I updated some statistics on membership by state in the
United States. The statistics are
divided into two types: stocks and flows.
A stock variable is measured at a point in time. Membership is a stock, so is membership density
(membership expressed as a percentage of the population of a political unit such as the United
States, Utah, or Georgia). A flow variable measures change over a
period of time such as the change in membership for the past year. The change in members is the sum of births
and conversions less deaths and excommunications. The flow variable explains how the stock
variable changed. The statistics
demonstrate two trends. First, the
church is growing. Second,
a process something like osmosis is happening.
Members tend to move from states with high membership density to states
with lower density. Distance from early
LDS population centers, represented by Utah, also appears to play a role in the
distribution of membership, the further from Utah, the slower the accumulation
of new members. The process of osmosis
is sped by economic growth which draws workers to the geographic location of
growth. States with high density and
high growth will lose density more rapidly than other states and states with high growth and low density will gain density more
rapidly. It is also sped by the
effectiveness of missionary programs, proximity of temples, etc. but I will
ignore these variables for now. In
the remainder of this post, I use maps and tables to elaborate on these ideas.
Membership by State: 2011
In 2011, church membership in the United States was
6,226,788. The table blow the
post provides exact numbers and the first map, “Membership by State 2011”
visually represents those numbers. The
map is color coded: the darker the red, the greater the membership in a state,
the brighter the yellow, the lower the membership. The five states with the largest number of
members are Utah, California, Idaho, Arizona and Texas. The five states with the smallest number of
members are Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, North Dakota, and New
Hampshire. Idaho and Arizona both border
Utah. California and Texas are the two
largest states in the union and are both relatively close to Utah. With the exception of North Dakota, the four
remaining states with the smallest membership are distant from Utah and have
relatively small populations.
Membership Density by State: 2011
The map “Membership Density by State: 2011” is similar to
the map of membership it corrects the impression that members are more common
in large states like Texas. Texas has
305 thousand members while Kansas has only 35 thousand, yet their membership
densities are 1.19% and 1.21%. You are
slightly more likely to run into a member in Kansas than Texas. Most members
recognize the importance of density. It
is nice when there are enough local members to form wards and stakes that are
compact. Travel time is lowered. Church friends will be close. Our youth will have other members with whom
to socialize and date
As most people know, the distribution of members in Utah and
surrounding states is not an accident.
The Saints were thrown out of Illinois and settled in Utah, a desolate
area that nobody else seemed to want. Brigham
Young directed members to establish communities in states bordering Utah. Eventually, hostility toward the church
subsided and members were free to consider economic opportunities outside of
traditional LDS communities. My theory
of membership osmosis suggests that members respond to economic incentives just
like everybody else. The decision to
leave is based on weighing costs and benefits.
The cost almost certainly includes distance from family, friends and
church. Most members will be less likely
to move into areas where the church does not have the benefits of sufficient
density. Other things equal, a good
opportunity in California would be considered more favorably than the same
opportunity in New York. Of course,
people moving to Utah would be motivated by the same factors, but when six of ten
people leaving Utah are LDS and two of one hundred entering are LDS, it is easy
to see how over time, membership density would decrease in Utah and increase
elsewhere.
Change in Membership Density by State: 2011
The map “Change in Membership Density by State: 2011” adds
further visual support for the hypothesis of membership osmosis. The states with high density should lose
density and those with low density should gain it. Economic growth represented by the proxy
variable, population growth, should also influence membership movement. The map, “Change in Membership Density by
State: 2011” shows changes in membership density. Utah, being the brightest yellow lost the
most density. Idaho, Delaware, Nevada
and Alaska were the other states that lost density and all, with the exception
of Vermont, had density of more than two times the membership density of the
nation as a whole. The states that
gained the most density were Wyoming, North Dakota, Hawaii, and New
Mexico. Three of these states, Wyoming,
Arizona and New Mexico are densely populated with LDS but have much lower
densities than Utah and all share a border with Utah. Texas and North Dakota had the first and
second highest percentage growths in population, fitting the part of the theory
that emphasis that economic opportunity draws members, both grew in density, . Utah has the second highest percentage
growth. This also fits the theory and
suggests that the net flow of people into Utah was less densely populated with
members than Utah as a whole.
