Stonewall County Local Demographic Profile
Stonewall County, Texas — Key demographics
Population size
- 1,245 (2020 Decennial Census)
Age
- Median age: 49.8 years (ACS 2018–2022)
- Under 18: 18.5%
- 65 and over: 30.1%
Gender
- Male: 53.2%
- Female: 46.8% (ACS 2018–2022)
Racial/ethnic composition
- White, non-Hispanic: 68.4%
- Hispanic or Latino (any race): 26.9%
- Black or African American: 1.4%
- American Indian/Alaska Native: 0.7%
- Asian: 0.2%
- Two or more races: 2.4% (2020 Census; Hispanic shown separately from race)
Households
- Total households: 585
- Average household size: 2.12
- Family households: 61%
- Married-couple families: 49%
- Households with children under 18: 22%
- One-person households: 33%
- Homeownership rate: 82% (ACS 2018–2022)
Notes: Figures combine 2020 Decennial Census and ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates; ACS estimates for small counties carry larger margins of error. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau.
Email Usage in Stonewall County
Stonewall County, TX (pop ≈1,245; ~1.3 people per sq. mile) has an estimated 900 adult email users.
Estimated email users by age
- 18–29: ~120 (13%)
- 30–49: ~240 (27%)
- 50–64: ~280 (31%)
- 65+: ~260 (29%)
Gender split among users
- Male: ~460 (51%)
- Female: ~440 (49%)
Digital access and connectivity
- ≈68% of households have a broadband subscription; ~20% are smartphone‑only internet users.
- Fixed broadband at 25/3 Mbps is available to roughly 85–90% of locations; satellite covers the remainder. Speeds are most consistent in and around Aspermont and more variable along farm/ranch roads.
- Public Wi‑Fi (library/schools) remains a meaningful access point.
Insights
- Email is embedded in daily transactions: healthcare portals, government services, agriculture/ranching suppliers, banking, and school communications.
- Younger adults supplement email with messaging apps, but nearly all working‑age residents with internet maintain active email; older adults rely heavily on email for appointments, billing, and community updates.
- Sparse density elevates last‑mile costs, keeping adoption below urban Texas, but connectivity and email usage are steadily rising, making email nearly universal among connected adults.
Mobile Phone Usage in Stonewall County
Mobile phone usage in Stonewall County, Texas (2025 snapshot)
At-a-glance population context
- Residents: ~1,240 (2023 estimate), spread across ~920 sq. mi. (≈1.3 people/sq. mi.)
- Age profile skews older: roughly one-third of residents are 65+ (well above the Texas average)
User estimates (people with active mobile service)
- Any mobile phone (smartphone or basic): ~1,100 users
- ≈89% of total residents; ≈96% of adults
- Smartphones: ~900 users
- ≈73% of total residents; ≈84–86% of adults
- 5G‑capable devices: ~700–760 users (≈60–65% of all mobile users; Texas ≈80–85%)
- Cellular-only internet users (no fixed home broadband): ~220–260 adults (≈20–25% of adults; Texas ≈15–18%)
- Prepaid lines: ≈35% of active lines (Texas ≈25–28%)
- Average active lines per household: ~1.6 (Texas ≈2.1)
Demographic breakdown of mobile usage (local estimates)
- By age
- 18–34: smartphone adoption ≈93–96%; accounts for ~15–18% of users
- 35–64: smartphone adoption ≈83–88%; largest user block (~45–50% of users)
- 65+: smartphone adoption ≈58–62%; notable basic/flip‑phone retention (~15% of all users)
- By income band (county pattern, reflecting rural Texas norms)
- < $35k: smartphone adoption ≈70–75%; higher prepaid share (>45%) and single‑line plans
- $35k–$75k: smartphone adoption ≈83–87%; mixed postpaid/prepaid
$75k: smartphone adoption ≈92–96%; predominantly postpaid, multi‑line
- Language/household composition
- Smaller, older households and ranch operations show above‑average reliance on voice/SMS and Wi‑Fi calling; multi‑generational or younger households show higher data‑first usage and device turnover
Digital infrastructure points (mobile)
- Coverage availability (population-weighted)
- 4G LTE: ≥99% by at least one national carrier across towns and primary corridors (US‑83, US‑380)
- 5G (low‑band): ~90–95% of residents have outdoor coverage from at least one carrier; indoor coverage varies
- Mid‑band 5G (capacity): limited to/near Aspermont and along main corridors; sparse elsewhere
- Performance characteristics (typical outdoor user experience)
- LTE: ~10–40 Mbps down / 2–10 Mbps up; latency ~35–60 ms
- Low‑band 5G: ~20–80 Mbps down / 5–20 Mbps up; latency ~25–45 ms
- Mid‑band 5G (where present): ~150–400 Mbps down; capacity markedly better in town than in outlying ranchlands
- Signal reliability
- Macro sites concentrated along highways and near population clusters; coverage gaps in low‑lying breaks, canyons, and remote ranch tracts
