Shelby County Local Demographic Profile
Shelby County, Texas — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates; figures rounded)
Population
- Total population: ~24,400
- Median age: ~38.0 years
Age composition
- Under 18: ~25.5%
- 18–64: ~58.5%
- 65 and over: ~16.0%
Sex
- Male: ~50.4%
- Female: ~49.6%
Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive; Hispanic can be any race)
- White, non-Hispanic: ~49%
- Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~19%
- Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~28%
- Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.6%
- American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~0.4%
- Two or more races and other, non-Hispanic: ~3%
Households and housing
- Total households: ~9,000
- Average household size: ~2.67
- Family households: ~66% of households
- Married-couple households: ~48% of households
- Households with children under 18: ~33%
- Housing units: ~11,300
- Occupied units (households): ~9,000
- Owner-occupied rate: ~73%
- Renter-occupied rate: ~27%
Insights
- The county’s population is small and relatively young-adult heavy, with a meaningful 65+ segment.
- Racial/ethnic composition is notably diverse for rural East Texas, with roughly half non-Hispanic White, a sizable Hispanic community, and a significant Black population.
- Housing is predominantly owner-occupied, with average household size slightly above the U.S. average.
Email Usage in Shelby County
Shelby County, TX snapshot (population ≈24,600; ≈30 people per sq. mile):
- Estimated email users: ≈18,400 residents age 13+ (≈75% of total population); ≈17,300 adult users (≈93% of adults).
- Age distribution of users (approximate share of all email users): 13–17: 6%; 18–29: 16%; 30–49: 31%; 50–64: 23%; 65+: 24%. Adoption is near-universal under 65 (92–98%) and slightly lower among 65+ (≈85%).
- Gender split among users: female ≈51%, male ≈49% (email adoption is essentially even by gender).
- Digital access trends: about 72% of households have a broadband subscription; ~17% are mobile-only internet households; ~11% report no home internet. Fixed 100 Mbps+ service is available to roughly 70% of locations, with strongest availability around Center and along US‑96/US‑84; coverage thins in lower-density tracts. 4G LTE covers nearly all populated areas; 5G is present in and near the county seat and primary corridors.
- Implications: High email reach among working-age adults supports email as a primary communication channel; seniors are reachable but benefit from complementary channels. Pockets of mobile-only and no‑internet households suggest maintaining SMS and offline options.
Estimates synthesized from U.S. Census/ACS (2020–2022), Pew Research (2023), and FCC/Texas broadband mapping (2023).
Mobile Phone Usage in Shelby County
Shelby County, TX mobile phone usage: summary, estimates, and how it differs from statewide patterns
Topline user estimates (2024–2025)
- Population baseline: ~24,400 residents; ~18,900 adults (18+); ~8,800 households.
- Mobile phone users (any cellphone): ~95% of adults ≈ 18,000 users.
- Smartphone users: ~82% of adults ≈ 15,500 users.
- Active mobile lines: ~1.1 lines per adult ≈ 20,800 active lines countywide.
- Prepaid share: 37% of lines (≈ 7,700), notably higher than Texas overall (24%).
- Mobile-only home internet: 28% of households rely primarily on smartphones/hotspots for home internet (≈ 2,450 households), higher than the Texas average (18%).
- Platform mix (smartphones): ~67% Android (≈ 10,400 users), ~33% iPhone (≈ 5,100), skewing more Android than the state (where iPhone share is higher).
Demographic breakdown of usage
- Age
- 18–34: ~22% of population; smartphone adoption ~95%; heavy app and streaming use.
- 35–64: ~58%; smartphone adoption ~88%; high reliance on mobile for work coordination and navigation.
- 65+: ~20%; smartphone adoption ~64%; feature-phone or voice/text-only use ~9–12% within this group.
- Difference vs Texas: Older age profile and lower incomes reduce overall smartphone penetration by several points vs statewide averages.
- Race/ethnicity (population makeup approx.): White non-Hispanic ~56%, Black ~20%, Hispanic ~22%, Other ~2%.
- Smartphone ownership is broadly high across groups, but smartphone-only internet reliance is higher among Hispanic (35%) and Black (32%) households than White (~24%), tracking income and fixed-broadband access gaps.
- Income and affordability context
- Median household income: roughly $50,000 (well below the Texas median).
- Poverty near ~20–22% (above state average), driving:
- Higher prepaid/mid-tier plan adoption.
- Greater dependence on smartphone hotspots instead of fixed broadband.
- Lower iPhone share than urban Texas.
Digital infrastructure and coverage
- Cellular coverage pattern
- 5G is present in and around Center and along major corridors (US‑96, US‑84, TX‑87) and town centers such as Tenaha, Timpson, and Joaquin.
- Large outlying areas remain 4G LTE–only; indoor coverage is variable due to timber/terrain and metal-roof buildings.
- Practical speeds: 4G LTE commonly in the 8–25 Mbps range in rural stretches; 5G ranges from ~60–150 Mbps in town cores and along highways, with notable drop-offs off-corridor.
- Carrier landscape
- AT&T and Verizon provide the broadest rural low‑band coverage; T‑Mobile’s low‑band 600 MHz helps reach smaller towns, with mid‑band 5G mainly near Center and along primary routes.
- FirstNet (AT&T) uplifts public-safety coverage around key sites but does not eliminate all dead zones.
- Tower density and geography
- Large land area (>800 sq mi) with sparse macro‑site density (on the order of one macro site every ~25–35 square miles) produces patchy signal away from highways.
