Clark County

Clark County, Washington – key demographics

• Population size

  • ≈529,000 (2024 Census Bureau population estimate)

• Age

  • Median age: ~39
  • Under 18: ~23%
  • 65 and over: ~17%

• Gender

  • Female: ~50%
  • Male: ~50%

• Race and ethnicity (ACS 2023; Hispanic is an ethnicity, race shares shown are non-Hispanic)

  • White: ~73%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~11%
  • Asian: ~6%
  • Two or more races: ~6%
  • Black/African American: ~2%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%

• Household data (ACS 2023)

  • Households: ~207,000
  • Average household size: ~2.65
  • Family households: ~66% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~49% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~30%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~67%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (2024) and American Community Survey 2023 1-year (tables DP05, S0101, S1101).

Clark County, WA email usage (estimates)

• Residents: ~530,000. Likely email users (age 13+): 400,000–430,000 (based on ~90–95% adult adoption and high teen use).
• Age mix among email users: 18–29: ~18–20%; 30–49: ~35–38%; 50–64: ~25–28%; 65+: ~18–22% (highest adoption in working ages; seniors somewhat lower but rising).
• Gender split: ~50–51% female, ~49–50% male; email adoption is near‑parity (gap typically under 2 percentage points).
• Digital access trends: Home broadband is widespread in Vancouver/Camas/Washougal; rural north/east pockets show lower subscription rates and more smartphone‑only access (roughly 10–15% of households). Median fixed speeds are in the 150–250 Mbps range where cable/fiber is available; 5G covers most populated corridors. Public libraries and schools provide devices and Wi‑Fi that help close gaps.
• Local density/connectivity: Countywide density roughly 800–850 people per sq. mi. Urban Vancouver has dense cable/fiber builds from major providers; exurban areas lean on DSL, fixed wireless, and satellite. Cross‑river ties to the Portland metro foster high digital engagement for work and commuting.

Notes: Figures synthesize ACS/Census population and age/sex mix with Pew/Washington broadband adoption benchmarks; treat as directional estimates.

Clark County, WA mobile phone usage — summary with local estimates, who’s using what, and the network that supports it. Emphasis is on what looks different from Washington State overall.

Headline user estimates (2024–2025, rounded)

• Population: ~530,000; adults (18+): ~410,000.
• Adult smartphone users: ~360,000–380,000 (assumes ~88–92% adult adoption, in line with recent Pew-like statewide/national levels).
• Mobile-only internet households (use a cellular data plan but no fixed home broadband): 16,000–22,000 households, about 8–11% of ~200,000 households. This is likely a bit higher than the statewide average (7–9%), reflecting pockets where cable/fiber are weaker and the popularity of fixed‑wireless home internet.

Demographic patterns of use

• Age:
  • Very high smartphone adoption among 18–54 (roughly 90–95%); solid but lower among 65+ (roughly 65–75%).
  • Compared with tech-centric Puget Sound counties, Clark’s slightly older, suburban profile nudges overall adoption a touch lower than King/Snohomish but above many rural Eastern WA counties.
• Income and education:
  • Median income and bachelor’s attainment sit slightly below the statewide average. Consistent with statewide/national patterns, this correlates with:
    • A higher share of “mobile-only” internet households in certain tracts (notably lower‑income corridors in Vancouver/Camas-Washougal).
    • Greater reliance on prepaid and fixed‑wireless plans as cost-conscious alternatives to cable/fiber. This reliance appears somewhat higher than the statewide average outside Puget Sound.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • Latino and multilingual households (notably along Vancouver’s Fourth Plain corridor) show above-average mobile-only dependence, mirroring national trends; Asian and White households trend closer to the county mean.
• Commuter students and workers:
  • WSU Vancouver and Clark College populations, plus heavy cross‑river commuting to Portland, concentrate daytime mobile data demand near I‑5, SR‑500, and SR‑14. That commuter-driven pattern is more pronounced here than in many WA counties.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Market alignment and 5G:
  • Clark County is in the Portland–Vancouver wireless market. T‑Mobile’s 2.5 GHz mid‑band and Verizon/AT&T C‑band 5G rolled out early and broadly across Vancouver, Camas, Washougal, Salmon Creek, and Ridgefield.
  • Result: mid‑band 5G coverage and median speeds in populated areas are comparable to Puget Sound cores and generally better than in many WA counties east of the Cascades.
• Where coverage thins:
  • North and northeast (Battle Ground north to Amboy/Yacolt and the Cascade foothills) have more LTE/low‑band 5G and occasional dead zones, especially in forested or hilly terrain. These gaps are fewer and smaller than the statewide average because Clark is less rural, but they’re notable compared with the county’s urban south.
• Capacity hot spots:
  • I‑5 and I‑205 bridges, SR‑14 river corridor, and major shopping/industrial zones see peak-hour congestion; operators use small cells and added spectrum to manage loads. This commuter-centric congestion pattern is stronger than in many non-metro WA counties.
• Fixed-wireless home internet (FWA):
  • T‑Mobile and Verizon FWA are widely available and popular as a second option where fiber isn’t present or cable is expensive. Adoption appears stronger than the statewide average outside Puget Sound, helped by suburban single‑family housing stock and ongoing fiber buildouts that are not yet universal.
• Fiber and backhaul:
  • Robust fiber along I‑5, SR‑14, and rail/power corridors supports dense macro sites and small cells in the metro south; fiber is patchier north/east, which tracks with the coverage and capacity differences noted above.
• Public safety and resilience:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) and priority services are established. Macro sites generally have backup power; small cells vary. Wind/ice events can stress the grid—resilience challenges are similar to SW Washington/Oregon more than to coastal or mountain WA counties.

