Garfield County

Garfield County, Washington — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates; small-population MOEs apply)

• Population: ~2,250
• Age:
  • Median age: ~51
  • Under 18: ~19%
  • 65 and over: ~33%
• Sex:
  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%
• Race/ethnicity (shares sum to ~100%):
  • Non-Hispanic White: ~91%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~5%
  • Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~3%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native (non-Hispanic): ~1–2%
  • Asian, Black, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (each): <1% each
• Households:
  • Total households: ~1,030
  • Average household size: ~2.1
  • Family households: ~63% (married-couple families ~53%)
  • Households with children under 18: ~22%
  • Nonfamily households: ~37% (one-person households ~31%)
  • Housing tenure: owner-occupied ~79%, renter-occupied ~21%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates.

• Context: Garfield County, WA has 2,300 residents (2020 Census), with very low density (3.1 people/sq mi) centered on Pomeroy.
• Estimated email users: 1,500–1,800 residents (age 13+), based on national email adoption (~85–90% of adults; lower among seniors) applied to local demographics.
• Age distribution (approx.): <18: ~20%; 18–34: ~18–20%; 35–64: ~40–45%; 65+: ~25–30%.
• Share of email users by age (estimate): teens 5–8%; 18–34: 20–25%; 35–64: 45–50%; 65+: 25–30% (lower adoption vs. middle ages).
• Gender split: population roughly balanced (~50% female, ~50% male); email adoption is similar by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • Connectivity is constrained by rural geography; most service via DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite outside town; fiber more limited.
  • Household broadband subscription likely in the mid‑70% range, below Washington’s average; mobile coverage strongest along US‑12 and around Pomeroy with patchier service in outlying valleys/canyons.
  • Public Wi‑Fi at the library, schools, and some civic sites supplements access.
  • Trend: gradual improvements from state/federal rural broadband investments expanding fiber and modern fixed‑wireless; remaining barriers include affordability and device access for older and low‑income residents.

Below is a practical snapshot of mobile phone usage in Garfield County, Washington, with estimates and observations about how the county differs from statewide patterns. Figures are directional and based on recent national/state research (e.g., Pew), FCC coverage/broadband mapping trends, and ACS-style demographics applied to Garfield’s small, rural population.

County context

• Population: roughly 2,300 residents; small, highly rural; county seat: Pomeroy.
• Older age profile and lower median household income than Washington state overall.

User estimates

• Mobile phone users (any mobile phone): about 1,900–2,100 residents.
• Smartphone users: roughly 1,600–1,850 residents (about 80–86% of adults, lower than Washington’s ~90%+).
• Basic/feature phone users: about 150–250 residents; share is notably higher than the state average due to the county’s older age mix and coverage gaps.
• Mobile-only home internet households: estimated 18–28% (higher than urban WA) given limited wired options; many rely on smartphone tethering, fixed wireless, or satellite for home connectivity.

Demographic breakdown (what differs from the state)

• Seniors (65+):
  • Share of population is high (around 30% vs WA ~16–18%).
  • Smartphone adoption is materially lower than statewide seniors; expect roughly 60–70% among seniors here vs higher in metro Washington. More voice/text-centric usage, with slower uptake of app-heavy services and telehealth video.
• Working-age adults (25–64):
  • Smartphone adoption still high (≈90%±), but with more cost sensitivity; greater use of prepaid/MVNO plans and longer device replacement cycles than in urban counties.
• Teens and young adults:
  • Near-universal smartphone access, but total numbers are small due to the county’s age profile.
• Income and language:
  • Lower incomes than the state average drive price-conscious plan selection, hotspot-sharing, and family plans.
  • A small but important Hispanic population implies value in bilingual messaging and carrier support, though the county remains predominantly non-Hispanic White.

Digital infrastructure points (coverage, capacity, and options)

• Cellular coverage:
  • 4G LTE is the baseline; coverage is best along US‑12 and near Pomeroy. Expect dead zones in canyons, on ridge lines, and toward the Blue Mountains/forested areas.
  • 5G is present mainly as low‑band overlays along primary corridors; mid‑band 5G capacity sites are sparse. Practical speeds often resemble solid LTE rather than metro‑class 5G.
• Carriers:
  • Verizon generally offers the most consistent rural footprint.
  • AT&T coverage is competitive on main routes; FirstNet (Band 14) improves reliability for public safety.
  • T‑Mobile has improved with 600 MHz (Band 71) but remains patchy off‑corridor compared to metro regions.
  • A notable local differentiator: regional provider Inland Cellular operates in the SE WA/N. ID region and can outperform nationals in specific valleys and farm/range areas; many residents choose based on very local signal performance.
• Backhaul and tower density:
  • Sparse tower density with heavy reliance on hilltop sites; microwave backhaul remains common. Middle‑mile fiber exists along main routes but is limited.
• Home internet interplay:
  • DSL and cable are limited outside town; fiber is not yet ubiquitous. As a result, mobile hotspots, fixed wireless access (where available), and Starlink/other satellite fill gaps.
  • Public Wi‑Fi anchors (library, schools, courthouse) are more consequential than in cities; residents often offload updates and large downloads there.
• Reliability tools:
  • Higher use of signal boosters (home, vehicle, and farm equipment) and Wi‑Fi calling to compensate for weak indoor signals.