- Metal‑roof buildings frequently require Wi‑Fi calling or indoor boosters for dependable voice/SMS
- Spectrum and backhaul
- Low‑band spectrum (600/700/850 MHz) underpins broad coverage; mid‑band holdings (PCS/AWS/C‑band/n41) are constrained outside towns
- Backhaul is a mix of microwave and fiber; fiber-fed sites cluster in/near Aspermont, with more microwave-fed sectors in remote areas
How Stonewall County differs from Texas overall
- Lower smartphone penetration: ~8–12 percentage points below the state due to an older population and cost-sensitive plan selection
- Slower 5G adoption: 5G‑capable device share trails the state by ~15–20 points; more LTE‑only devices remain in service
- Higher prepaid usage and longer device lifecycles: prepaid share ~7–10 points above Texas; devices stay in use longer, reducing 5G uptake
- Greater mobile-only dependence: cellular-only internet use is ~5–8 points higher than statewide, reflecting patchy fixed-broadband availability outside town centers
- Capacity and speed gap: reliable low‑band coverage but limited mid‑band 5G outside corridors yields lower median speeds and more variability than urban/suburban Texas
- Usage mix: higher relative emphasis on voice/SMS for work coordination and safety in ranch/ag settings; data use patterns more sensitive to time of day and proximity to corridors
Methodological notes
- Population and age structure based on recent Census/ACS small‑county figures; mobile adoption rates benchmarked to 2023–2024 national and Texas rural patterns (Pew Research, FCC mobile coverage datasets, carrier-disclosed footprints). Localized user counts were estimated by applying age‑ and income‑adjusted adoption rates to Stonewall County’s population profile.
Social Media Trends in Stonewall County
Stonewall County, TX social media snapshot (best-available 2024 estimates)
- Baseline population: 1,245 residents (2020 Census). Roughly 80% are adults ≈ 1,000.
- Estimated adult social media users: ~680–750 (about 68–75% of adults), reflecting national adoption levels and an older, rural age mix.
Age mix of local social media users (share of users)
- 18–29: ~18%
- 30–49: ~38%
- 50–64: ~24%
- 65+: ~20%
Gender breakdown of social media users
- Female: ~52–55% (older cohorts skew female; Facebook usage is slightly higher among women)
- Male: ~45–48%
Most-used platforms among adults in Stonewall County (estimated reach of adults; platform adoption modeled from Pew Research Center 2024 by age, applied to the county’s older-leaning age structure)
- YouTube: 80% of adults (800 users)
- Facebook: 68% (680)
- Instagram: 43% (430)
- TikTok: 30% (300)
- Snapchat: 24% (235)
- X (Twitter): 19% (185) Note: Nextdoor and LinkedIn are present but smaller in very rural areas; WhatsApp has niche use for family and work groups.
Behavioral trends and usage patterns
- Community-first Facebook: Heavy reliance on Facebook Pages/Groups for county and school announcements, church and civic events, local sports, buy/sell/trade, lost-and-found, and emergency/weather updates. Facebook Messenger is a primary communication tool.
- Video for practical tasks: YouTube is used for how‑to content (home, auto, ag, ranching), outdoor recreation, and equipment reviews; longer watch times and save/share behavior are common.
- Younger cohorts diversify: 18–29s split time between Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat; short‑form video consumption is high, creation is modest but growing around school athletics and local happenings.
- Trust and word‑of‑mouth: Local voices (coaches, pastors, small business owners, county offices) drive engagement. Posts that name specific places/people or show recognizably local scenes outperform generic content.
- Mobile‑first, bandwidth‑aware: Usage is concentrated on smartphones; evening and early‑morning peaks. Short, compressed video and image carousels perform better where connectivity is variable.
- Events and transactions: High engagement for time‑bound posts (fundraisers, ballgames, sales, festivals). Facebook Marketplace is an active channel for livestock, equipment, and household goods.
- Limited X/LinkedIn footprint: X is mainly for sports and news monitoring; LinkedIn usage is low outside public sector and education.
Method notes and sources
- Population: U.S. Census 2020 (Stonewall County = 1,245).
- Platform adoption by age: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024. Local platform reach and user counts are derived by applying Pew’s age‑specific adoption rates to an older‑leaning rural age mix typical of Stonewall County. These figures are planning estimates rather than direct county measurements.
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
- Shelby
- Sherman
- Smith
- Somervell
- Starr
- Stephens
- Sterling
- 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