Franklin County

Franklin County, Washington — key demographics (latest ACS/Census)

Population size

• ~105,000 residents (2023 ACS estimate). 2020 Census count: ~96,700.

Age

• Median age: ~29–30 years.
• Age distribution: ~35% under 18; ~55% ages 18–64; ~10% 65+.

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~56%
• White, non-Hispanic: ~37%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~1.5%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1.5–2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1–2%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: ~0.2%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%

Households

• ~30,000–31,000 households (2023 ACS).
• Average household size: ~3.5 persons.
• Family households: ~75–80% of households.
• Average family size: ~3.8–4.0 persons.
• Households with children under 18: ~45–50%.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census; American Community Survey (most recently 2019–2023 5-year and 2023 1-year estimates, tables including DP05). Figures rounded for clarity.

Summary for Franklin County, Washington

• Estimated email users: ~75,000–85,000 residents. Based on county population near 100k–110k and national adoption (Pew) showing email is used by the vast majority of adults; many teens also use email.
• Age pattern:
  • 18–49: Near-universal usage (≈95–99%); this group forms the bulk of users.
  • 50–64: High usage (≈90%+).
  • 65+: Lower but substantial (≈70–85%).
  • Teens (13–17): Majority use email for school/services, though less intensively than adults.
• Gender split: Roughly even; no meaningful difference in email adoption by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription is around the mid-80% range locally (ACS-style patterns), with a notable “smartphone-only” segment (~15–20% of households).
  • Connectivity is strongest in Pasco and other populated areas; outer agricultural areas have fewer ISP choices and lower-tier speeds, which can limit consistent email access for some households.
  • Public access: Libraries and schools in the Pasco/Franklin area provide free Wi‑Fi and devices, mitigating access gaps.
• Local density/connectivity context: A largely rural, low-density county anchored by the urban center of Pasco; FCC broadband maps show more complete fixed-broadband coverage in and around Pasco and patchier service in outlying census blocks.

Sources underpinning estimates: Pew Research Center (internet/email use), U.S. Census/ACS (broadband subscription), FCC National Broadband Map.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Franklin County, Washington

Estimated user base

• Population baseline: roughly 105–115k residents (Census vintage 2023 range). Franklin County skews younger than Washington overall.
• Adults (18+): about 70–78k. With adult smartphone ownership typically 88–92%, that implies 62–72k adult smartphone users.
• Teens (13–17): about 9–11k; smartphone ownership ~90–95% ⇒ 8–10k teen users.
• Estimated total smartphone users age 13+: approximately 70–80k residents. Including a small number of feature‑phone users pushes total mobile phone users into the mid‑70k to low‑80k range.
• Households that rely on cellular data as their only at‑home internet: modeled in the high‑teens to low‑20% of households (several points above Washington’s low‑teens), driven by lower fixed‑broadband adoption and a younger, more mobile‑first population. That equates to roughly 6–8k “smartphone‑only” or “cellular‑only” internet households county‑wide.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Age: Franklin County’s median age is about a decade younger than the state. Young adults and teens—near‑universal smartphone owners—make up a larger share of users, boosting mobile messaging, video, and app‑based services relative to the state norm.
• Ethnicity/language: A majority‑Hispanic county vs a minority‑Hispanic state. Nationally, Hispanic households are more likely to be smartphone‑dependent for internet; local service demand trends include Spanish‑language plans/support and heavy use of OTT messaging (e.g., WhatsApp). This contributes to higher cellular‑only household rates than the state average.
• Income/education: Median household income is lower than the Washington average. That correlates with higher prepaid plan use and higher smartphone‑only internet reliance, even as overall smartphone ownership remains high.
• Household size: Larger average household sizes increase multi‑line family plans and device sharing; this can concentrate usage into evening hours on shared plans.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• Networks present: All three nationwide carriers (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon) operate in the market; most MVNOs ride on these networks. FirstNet (AT&T) serves public safety. Fixed wireless access (FWA) from T‑Mobile and Verizon is marketed in and around Pasco and along major corridors.
• 5G/LTE footprint:
  • Urban core (Pasco and along I‑182/US‑395): generally strong 5G mid‑band coverage and capacity from multiple carriers; competitive FWA availability.
  • Smaller towns and agricultural areas (e.g., Connell, Kahlotus, rural north/east county): 4G LTE is common with patchier or spot 5G; larger cell sectors and terrain can mean lower median speeds and more variability.
• Capacity and performance: Rural macro cells with wide footprints are more susceptible to congestion and lower uplink, while urban sectors see higher peak speeds but busier evening loads. FWA growth can shift some home traffic off cable/DSL, but it also rides the same cellular spectrum, so capacity management matters.
• Public/anchor connectivity: Schools, libraries, and community centers play an outsized role as Wi‑Fi anchors (E‑Rate supported). Agricultural/logistics users increasingly tap CBRS for local private LTE, complementing carrier networks.
• Affordability programs: The wind‑down of the Affordable Connectivity Program in 2024–2025 likely increased switching to mobile‑only internet and prepaid plans more than in higher‑income Washington counties.