How Garfield County’s trends differ from Washington state

• Lower smartphone penetration and higher basic‑phone retention, driven by an older age structure and patchier coverage.
• More price-sensitive plans (prepaid/MVNO), longer device lifecycles, and heavier reliance on offline or low‑bandwidth use.
• Greater dependence on mobile connectivity for home internet due to limited wired broadband—despite less 5G capacity than in cities.
• Carrier choice is driven by micro‑geography (which tower reaches a given farm/ranch) rather than brand or speed marketing. Regional carrier presence (Inland Cellular) matters here, unlike most of the state.
• Emergency communications and seasonal needs (harvest, wildfire smoke/evacuations) shape behavior: residents prioritize coverage and reliability over peak speeds, adopt boosters, and keep backup connectivity options.

What this means for planning and outreach

• Optimize for coverage and reliability (low‑band 5G/LTE, Band 12/13/14/71), not just peak speed.
• Support Wi‑Fi calling, boosters, and external antennas; provide clear guidance for setup in metal buildings and remote homes.
• Offer budget‑friendly, coverage‑first plans and highlight roaming/partner coverage with Inland Cellular where applicable.
• Provide bilingual materials and large‑print resources for seniors; promote telehealth over voice/Wi‑Fi calling where video isn’t practical.

Note on methodology

• Estimates are derived by applying national adoption patterns (Pew smartphone ownership), FCC/NTIA coverage and broadband-availability trends, and ACS-style demographics to Garfield’s small rural population. Exact local counts vary by hamlet, terrain, and individual carrier build-outs.

Here’s a concise, best-available picture of social media use in Garfield County, WA. Exact county-level platform stats aren’t published; figures below are estimates based on the county’s small, older, rural population profile (ACS) combined with Pew Research (2023–2024) rural social media patterns and advertiser benchmarks.

Overall users

• Population: ≈2,300; adults 18+: ≈1,800–1,900
• Estimated social media users (18+): 70–80% of adults ≈1,300–1,500
• Internet access: high smartphone reliance; home broadband is common in-town but spottier outside Pomeroy, which nudges usage toward Facebook, YouTube, and Messenger

Most-used platforms (share of adults; ranges reflect rural adjustments)

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 60–70%
• Instagram: 35–45%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Snapchat: 20–30% (mostly under 35)
• Pinterest: 25–35% (skews female)
• X/Twitter: 15–20%
• Reddit: 15–20% (skews male/younger)
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (lower in rural labor markets)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (low coverage outside cities)

Age patterns

• Teens (13–17): small cohort; very high TikTok/Snapchat, Instagram; heavy daily use, short-form video
• 18–34: highest multi-platform use; Instagram/TikTok near urban levels; Facebook still used for events/jobs
• 35–54: Facebook dominates; YouTube for how-to, local sports, equipment; Instagram moderate
• 55+: Facebook and YouTube are primary; TikTok/Instagram adoption rising but still minority

Gender tendencies

• Overall participation roughly even; county population may tilt slightly male, but:
  • Women: more active on Facebook and Pinterest; strong engagement with school, church, 4‑H, community groups
  • Men: higher on YouTube, Reddit; follow ag, outdoor, DIY/mechanical content

Behavioral trends to know

• Local-first: County and city pages, school district, fire/EMS, library, and community groups on Facebook are key info hubs (weather, road closures, wildfire, events)
• Events and youth sports drive engagement: fair/4‑H, school sports, fundraisers; photo albums and short videos perform best
• Marketplace usage is strong: buy/sell/trade for vehicles, tools, farm/ranch gear
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger group chats are common; WhatsApp is niche
• Content style: authentic, local faces > polished corporate creative; practical utility (alerts, jobs, deals) outperforms broad brand stories
• Timing: morning check-ins (6–8 a.m.) and evening (7–10 p.m.) peaks; weekends see strong photo/video posting
• Trust: posts shared by known locals or admins of established groups/pages carry outsized credibility

Notes and sources

• Basis: U.S. Census/ACS for demographics; Pew Research Center 2023–2024 social media use (with rural breakouts) applied to a small, older, rural county profile; typical advertiser reach benchmarks. Treat figures as directional ranges, not precise counts due to small population and limited county-level reporting.