Ward County

Ward County, Texas — key demographics

Population

• Total: 11,538 (2020 Census)
• 2023 estimate: ~12.2K (U.S. Census Bureau population estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~33–34 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~28%
• 65 and over: ~13%

Sex

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023; Hispanic can be of any race)

• Hispanic/Latino: ~64%
• White (non-Hispanic): ~29%
• Black/African American (non-Hispanic): ~3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• Asian (non-Hispanic): ~0.5%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~3%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~4,050
• Persons per household: ~2.9
• Family households: ~74%
• Married-couple families: ~51%
• Households with children under 18: ~39%

Insights

• Faster growth since 2020, consistent with Permian Basin energy activity.
• Younger and more male-skewed than the U.S. overall.
• Majority Hispanic/Latino population; larger households than the national average.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program (QuickFacts/PEP).

Ward County, TX snapshot (estimates using 2023 population ≈12,200):

• Email users (18+): ~8,000 adults use email regularly (≈92% adoption among adults).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–29: ~2,000 (≈25%)
  • 30–49: ~3,200 (≈40%)
  • 50–64: ~1,650 (≈21%)
  • 65+: ~1,200 (≈15%)
• Gender split of users: ~53% male, ~47% female (mirrors county sex ratio; adoption is similar by gender).

Digital access and trends:

• Household broadband subscription: ~75–80% of households; ~90% have a computer or smartphone. Smartphone‑only access is notable in lower‑density areas.
• Connectivity is strongest in and around Monahans and along I‑20; outside town centers, fixed wireless and legacy DSL remain common, which can limit speeds and reliability.
• Local density/connectivity context: ~836 square miles and ~14–15 residents per square mile, creating higher last‑mile costs and patchier high‑speed options than urban Texas. Despite this, email remains near‑universal among working‑age adults, with slightly lower use among seniors but rising as mobile access improves.

Mobile phone usage in Ward County, Texas — 2024 snapshot

Context

• Ward County is a small, Permian Basin oil-and-gas county centered on Monahans along the I‑20 corridor. Population is on the order of 14,000 residents, with swings tied to energy-sector cycles and itinerant workforces.

User estimates

• Smartphone users: approximately 9,000–11,500 residents use smartphones regularly. This reflects household smartphone availability in the mid‑80s to high‑80s percent range and typical multi‑user households.
• Cellular-only internet households: estimated 22–28% of households rely primarily on a cellular data plan (smartphone/hotspot) for home internet, versus roughly 15–18% at the Texas statewide level. This higher mobile-only reliance is the single biggest divergence from state trends.
• Active mobile lines and devices: total active SIMs likely exceed the resident population by 10–30% due to work-issued phones, hotspots, and oilfield IoT/telematics. This device density above population is common in energy counties and materially higher than Texas overall.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Ethnicity/language: a majority Hispanic/Latino population drives strong bilingual usage; Spanish-language UI/app settings and WhatsApp/Facebook Messenger penetration are notably above statewide averages.
• Age/household structure: a relatively young median age with a higher share of working-age adults and male-skewed employment in oilfield services correlates with high smartphone adoption, heavy use of ruggedized Android devices, push-to-talk, and field apps.
• Income/affordability: greater take-up of prepaid plans and ACP-like discount programs historically than the Texas average, reflecting cost sensitivity and intermittent residency tied to work rotations.
• Education and seniors: older adults adopt smartphones at lower rates than statewide peers, but they are more likely to be “mobile-first” when they are connected, given limited fixed broadband options in outlying areas.

Digital infrastructure

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE: near-ubiquitous along population centers and transport corridors (I‑20, SH‑18, SH‑302), with service gaps on lease roads and in low-density ranchland. Outdoor coverage is broadly adequate; in-vehicle boosters remain common in the patch.
  • 5G: available in and around Monahans/Wickett and along I‑20 from AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon, but mid‑band 5G coverage thins quickly outside towns; many sites rely on low‑band DSS 5G with LTE-like speeds.
• Capacity and performance
  • Town centers and I‑20 corridor: typical median downloads 50–150 Mbps with modern 5G devices; upload 5–25 Mbps.
  • Oilfield/remote blocks: wide variance; 5–25 Mbps down, sub‑5 Mbps up is common at the edge of sectors, with sporadic drops to 3G/LTE-only or no service.
  • Peak congestion: evening hours in Monahans see noticeable capacity constraints versus daytime field-heavy usage patterns; overall diurnal swings are larger than statewide norms.
• Sites and backhaul
  • Macro sites concentrated along I‑20 and around Monahans, Pyote, Wickett, and Grandfalls; comparatively few small cells or indoor DAS outside civic buildings/schools.
  • Backhaul is mixed microwave and fiber; middle‑mile fiber is improving along I‑20 but remains sparse west and south of Monahans, constraining 5G mid‑band expansion away from the highway spine.
• Fixed broadband interplay
  • Fiber/coax availability is limited outside town limits; this drives higher hotspot use for home connectivity and pushes carriers to market home 5G/LTE CPEs more aggressively than in most Texas metros.

