Adams County

Here are concise, current demographics for Adams County, Washington.

Source notes: Population total from 2020 Census; remaining indicators from U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.

Population

• Total: 20,613 (2020 Census)
• Recent estimate: ~21K (2023 population estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~30 years
• Under 18: ~33%
• 65 and over: ~12%

Gender

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48%

Race/ethnicity (shares of total population)

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~66%
• White alone, non-Hispanic: ~31%
• Black or African American alone, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic: ~1–2%
• Asian alone, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic: <1%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~3%

Households

• Number of households: ~6,400
• Average household size: ~3.5
• Family households: ~75–80% of households

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates (tables DP05, S0101, S1101).

Adams County, WA snapshot (estimates)

• Email users: ~10,500–12,000 adult residents use email regularly. Basis: ~20.6k total population, ~13–14k adults, with ~80–90% adult email adoption in rural counties.
• Age distribution of email users: 18–29 ≈ 25–30%; 30–49 ≈ 35–40% (largest bloc); 50–64 ≈ 20–25%; 65+ ≈ 10–15%. Usage remains high in all groups but tapers among seniors.
• Gender split: ~50/50 male–female; negligible difference in email adoption by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription is lower than the WA statewide average, with greater reliance on smartphones (roughly 15–20% smartphone‑only).
  • Public/library Wi‑Fi and school networks are important access points.
  • Ongoing state/federal investments (ARPA/BEAD and WA State Broadband Office grants) are expanding fiber and middle‑mile in rural Eastern WA, including projects touching Adams County; availability is strongest in Othello/Ritzville corridors and along I‑90, with gaps in remote agricultural areas.
• Local density/connectivity facts: ~11 people per square mile across ~1,900+ sq. mi.; sparse settlement and long last‑mile runs increase deployment costs, contributing to uneven wired broadband coverage.

Notes: Figures synthesize ACS/Pew benchmarks and local demographics; treat as directional estimates.

Mobile phone usage in Adams County, Washington — summary with county-specific trends

At-a-glance

• Population context: About 21,000 residents, with a notably young age profile and roughly two‑thirds Hispanic/Latino—very different from Washington’s overall demographics.
• Overall pattern: High reliance on mobile phones for internet access, with coverage strongest in towns and along highways and weaker across agricultural areas—more variable than the statewide experience.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude, derived from recent Census population figures and national/rural adoption patterns)

• Adult smartphone users: 11,500–13,000 adults (roughly 80–90% of the ~14–15k adults).
• Mobile-only internet dependence: 20–30% of households likely rely primarily on mobile data for home internet (vs a lower share statewide), implying about 1,200–1,900 of the county’s ~6,000–7,000 households.
• Prepaid share: Higher than the statewide mix, driven by income constraints, seasonal work, and international calling needs; expect prepaid/MVNO lines to account for a noticeably larger slice of active lines than in urban Washington.
• Messaging and apps: Heavy use of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Spanish‑language apps/services—above statewide norms.

Demographic breakdown that shapes usage

• Hispanic/Latino majority: With a large Spanish‑speaking population, there’s higher use of cross‑border messaging, calling, and remittance apps, and greater reliance on prepaid plans and budget Android devices than the state average.
• Younger households: A higher share of children/teens means more family plans and device sharing; school-driven connectivity needs (assignments, portals) reinforce smartphone dependence.
• Income and education: Lower median income and educational attainment than Washington overall correlate with fewer wired broadband subscriptions and greater mobile-first behavior.

Digital infrastructure notes (what’s on the ground)

• Coverage geography: Strongest service clusters around Othello and Ritzville and along I‑90, US‑395, SR‑17, and SR‑26. Coverage drops across low-density farm and scabland areas, with dead zones off the main corridors—contrast with the generally consistent coverage in Puget Sound and other metro areas.
• 5G availability: Mid‑band 5G is present in/near the towns and along I‑90, but quickly reverts to LTE in outlying fields and canyons. T‑Mobile’s mid‑band footprint tends to be the most visible in rural Eastern WA; Verizon/AT&T often rely more on LTE outside the towns. This mix is more uneven than in metro Washington.
• Capacity swings: Seasonal farm labor and harvest periods can create local congestion spikes around worker housing and packing/processing sites—less of an issue in most urban counties.
• Fixed wireless as a substitute: Where cable/fiber is limited, T‑Mobile (and, in fewer spots, Verizon) fixed‑wireless home internet fills gaps; traditional DSL is present but often slow. This boosts smartphone-plus-hotspot usage relative to state norms.
• Public access points: Libraries, schools, and community centers in Othello and Ritzville play an outsized role for Wi‑Fi and device charging compared with urban counties.

