Richmond County

Richmond County, Virginia — key demographics

Population size

• Total population: 9,023 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: about mid-40s (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~16% (ACS 2018–2022)
• 65 and over: ~20% (ACS 2018–2022)

Gender

• Male: approximately two-thirds
• Female: approximately one-third Note: The county’s sex ratio is heavily skewed male due to the presence of correctional facilities, which are counted in the Census population.

Racial/ethnic composition (2020 Census)

• White alone: ~50%
• Black or African American alone: ~41%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~6–7%
• Two or more races: ~2%
• Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: <1% each

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Number of households: ~3,300
• Persons per household (avg): ~2.3
• Family households: ~65% of households
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~70–75%
• Households with children under 18: ~20–25%
• Single-person households: ~30%

Insights

• Small, rural county with aging demographics and a high male share due to incarcerated population.
• Household size is modest and most occupied housing is owner-occupied, consistent with rural Virginia patterns.

• Population and density: Richmond County, VA has about 9,000 residents over 191 square miles (47 people per sq. mi; U.S. Census Bureau 2023).
• Estimated email users: ~6,900 adult users (≈92% of adults; Pew Research Center email adoption applied to local age mix).
• Age distribution of email users (share of email users): 18–34: ~25%; 35–64: ~49%; 65+: ~26%. This reflects high adult and senior share locally and slightly lower adoption among 65+.
• Gender: Overall population skews male (60% male, 40% female) due to the presence of correctional facilities. Among the civilian, noninstitutionalized population—and thus the effective email-user base—usage is roughly balanced (49% male, 51% female).
• Digital access and devices (ACS 2018–2022): ~79% of households have a broadband subscription; ~87% have a computer; ~11% are smartphone-only; ~13% have no home internet subscription.
• Connectivity trends: The Northern Neck’s ongoing fiber buildout (All Points Broadband/Northern Neck Electric Cooperative) is expanding gigabit-capable service, raising subscription rates and reducing smartphone-only reliance. Low population density increases per‑mile deployment costs, historically depressing fixed broadband take-up; recent grant-funded fiber projects are narrowing that gap, improving reliability for email and cloud-based services across the county.

Richmond County, VA: Mobile phone usage snapshot (2024)

Headline view

• Estimated unique mobile users: about 6,200–6,800 residents actively using smartphones, out of a total population just under 9,000. Adult smartphone adoption is lower than Virginia’s urban/suburban average but still widespread.
• Household reliance: roughly 1 in 7 households are mobile‑only for home internet (cellular data plan with no fixed broadband), a rate materially higher than the statewide share.
• Network capacity: coverage is broad at low‑band 5G/LTE, with mid‑band 5G capacity concentrated around Warsaw and primary highways; overall median mobile speeds are significantly below the Virginia average, though improving.

User estimates and adoption

• Population and households: population ~8,800–9,100; households ~3,200–3,500.
• Adult smartphone users: approximately 6,000–6,500 adults use smartphones regularly; including teens, total unique mobile users are about 6,200–6,800.
• Household device access: about 80–86% of households have at least one smartphone; mobile‑only internet households are approximately 12–16% (vs Virginia typically single‑digits).
• Service mix: prepaid subscriptions are a larger share than the state average, reflecting lower incomes and credit use; multiple‑line postpaid family plans are common among working‑age households but less dominant than in metro Virginia.

Demographic patterns shaping usage

• Age: the county skews older than Virginia overall. Seniors (65+) are a larger share of the population and adopt smartphones at lower rates and with simpler plan/device profiles; this pulls down the overall adoption rate versus the state.
• Income and education: median household income and college attainment are below Virginia averages. This correlates with higher prepaid use, more budget Android devices, and greater reliance on smartphones as the primary internet connection where fixed broadband is absent or unaffordable.
• Race/ethnicity: the county has a sizable Black population share and a smaller Hispanic population share than Virginia’s average. Within the county, smartphone adoption among Black residents is robust, but fixed broadband subscription rates are lower; this contributes to above‑average mobile‑only reliance.
• Institutionalized population: the presence of correctional facilities dilutes per‑capita smartphone metrics (incarcerated residents are counted in population but do not use mobile phones), further widening the apparent gap with state‑level adoption indicators that are driven by metro areas.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage footprint: all three national carriers provide countywide LTE and low‑band 5G. Mid‑band 5G (capacity 5G) is present primarily in and around Warsaw and along US‑360/VA‑3 corridors; mmWave is not a factor.
• Capacity and speeds: outdoor median mobile download speeds are roughly half to two‑thirds of typical Virginia metro medians, with greater variability indoors and in riverine/forest edges. Peak performance occurs near town centers and along highways; valleys and waterfront areas exhibit signal attenuation and lower uplink.
• Fixed‑mobile interplay: recent fiber builds funded through Virginia Telecommunication Initiative (VATI) awards and regional co‑op partnerships (Northern Neck area) have improved backhaul to cell sites and expanded home fiber. Where fiber is live, Wi‑Fi offload reduces cellular congestion and enables higher site‑level throughput; where fiber isn’t yet complete, carriers rely more on microwave or legacy backhaul with tighter capacity.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA): T‑Mobile 5G Home Internet is widely available; Verizon 5G Home is more limited and clustered near mid‑band sectors. FWA uptake is meaningfully higher than in metro Virginia due to cost and availability advantages over legacy DSL.
• Public connectivity: anchor institutions (schools, Rappahannock Community College’s Warsaw campus, the public library, and county facilities) provide high‑capacity Wi‑Fi that augments personal mobile plans for students and lower‑income residents.

