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.

Other Counties in Texas