|
State
|
2011
Membership
|
Change In
Membership
|
2011
Density
|
Change In
Density
|
|
Alabama
|
35,167
|
442
|
.73
|
.01
|
|
Alaska
|
32,464
|
294
|
4.49
|
-.01
|
|
Arizona
|
395,296
|
7,346
|
6.10
|
.05
|
|
Arkansas
|
28,092
|
533
|
.96
|
.01
|
|
California
|
768,344
|
4,974
|
2.04
|
-.01
|
|
Colorado
|
144,904
|
2,431
|
2.83
|
.01
|
|
Connecticut
|
15,255
|
265
|
.43
|
.01
|
|
Delaware
|
4,982
|
-202
|
.55
|
-.03
|
|
Florida
|
139,089
|
2,540
|
.73
|
.01
|
|
Georgia
|
79,403
|
1,455
|
.81
|
.01
|
|
Hawaii
|
71,041
|
1,169
|
5.17
|
.04
|
|
Idaho
|
417,002
|
2,820
|
26.31
|
-.05
|
|
Illinois
|
55,855
|
105
|
.43
|
.00
|
|
Indiana
|
41,621
|
331
|
.64
|
.00
|
|
Iowa
|
25,381
|
767
|
.83
|
.02
|
|
Kansas
|
34,796
|
606
|
1.21
|
.02
|
|
Kentucky
|
32,496
|
235
|
.74
|
.00
|
|
Louisiana
|
28,933
|
366
|
.63
|
.00
|
|
Maine
|
10,718
|
34
|
.81
|
.00
|
|
Maryland
|
42,229
|
1,375
|
.72
|
.02
|
|
Massachusetts
|
25,386
|
421
|
.39
|
.00
|
|
Michigan
|
42,696
|
377
|
.43
|
.00
|
|
Minnesota
|
30,860
|
257
|
.58
|
.00
|
|
Mississippi
|
21,492
|
275
|
.72
|
.01
|
|
Missouri
|
66,695
|
624
|
1.11
|
.01
|
|
Montana
|
47,103
|
619
|
4.72
|
.03
|
|
Nebraska
|
23,243
|
110
|
1.26
|
.00
|
|
Nevada
|
176,307
|
1,158
|
6.47
|
.00
|
|
New Hampshire
|
8,263
|
32
|
.63
|
.00
|
|
New jersey
|
32,228
|
555
|
.37
|
.01
|
|
New Mexico
|
68,660
|
1,023
|
3.30
|
.02
|
|
New York
|
78,829
|
798
|
.40
|
.00
|
|
North Carolina
|
78,419
|
1,554
|
.81
|
.01
|
|
North Dakota
|
7,899
|
969
|
1.15
|
.13
|
|
Ohio
|
58,757
|
321
|
.51
|
.00
|
|
Oklahoma
|
43,905
|
872
|
1.16
|
.01
|
|
Oregon
|
149,089
|
1,124
|
3.85
|
.00
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
50,591
|
848
|
.40
|
.01
|
|
Rhode Island
|
3,890
|
57
|
.37
|
.01
|
|
South Carolina
|
37,687
|
740
|
.81
|
.01
|
|
South Dakota
|
10,089
|
277
|
1.22
|
.02
|
|
Tennessee
|
46,755
|
1,181
|
.73
|
.01
|
|
Texas
|
305,510
|
9,369
|
1.19
|
.02
|
|
Utah
|
1,936,074
|
16,731
|
68.72
|
-.43
|
|
Vermont
|
4,388
|
4
|
.70
|
.00
|
|
Virginia
|
90,738
|
1,441
|
1.12
|
.01
|
|
Washington
|
271,625
|
3,698
|
3.98
|
.00
|
|
West Virginia
|
16,902
|
192
|
.91
|
.01
|
|
Wisconsin
|
25,203
|
707
|
.44
|
.01
|
|
Wyoming
|
64,437
|
1,368
|
11.34
|
.17
|
|
USA
|
6,226,788
|
75,588
|
2.00
|
.01
|
No comments:
Post a Comment