Washington County Local Demographic Profile
Washington County, Texas — Key demographics
Population size
- 35,805 (2020 Decennial Census)
Age
- Median age: ~42
- Under 18: ~21%
- 18–64: ~57%
- 65 and over: ~22% (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates)
Sex
- Female: ~51%
- Male: ~49% (ACS 2019–2023)
Race and ethnicity
- White, non-Hispanic: ~56%
- Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~18%
- Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~22%
- Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
- Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2%
- Other (incl. American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander), non-Hispanic: ~1% (ACS 2019–2023)
Households and housing
- Average household size: ~2.5
- Family households: ~66% of all households
- Married-couple families: ~50% of households
- Households with children under 18: ~27%
- Living alone: ~28% of households (about 12–14% are 65+ living alone)
- Homeownership rate: ~74% owner-occupied; ~26% renter-occupied (ACS 2019–2023)
Insights
- Older age profile: about 22% are 65+, notably higher than the Texas average.
- Modest female majority.
- Racial/ethnic makeup is majority White non-Hispanic with sizable Black and Hispanic/Latino populations.
Notes: Population count from the 2020 Census; composition and household metrics from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (2019–2023 5-year). Estimates are rounded for clarity.
Email Usage in Washington County
Washington County, TX (2023 est. pop. ~36,200). Using U.S. Census (ACS) demographics and Pew email adoption rates to localize:
Estimated email users (13+): ~27,800.
- Adults (18+): ~26,000 users (≈92% adoption among ~28,300 adults).
- Teens (13–17): ~1,800 users (≈85% adoption).
Age mix of email users (share of users):
- 13–17: ~7%
- 18–34: ~21%
- 35–54: ~31%
- 55–64: ~17%
- 65+: ~24%
Gender split among users: 51% female (14.2k), 49% male (13.6k), mirroring county demographics.
Digital access and trends (ACS 2018–2022; localized market patterns):
- Households with a computer: ~93%.
- Households with a broadband subscription: ~83%.
- Smartphone‑only internet households: ~12% (rising since 2020).
- Email is checked primarily on smartphones; seniors increasingly use webmail via tablets as broadband availability expands.
Local density/connectivity facts:
- Population density ~58 persons/sq mi; usage and high‑speed options concentrate in Brenham (largest city).
- Best wired speeds and fiber availability cluster along the US‑290 corridor and in-town neighborhoods; outlying rural areas rely more on fixed wireless and satellite, shaping slightly lower email engagement among 65+ outside Brenham.
Mobile Phone Usage in Washington County
Washington County, Texas: Mobile phone usage summary (distinctive from Texas-wide patterns)
County snapshot (definitive context)
- Population and households: ≈36,000 residents and ≈14,000 households (latest ACS 5-year period). Brenham is the primary population center; the rest of the county is predominantly rural.
- Age and income profile: Older than the Texas average (median age in the low 40s vs mid–30s statewide) with a moderately lower median household income than major Texas metros. These factors shape device ownership and plan selection.
- Demographics: A higher share of non-Hispanic White and Black residents and a lower share of Hispanic residents than Texas overall. This mix, combined with rurality, influences mobile-reliant internet use and plan types.
User estimates (derived from ACS demographics and national/state adoption benchmarks)
- Adult smartphone users: 23,000–26,000 residents use a smartphone regularly (on the order of mid–80s percent adoption among adults applied to the county’s adult population).
- Mobile-reliant households: 2,500–3,500 households are “smartphone-only” or primarily mobile for home internet (notable in rural blocks where wireline options are limited).
- Prepaid vs postpaid: Prepaid share is likely a few points higher than the Texas metro average, reflecting price sensitivity and coverage hedging in rural areas.
Demographic breakdown of usage (directional insights grounded in observed adoption patterns)
- Age: Older residents drive a slightly lower overall smartphone penetration than Texas statewide, but adoption among younger adults (18–34) is near universal; older cohorts (65+) show a larger gap vs state averages.
- Race/ethnicity: Black residents in the county are as likely as White residents to own smartphones and more likely to rely on mobile data as a primary connection than on wireline broadband; Hispanic residents (a smaller share locally than statewide) show high smartphone adoption but a lower rate of home wireline broadband subscriptions, reinforcing mobile dependence.
- Income and geography: Lower-income and remote census blocks exhibit higher smartphone-only reliance and more frequent plan switching (prepaid or MVNO) relative to the state’s urban counties.
Digital infrastructure and coverage (county-specific characteristics)
- Networks present: AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile provide countywide LTE with expanding low-band 5G. Mid-band 5G capacity is concentrated along US‑290 and TX‑36 corridors and in/around Brenham; rural fringe areas more often fall back to LTE.
- Capacity patterns: Outdoor coverage is broadly available, but indoor performance and uplink capacity degrade in sparsely populated areas and low-lying terrain; this drives external antenna use and Wi‑Fi calling uptake more than in Texas metros.
- Fixed alternatives shaping mobile use: Cable and fiber are available in parts of Brenham and select subdivisions; DSL remains in legacy use outside town. Limited fiber reach outside the urban core pushes many rural households toward mobile hotspots or fixed wireless (including LTE/5G home internet), raising per‑capita mobile data consumption.
- Redundancy behavior: Businesses and emergency services along the 290 corridor typically maintain multi-carrier failover due to occasional sector congestion during events, a pattern less common in large Texas metros with denser backhaul.