- Dense pine forests, water bodies, and rolling terrain create localized dead spots, especially at home indoors without boosters.
- Home and business broadband interplay
- Fixed broadband subscription rate is materially lower than Texas overall (Shelby ~66% vs Texas ~85%).
- Cable/fiber is concentrated in Center; many areas rely on legacy DSL or have no wired option, pushing users to mobile hotspots.
- 5G fixed wireless access (FWA) from T‑Mobile/Verizon is available in and around Center and along corridors, reaching an estimated 35–45% of households; availability falls sharply in outlying areas.
How Shelby County differs from the Texas norm
- Higher mobile dependence: Mobile-only home internet is roughly 10 percentage points higher than the state average.
- Lower smartphone penetration: Adult smartphone ownership is several points below Texas overall (Shelby ~82% vs Texas ~88%), largely due to age and income.
- More prepaid and Android: Prepaid plans and Android devices dominate more than in metro Texas, reflecting price sensitivity.
- Patchier 5G: 5G is town‑ and corridor‑centric; large rural zones remain LTE‑only, unlike the near‑ubiquitous 5G coverage across Texas metros.
- Usage patterns: Greater use of phones as household internet via hotspots; lower incidence of premium streaming and connected‑home services relative to the state.
Actionable insights
- Network improvements with the biggest impact: Additional low‑band sites and in‑building solutions in outlying communities will yield outsized gains versus solely adding mid‑band capacity in town cores.
- Product fit: Prepaid, budget‑friendly postpaid, and generous hotspot allowances align best with local needs; device financing and durable mid‑tier Androids see strong uptake.
- Digital equity: Expanding fiber or reliable FWA beyond Center, plus targeted affordability programs, would likely reduce the unusually high mobile‑only share and increase overall smartphone adoption among seniors.
Social Media Trends in Shelby County
Shelby County, TX social media snapshot (2025)
How these numbers were built:
- Base population: 24,022 (2020 Census). Adult population (18+): ~18,700.
- Adoption rates: Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform-use percentages applied to the county’s adult population to yield county-level estimates. Figures below are modeled local estimates.
Overall usage
- Adults using at least one social platform (incl. YouTube): ~83% ≈ 15,500 people.
- Adults using traditional social networks (excl. YouTube): ~72–75% ≈ 13,500–14,000.
Most-used platforms (share of adults; ≈ number of adult users)
- YouTube: 83% ≈ 15,500
- Facebook: 68% ≈ 12,700
- Instagram: 47% ≈ 8,800
- TikTok: 33% ≈ 6,200
- Pinterest: 31% ≈ 5,800
- Snapchat: 27% ≈ 5,000
- LinkedIn: 30% ≈ 5,600
- X (Twitter): 22% ≈ 4,100
- Reddit: 22% ≈ 4,100
- WhatsApp: 26% ≈ 4,900
Age-group patterns (adult penetration; platform tendencies)
- 18–29
- Any social: ~90%
- Strong on YouTube (93%), Instagram (78%), Snapchat (65%), TikTok (62%); Facebook widely used but less central (~70%).
- 30–49
- Any social: ~82%
- YouTube (92%) and Facebook (77%) anchor; Instagram (49%) and TikTok (39%) secondary; Snapchat (~24%) niche.
- 50–64
- Any social: ~73%
- Facebook (73%) and YouTube (83%) dominate; Instagram (29%) and Pinterest (30%) moderate; TikTok (~24%) growing from a low base.
- 65+
- Any social: ~50%
- Facebook (63%) and YouTube (60%) primary; Instagram (15%) and TikTok (10%) limited.
Gender breakdown
- Overall user base is roughly even and reflects the county population, skewing slightly female: ~51% female, ~49% male.
- Platform skews:
- More female: Pinterest (heavily), Facebook (slight), Instagram (slight).
- More male: Reddit (heavily), X/Twitter (moderate), YouTube (slight).
Behavioral trends observed in rural East Texas communities like Shelby County
- Facebook as the community hub: Heavy use of local Groups and Marketplace for buy–sell–trade, high school sports, church and civic events, lost-and-found, weather and outage updates. Facebook Pages remain the primary channel for small businesses and public offices.
- Video-first consumption: Short-form video (TikTok and Instagram Reels) and YouTube dominate entertainment and “how-to” content; cross-posting between TikTok, Reels, and YouTube Shorts is common.
- Private sharing over public posting: Messenger, Snapchat, and Instagram DMs carry a significant share of day-to-day conversation, while public posting rates are lower outside of events and milestones.
- Older adults stick with Facebook; younger cohorts diversify: Under 30s split time across TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube; 50+ concentrate attention on Facebook and YouTube.
- Local commerce and discovery: Facebook Marketplace and local Groups are preferred for retail bargains, vehicles, equipment, housing, and services; Instagram is used for visual discovery of boutiques, food, salons; TikTok increasingly influences food and recreation choices among younger residents.
- Trust via familiar faces: Creator and micro-influencer content performs best when it is visibly local (recognizable landmarks, schools, churches, teams).
- Timing: Engagement peaks evenings and weekends; school-year rhythms (games, performances) drive weekly spikes across Facebook and Instagram.
Notes and sources
- Population: U.S. Census (2020) for Shelby County, TX.
- Platform adoption: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024. Figures are county-level estimates derived by applying Pew’s percentages to the local adult 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 Jacinto
- San Patricio
- San Saba
- Schleicher
- Scurry
- Shackelford
- 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