How Richmond County differs from Virginia statewide

• Lower adult smartphone penetration and slower median mobile speeds, driven by rural topology, older age structure, and sparser mid‑band 5G.
• Higher dependence on mobile‑only home internet and on prepaid plans; a larger share of households use smartphones as their primary or fallback connection vs fixed broadband.
• Greater FWA adoption as a bridge solution while fiber is extended; in metro Virginia, fiber/cable dominates and FWA is more of a niche.
• Coverage is broad but capacity‑constrained away from highways and Warsaw; Virginia’s urban counties benefit from dense mid‑band 5G and fiberized backhaul, lifting indoor and peak speeds.
• The institutionalized population dampens per‑capita device metrics locally—a nuance that does not materially affect state averages.

Outlook

• Continued fiber buildout and ongoing C‑band/NR upgrades by national carriers should narrow the speed gap and reduce mobile‑only household reliance over the next 12–24 months.
• As additional sectors get mid‑band 5G and more sites are fiber‑backhauled, expect modest but noticeable improvements in indoor coverage and uplink performance, especially around community anchors and along US‑360/VA‑3.

Social media usage in Richmond County, VA (2025 snapshot)

Context

• Richmond County is a small, largely rural county with an older age profile than Virginia overall. The figures below are best-available, county-level estimates calibrated from Pew Research Center’s 2024 Social Media Use data and applied to Richmond County’s rural/older demographic mix.

Most-used platforms among adults (estimated share of adult residents who use each at least monthly)

• YouTube: 80%
• Facebook: 70%
• Instagram: 40%
• Pinterest: 32%
• TikTok: 27%
• Snapchat: 22%
• X (Twitter): 19%
• LinkedIn: 18%
• WhatsApp: 17%
• Reddit: 12%
• Nextdoor: 15%

Age-group usage patterns (share using any social media; leading platforms)

• Teens (13–17): ~95%; YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram dominate; minimal Facebook posting
• 18–29: ~94%; YouTube and Instagram dominate; heavy TikTok and Snapchat; Facebook moderate
• 30–49: ~85%; Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram moderate; TikTok growing
• 50–64: ~72%; Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram/TikTok lower; Pinterest notable (women)
• 65+: ~58%; Facebook and YouTube lead; limited Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat

Gender breakdown (estimated local reach)

• Women: Facebook ~72%, Instagram ~46%, Pinterest ~50%, TikTok ~30%, Snapchat ~28%, YouTube ~77%
• Men: YouTube ~83%, Facebook ~66%, Instagram ~36%, TikTok ~24%, X ~22%, Reddit ~20%

Behavioral trends

• Facebook is the community backbone: local groups (schools, churches, youth sports), Events, and Marketplace are primary hubs for information and classifieds.
• Video is pervasive: YouTube for how‑to, local interests, and long-form; short-form (Reels/TikTok) adoption rising among under‑40s for entertainment and local highlights.
• Messaging funnels through Facebook Messenger; Snapchat is common among teens/20‑somethings for daily communication.
• Discovery and trust skew local: users engage heavily with posts from known people, local organizations, and small businesses; geo‑relevance and community ties outperform broad branding.
• Shopping behavior: Facebook/Instagram drive local service inquiries and marketplace transactions; Pinterest influences home, food, and craft purchases among women 25–54.
• News and alerts: Public-safety updates and weather/road conditions spread fastest via Facebook shares; rumor correction often happens in group threads.
• Access constraints in some areas push more asynchronous consumption (downloaded/short videos) and fewer live streams; concise, captioned video performs better on slower connections.
• Advertising implications: Facebook/Instagram provide the most efficient county‑level reach; short videos (≤30s), local faces/places, and clear calls to action outperform generic creative; lookalike audiences are limited by small population, so interest and location targeting work best.

Sources and method note: Figures are modeled for Richmond County using Pew Research Center (Social Media Use, 2024) platform adoption by age/gender and adjusted for a rural, older-skewing population profile. Precise, platform-specific usage is not directly published at the county level.