How Franklin County differs from Washington State overall

• More mobile‑first: A meaningfully higher share of households rely on cellular data as their only home internet, and mobile is the primary way many residents get online.
• Younger user mix: A larger proportion of heavy mobile users (teens/young adults) than the state average.
• Higher prepaid and Spanish‑language demand: Plan mix tilts more toward prepaid and bilingual customer support than statewide norms.
• Sharper urban–rural divide in one county: Big performance gap between Pasco’s strong multi‑carrier 5G and the county’s agricultural tracts, compared with the state’s metro‑heavy averages that mask rural variability.
• Faster uptake of FWA as a cable/DSL alternative: Cost and availability make FWA relatively more salient in Franklin than in many Washington metros already well‑served by fiber.

Data notes and method

• User estimates combine Census population structure with Pew‑reported smartphone adoption by age and ACS S2801 patterns on household internet and cellular‑only reliance; exact county percentages can be pulled from the latest ACS 5‑year “Computer and Internet Use” table and FCC Broadband Data Collection for current mobile availability.
• Figures are presented as ranges to reflect year‑to‑year variation, sampling margins, and the lack of a single definitive county‑level smartphone ownership dataset.

Social media in Franklin County, WA (short 2025 snapshot)

Overall user stats

• Penetration: ~80–85% of adults use at least one social platform; teens (13–17) ~95%+. Overall population share using social monthly: ~70–80%.
• Usage frequency: Majority of users check social daily; short‑form video (TikTok/IG Reels/YouTube Shorts) dominates time spent.
• Access: High smartphone-first usage; a notable share of “smartphone‑only” households drives mobile‑native behavior (vertical video, DMs, stories).

Most‑used platforms (estimated share of adult residents)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 60–65%
• Instagram: 45–55%
• TikTok: 35–45%
• Snapchat: 30–35% (skews 13–29)
• WhatsApp: 35–45% (elevated by large Hispanic/Latino community)
• Pinterest: 25–30% (skews female, 25–44)
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (lower than statewide average)
• X/Twitter: 15–20%
• Reddit: 15–20%
• Nextdoor: 8–12% (clusters in homeowner neighborhoods)

Age profile (who uses what)

• 13–17: Snapchat 70–80%, TikTok 70–80%, Instagram 60–70%, YouTube ~95%+. Facebook minimal except for Marketplace.
• 18–29: Instagram 70%+, TikTok 60%+, Snapchat ~60%, YouTube ~95%+, Facebook ~55%.
• 30–49: Facebook 70%+, Instagram ~55%, YouTube ~90%+, TikTok/Pinterest ~30–40%.
• 50+: Facebook 60–70%, YouTube 70–80%, Pinterest 20–30%; TikTok adoption growing but still <30%.

Gender breakdown (users overall and platform tilt)

• Overall: Roughly even split (~50–52% women, ~48–50% men). Limited public data on nonbinary users at county level.
• Tilt by platform: Women over‑indexed on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over‑indexed on YouTube, Reddit, X. WhatsApp usage is strong across genders due to family/community groups.

Behavioral trends (local patterns)

• Bilingual communities: High engagement in Spanish and English. WhatsApp family groups and Spanish‑language Facebook Groups/Pages (local news, events, buy‑sell‑trade) are influential.
• Facebook Marketplace is a major utility layer (autos, tools, farm/ranch gear, rentals).
• Video‑first habits: YouTube for music/how‑to; TikTok/IG Reels for entertainment and local food/events. Creator content tied to agriculture, small business, and community happenings performs well.
• Messaging over posting: Younger users prefer DMs (IG, Snapchat) and WhatsApp chats versus public feeds.
• Time‑of‑day spikes: Early morning and late evening activity tied to shift work in agriculture/food processing/logistics; weekend peaks around community events/sports.
• Local info flow: Neighborhood safety, school updates, youth sports, and city services often circulate via Facebook Groups and WhatsApp; Nextdoor presence is modest and skews to homeowners.

Notes on method and confidence

• Figures are estimates derived from Pew Research Center’s 2024 platform adoption data and U.S. usage patterns, adjusted for Franklin County’s younger age profile and large Hispanic/Latino population (per recent ACS). County‑level platform shares aren’t directly published; treat percentages as indicative ranges rather than precise measurements.