How Washington County differs from the Texas average
- Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration due to older age structure and rurality, but near‑universal adoption among younger adults mirrors the state.
- Higher reliance on mobile data as a primary or backup home connection in rural blocks than the statewide average, driven by patchy fiber/legacy DSL and the cost of satellite alternatives.
- More pronounced performance divide between corridor/urban blocks (with mid‑band 5G capacity) and the rural periphery (LTE-dominant), whereas Texas metros see more uniform mid‑band 5G.
- Plan mix skews modestly toward prepaid/MVNO and hotspot add‑ons; Texas metros skew more heavily to postpaid unlimited with bundled device financing.
Key takeaways
- Expect roughly 23–26 thousand active smartphone users countywide, with concentrated 5G capacity in and around Brenham and along major highways.
- Mobile networks shoulder a larger share of home internet duty in Washington County than in Texas’s urban counties, making coverage consistency and capacity upgrades (especially mid‑band 5G and backhaul) more impactful locally.
- Continued fiber expansion in Brenham-adjacent neighborhoods and targeted mid‑band 5G infill in rural sectors would narrow the usage and performance gap with the state average.
Notes on sources and method
- Population/households and age structure reflect the latest American Community Survey (ACS) 5‑year estimates; mobile user counts are derived by applying observed adult smartphone adoption rates from national/state research to the county’s adult population, adjusted for rural/older cohort mix. Coverage and infrastructure points synthesize FCC mapping, carrier buildouts, and known corridor effects typical of US‑290/TX‑36 markets.
Social Media Trends in Washington County
Washington County, TX social media snapshot (2025, modeled from best-available data)
Population baseline
- Residents (2023 est.): ~36,400
- Residents age 13+: ~31,700
- Social media users (13+): ~26,600 (≈84% penetration)
- Adults 18+ using social media: ~22,400 (≈79% of adults)
- Daily use: ~72% of users check at least one platform daily
Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+ who use each at least occasionally)
- YouTube: ~78%
- Facebook: ~66%
- Instagram: ~35%
- Pinterest: ~30%
- TikTok: ~24%
- Snapchat: ~18%
- WhatsApp: ~18%
- X (Twitter): ~16%
- LinkedIn: ~17%
- Reddit: ~12%
- Nextdoor: ~7% Note: Platforms overlap; totals exceed 100%.
Age profile
- Share of local social media users by age:
- 13–17: ~8%
- 18–29: ~19%
- 30–44: ~23%
- 45–64: ~30%
- 65+: ~20%
- Penetration by age (any platform):
- 13–17: ~95%
- 18–29: ~92%
- 30–44: ~88%
- 45–64: ~78%
- 65+: ~62%
Gender breakdown
- Overall user base: ~53% women, ~47% men
- Platform skews among local users (approximate):
- Facebook: ~57% women, 43% men
- Instagram: ~58% women, 42% men
- Pinterest: ~75% women, 25% men
- TikTok: ~55% women, 45% men
- Snapchat: ~60% women, 40% men
- YouTube: ~46% women, 54% men
- Reddit: ~32% women, 68% men
- X (Twitter): ~45% women, 55% men
- LinkedIn: ~47% women, 53% men
Behavioral trends in Washington County
- Facebook is the community hub: high use of Groups and Events for schools, churches, youth sports, local government updates, and Marketplace buy/sell activity. Event posts and photo albums of local happenings drive above-average engagement.
- YouTube is ubiquitous and utility-driven: strong consumption of how-to, home/farm maintenance, outdoor, hunting/fishing, and local-interest video; used as a lean-back evening medium.
- Visual platforms (Instagram, TikTok) skew younger and toward Brenham-area small businesses, boutiques, restaurants, and festivals; Reels/shorts outperform static posts. Location tags and local hashtags boost reach.
- Messaging patterns: Facebook Messenger is widespread across ages; Snapchat is concentrated among teens/younger adults; WhatsApp use is steady within family networks and among bilingual households.
- Nextdoor presence exists in denser subdivisions but remains niche relative to Facebook Groups for hyperlocal updates.
- Peak activity windows: early morning (6–8 a.m.), lunchtime (11:30 a.m.–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–10 p.m.), with weekend surges around community events and sports.
- Content that performs: local faces and milestones, school and sports highlights, faith- and service-related updates, outdoor/wildflower and seasonal photos, and practical info (roadwork, weather, closures).
- Ads and outreach: geo-targeting within ~25–30 miles of Brenham performs well; Facebook is cost-effective for 35+ audiences, while Instagram/TikTok short-form is most efficient for under-35. Posting 3–5 times/week on Facebook and 2–4 Reels/shorts per week on Instagram/TikTok sustains visibility without fatigue.
Method and sources
- Figures are modeled for Washington County by applying 2024 Pew Research Center platform-by-age/gender adoption rates to the county’s age/gender structure from recent U.S. Census/ACS estimates, with rural-adjusted usage where relevant. Counts are rounded; percentages refer to residents age 13+ unless noted.
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
- 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
- Webb
- Wharton
- Wheeler
- Wichita
- Wilbarger
- Willacy
- Williamson
- Wilson
- Winkler
- Wise
- Wood
- Yoakum
- Young
- Zapata
- Zavala