How Adams County differs from Washington state overall

• Higher mobile dependence: A larger share of households are smartphone‑only or smartphone‑primary for internet access.
• Greater prepaid/MVNO use: Cost sensitivity and seasonal work patterns push more users to prepaid than in urban/suburban Washington.
• Language and app mix: More Spanish‑first usage and international communication tools.
• Patchier rural coverage: More frequent transitions between 5G, LTE, and no‑service areas as you move off highways; Washington’s metros see far fewer such gaps.
• Infrastructure tilt: Fixed wireless has a bigger role; fiber/cable availability is sparser outside town limits.

Notes on methodology and uncertainty

• Estimates apply national/rural smartphone adoption rates and household broadband patterns to recent Adams County population and household counts. Localized surveys or carrier datasets would refine the numbers, but the directional differences from the state (higher mobile dependence, more prepaid, patchier coverage) are well supported by the county’s rural, young, and majority‑Hispanic profile and its infrastructure footprint.

Below is a concise, data‑informed snapshot for Adams County, WA. Because platform vendors rarely publish county‑level figures, percentages are estimates derived from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media usage, adjusted for rural patterns and the county’s high share of Hispanic/Latino residents. Treat as directional, not exact.

Quick context

• Population: ≈21,000; majority rural; large Hispanic/Latino community.
• Connectivity: Broadband rates below WA average; higher smartphone‑only reliance than urban counties.

How many people use social media (est.)

• Adults (18+): ≈13–14k residents. Adult social media adoption in rural areas ~78–82% → ≈10–11.5k adult users.
• Teens (13–17): ≈1.6–1.9k; social use ~90–95% → ≈1.5–1.8k users.
• Daily use: Most users check at least daily; a majority multiple times per day (national pattern).

Most‑used platforms (local estimates; US adult baselines in parentheses)

• YouTube: 80–85% of adults (US ≈83%). Ubiquitous across ages for how‑to, music, Spanish‑language content.
• Facebook: 65–70% (US ≈68%). Strongest for local news, schools, churches, farm/ranch and buy/sell groups.
• Instagram: 40–50% (US ≈47%). Heaviest among under‑35s; Reels growing.
• WhatsApp: 35–45% (US ≈29%). Elevated due to Hispanic/Latino networks; family and group messaging.
• TikTok: 30–35% (US ≈33%). Younger skew; entertainment, short local updates.
• Snapchat: 25–30% (US ≈32%). Concentrated in teens/young adults.
• X/Twitter: 18–25% (US ≈27%). Lower local utility; used for sports/news watchers.
• Reddit: 15–20% (US ≈22%). Smaller, male‑leaning.
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (US ≈30%). Below US average given industry mix.

Age patterns (who uses what)

• 13–17: ~90–95% on social. TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube dominate; minimal Facebook posting.
• 18–29: ~95%+. Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube; WhatsApp for family groups.
• 30–49: ~85–95%. Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram for visual updates; WhatsApp common.
• 50–64: ~75–85%. Facebook and YouTube primary; Messenger/WhatsApp for family.
• 65+: ~55–65%. Mostly Facebook (keeping up with family/community) and YouTube.

Gender breakdown (tendencies)

• Overall usage near parity male/female.
• Female‑leaning: Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest (shopping, recipes, school updates).
• Male‑leaning: YouTube, Reddit, X (sports, ag/mechanic how‑to, news commentary).

Notable behavioral trends in Adams County

• Community‑centric: Heavy use of Facebook Groups for school sports, churches, local government updates, farm/ranch swaps, and seasonal work.
• Bilingual engagement: Strong Spanish and English content demand; WhatsApp groups for family, church, and crew communications.
• Marketplace first: Facebook Marketplace is a go‑to for vehicles, equipment, rentals, and household items.
• Video‑heavy: YouTube for tutorials (mechanical, construction, home, ag) and Spanish‑language channels; Reels/TikTok for short local clips.
• Time‑of‑day spikes: Early morning (pre‑work/school) and late evening; weekends (Sun) over weekdays.
• Trust and reach: Local pages/groups and word‑of‑mouth outperform national outlets; closed/private groups are influential.
• Events and seasonality: Posting/engagement rises around school calendars, community festivals, harvest/planting cycles, and weather events.
• Messaging over public posting: WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger are central for coordination and job referrals.

Notes on method

• Estimates combine Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. platform adoption, rural vs. urban usage patterns, and Adams County demographics from recent ACS/Census releases. Exact county‑level platform shares are not directly published.