is higher than the state average in neighborhoods lacking cable/fiber, supporting the county’s mobile-first trend
• Wireline interplay
  • Cable and fiber options are robust in Portland and selected cities but fragment quickly across outer tracts; this uneven wireline footprint is the primary driver of higher mobile-only dependence relative to Texas overall
• Resilience
  • Carriers have added backup power and rapid-deploy assets post-2020 hurricanes; nonetheless, single-backhaul segments in rural areas remain a vulnerability compared with better-meshed urban Texas networks

Key takeaways versus Texas

• Slightly lower adult smartphone penetration and notably lower adoption among seniors
• Higher reliance on prepaid plans and mobile-only home internet, reflecting price sensitivity and patchy wireline options in rural tracts
• Comparable or higher device-per-capita counts due to work devices and IoT/vehicle lines, even as per-capita human adoption lags the state by a few points
• Infrastructure is strong in the industrial/commuter arc and weaker inland, producing above-average variability in user experience compared with Texas’ metro counties

Notes on method and sources

• Population, age, and household structure based on recent Census/ACS trends; adoption rates anchored to Pew Research and Texas-wide wireless benchmarks, adjusted for rurality, income, and infrastructure conditions in San Patricio County
• Subscription density uses Texas CTIA-style lines-per-capita norms applied to county population; mobile-only estimates reflect ACS device/broadband patterns and observed rural vs urban gaps in Texas
• Figures are rounded and expressed as ranges to reflect 2023–2024 dataset variability and carrier build cycles through early 2025 while providing definitive, decision-ready bounds and directional differences from the state level

Social media usage snapshot — San Patricio County, TX (2025)

Overall user base

• Population baseline: ~70,000 residents; adults 18+ ~52,000–55,000
• Internet access: ~80–88% of households have a broadband subscription; smartphone ownership among adults ~85–90%
• Social media penetration: ~80% of adults use at least one platform (≈41,000–44,000 adult users). Including teens, total social media users are ~48,000–50,000

User mix by age (share of local social media users)

• 13–17: ~8–10%
• 18–29: ~20–22%
• 30–49: ~34–36%
• 50–64: ~22–24%
• 65+: ~12–14%

Gender breakdown (share of local social media users)

• Female: ~52–55%
• Male: ~45–48%
• Platform skews: Pinterest and TikTok skew female; Reddit and X (Twitter) skew male; Facebook and Instagram are near-balanced but slightly female-leaning

Most-used platforms (share of local adults who use each platform)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~65–70%
• Instagram: ~40–50%
• TikTok: ~30–35%
• Snapchat: ~25–30%
• Pinterest: ~30–35% (predominantly women)
• WhatsApp: ~20–25% (strong in bilingual and family groups)
• X (Twitter): ~18–22%
• LinkedIn: ~25–30% (higher around Portland/Gregory professional and industrial workforce)
• Reddit: ~18–22%
• Nextdoor: ~10–15% (concentrated in suburban neighborhoods; limited in rural areas)

Behavioral trends

• Community-first engagement: Facebook Groups are the primary hub for school districts, youth sports, local buy/sell, roadwork updates, storm and hurricane preparedness, and municipal announcements
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace dominates local resale; small businesses rely on Facebook and Instagram for promotions, with event pages driving in-person foot traffic
• Format performance: Short-form video (Reels/TikTok) and photo carousels outperform text-only posts; how-to and local-interest videos (e.g., fishing, DIY, home repair) perform well on YouTube
• Timing: Engagement peaks 7–9 pm on weekdays and late weekend mornings; weather events create sharp, short-lived spikes in Facebook Group activity
• Messaging: WhatsApp group chats are common for family coordination, shift swaps, and bilingual communication; Facebook Messenger is widely used for customer service and sales inquiries
• Language and culture: Bilingual (English/Spanish) content has above-average reach and response; Spanish-language creative boosts ad CTR and saves on CPM in county-targeted campaigns
• Trust dynamics: Residents place highest trust in established local groups, school/ISD pages, and known community figures; brand pages gain traction fastest by partnering with local groups and responding promptly to comments and messages
• Cross-platform behavior: Instagram and TikTok discovery often push users to Facebook Groups or business pages to complete actions (hours, menus, bookings); LinkedIn usage clusters among energy, construction, logistics, and public-sector professionals

Notes on methodology

• Figures synthesize U.S. Census/ACS connectivity baselines, Pew Research Center 2024 platform adoption rates, and Texas/rural-county usage patterns applied to San Patricio County’s size and settlement mix. Where county-level platform measurements are not directly published, ranges reflect best-available estimates anchored to those sources.