How Ward County differs from Texas overall

• Higher mobile-only dependency: cellular-as-primary internet is markedly higher than the Texas average due to rural fixed-broadband gaps.
• Coverage pattern: strong highway/town coverage and weaker lease-road/remote coverage, versus the generally more uniform suburban coverage seen statewide.
• 5G mix: more low‑band/DSS 5G and less contiguous mid‑band 5G than Texas metros; users see LTE-like performance more often outside towns.
• Device/plan mix: higher prevalence of prepaid, ruggedized devices, work-issued phones, hotspots, and IoT lines relative to population.
• Traffic profile: capacity demand peaks and weekday daytime uplink usage from field operations are more pronounced than statewide norms.
• Language: Spanish-first usage and cross‑border OTT communications (e.g., WhatsApp) are more prevalent than the Texas average.

Key takeaways

• The county is decisively mobile-first compared with Texas overall, with a substantially higher share of cellular-only households.
• 4G LTE is dependable in towns and along I‑20, but mid‑band 5G depth and off‑corridor coverage remain the main constraints on user experience.
• Workforce-driven device density and IoT raise total active lines well above the resident count, elevating network load relative to population.
• Investments that extend fiber backhaul and mid‑band 5G beyond the highway spine, plus targeted infill along lease roads, would close the largest gaps and narrow the performance delta with statewide urban markets.

Social media usage in Ward County, TX (2025 snapshot)

Headline numbers

• Population: ~12,000 residents (2024 est.); ~10,200 are age 13+
• Social media users (13+): ~8,100 people, ~68% of the total population (≈80% of those 13+)

Age mix of social media users (share of users; approx. counts in parentheses)

• 13–17: 10% (≈810)
• 18–24: 11% (≈890)
• 25–34: 18% (≈1,460)
• 35–49: 27% (≈2,190)
• 50–64: 22% (≈1,780)
• 65+: 12% (≈970)

Gender breakdown among social media users

• Women: 52% (≈4,210)
• Men: 48% (≈3,890)

Most-used platforms in Ward County (share of social media users active at least monthly)

• YouTube: 80%
• Facebook: 70%
• Instagram: 45%
• TikTok: 35%
• Snapchat: 32%
• Pinterest: 28%
• WhatsApp: 22%
• X (Twitter): 17%
• LinkedIn: 12%
• Reddit: 10%

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Community first: Facebook Groups drive the heaviest engagement (yard sales, lost-and-found, school athletics, local alerts). Weather and road updates (I‑20, SH‑18) get rapid shares and comments.
• Video-forward: Under 35s lean into Reels/TikTok; YouTube is cross‑age for DIY, auto repair, hunting/fishing, and oilfield equipment know-how.
• Messaging-centric: Snapchat is daily for teens/young adults; WhatsApp is common for family and work crews, with bilingual (English/Spanish) threads.
• Timing: Peak activity aligns with shift work—early morning (5–7 a.m.) and late evening (8–11 p.m.); weekends revolve around high school sports and church/community events.
• Language and culture: A sizable Hispanic audience boosts engagement with bilingual content, especially on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
• Commerce: Local services (food trucks, auto, beauty, HVAC) perform best with same/next‑day offers; marketplace-style posts and live video outperform polished ads.
• Trust dynamics: Content from local officials, schools, coaches, pastors, and known small-business owners carries outsized credibility; authentic user photos/video beat stock.
• Ad responsiveness: Tight geo-targeting around Monahans, Wickett, Grandfalls, Pyote, Barstow, and the I‑20 corridor outperforms broad West Texas targets; click-to-call and message objectives convert better than link-out campaigns.

Method notes

• Figures are 2025 modeled local estimates by applying 2023–2024 Pew Research platform adoption rates and rural Texas benchmarks to Ward County’s age/gender structure (U.S. Census Bureau). Percentages rounded; expected margin of error ±3–5 percentage points.