How Clark County differs from Washington State overall

• Earlier and broader mid‑band 5G than many WA counties because it rides the Portland market rollout; speeds/coverage in populated areas resemble Seattle/Tacoma more than the statewide mean.
• Faster population growth (and in‑migration from Portland) has pushed mobile subscriber growth above the state average in recent years.
• Network demand is shaped more by cross‑river commuting corridors than by seasonal tourism; many WA counties have the opposite pattern.
• Mobile-only internet reliance is modestly higher than the statewide average, concentrated in specific urban/suburban tracts where fiber isn’t yet widespread—while truly large rural coverage gaps are fewer than in many WA counties.

Notes on method

• County-specific mobile adoption isn’t directly published; figures above combine ACS household internet indicators with recent national/state adoption rates and local infrastructure rollouts. Ranges are provided to reflect uncertainty and neighborhood-level variation.

Below is a concise, county-level snapshot built from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media data, Census/ACS population estimates for Clark County, and Portland–Vancouver metro patterns. Exact county-specific platform stats aren’t directly published, so figures are reasonable local estimates.

Topline user stats

• Population base: ~530,000; adults (18+): ~410,000
• Estimated adult social media users: 330,000–360,000 (≈80–85% of adults)
• Typical daily users: ~60–65% of adults; weekly reach: ~75–80%

Age groups (estimated adoption among adults)

• 18–29: 90–95%
• 30–49: 80–88%
• 50–64: 70–78%
• 65+: 48–55%

Gender breakdown

• Overall users roughly mirror population: women 51–52%, men 48–49%
• Platform skews: Pinterest (heavily female), Reddit (heavily male), LinkedIn (slight male tilt), Instagram/TikTok (slight female tilt), Facebook (near even)

Most-used platforms in Clark County (share of adults using monthly; ranges reflect local mix)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–70%
• Instagram: 45–50%
• TikTok: 30–35% (60%+ among 18–29)
• Pinterest: 35–40% (women 25–54 strongest)
• LinkedIn: 30–35% (professional/commuter population to Portland boosts usage)
• Snapchat: 25–30% (concentrated in teens/20s)
• Reddit: 20–25% (younger/male skew)
• X (Twitter): 18–22% (news/sports)
• Nextdoor: 20–25% (strong in suburban neighborhoods)
• WhatsApp: 20–25% (higher with immigrant/bi‑lingual households)

Behavioral trends to know

• Hyperlocal first: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups/Marketplace and Nextdoor for recommendations (contractors, childcare), lost & found, school/park updates, and public safety (CRESA 911, Clark County Public Health).
• Cross‑river media diet: Many follow Portland outlets and teams (Blazers, Timbers); Vancouver/Clark County pages use “Vancouver WA” tags to avoid Canada confusion.
• Video wins: Short‑form (Reels, TikTok, Shorts) is the growth engine for restaurants, local events, hiking/river content, and small businesses; YouTube long‑form is common on TVs for news/how‑to.
• Event‑driven spikes: Wildfire smoke, winter storms, bridge/traffic incidents, and local elections reliably spike engagement and sharing of official updates.
• Shopping and services: Strong participation in local buy/sell/trade groups; seasonal home services and real estate content perform well; reviews and neighbor referrals drive conversion.
• Timing: Peaks on weekday evenings (6–9 pm), lunch (11:30 am–1 pm), and weekend mornings; family schedules and school calendars shape activity.
• Creative best practices: Keep it local (neighborhood/ZIP references), emphasize utility (alerts, checklists, promos), use captions (silent autoplay), vertical video, and community voices. Bilingual content (Spanish; notable Slavic/Eastern European community) can broaden reach.