Growth in Membership as a Percentage of Population by State

In “Church Growth by State,” I suggested that membership as a percent of a state’s population (density) is a function of the previous year’s density, distance from Utah, and economic opportunities in other states.  The difference between this year’s membership and last year’s is a flow variable.  Members in states with high density are likely to move to states with lower density.  Likewise, non-members in states with low density are likely to move to states with higher density.  Two additional variables may be important.  To remain close to friends and family, people are more likely to move to relatively close states rather than distant states.  Economic opportunity is likely to drive moves. 

With these general ideas in mind, I have prepared a table showing the growth rate of density by state and a map that visualizes the data.  For the United States as a whole, density grew at a rate of .497% from 1.99% to 2.00%.  Although Delaware is hard to spot on the map, it experienced negative growth of -4.675% and North Dakota, the fastest growth in density of 12.432%.  To better detect the causes of growth or decline, I derived the following formula which breaks down growth in density between growth in church membership and growth in population.  The derivation of the formula is below the table.
G_D=((1+G_C)P_O/P_N)-1)100
G_D is the growth in density or more formally, membership as a percentage of a state’s population.  G_C is the rate of growth of membership in the state.  When multiplied by the membership from the previous year (M_O), the product is the number of new members.  When added to 1 and multiplied by the membership from the previous year, the product is the new membership.  P_O/P_N is the ratio of the previous population of a state to the new population.  If the ratio is greater than 1, population declined, if less than one, population increased.  Subtracting 1 yields the growth rate of density and multiplying by 100 yields growth as a percentage. 
I will use Kansas and Utah compared to the benchmark of the United States to illustrate the use of the formula.  Membership in Kansas grew at 1.8%, 50% higher than the average of the country as a whole.  Population growth was a little slower with the ratio of the population in 2010 to 2011*.985 at 99.6% compared to 99.3%.  Because a slower growing population implies a smaller downward adjustment to church growth, the growth in density was 1.344%, 2.7 times higher than the growth in density for the United States.
Utah experienced church growth of .9%, less than the country.  The state also experienced more rapid population growth than the country, with the population adjustment ratio at 98.5% compared to 99.3%.  The math in the interior of the equation implies that the growth in membership did not compensate for the increase in population (1.009*.985)-1=.994-1=.-.00614 or –.614% (differences with the table are due to rounding errors). 
The growth in density conforms to the model I present.  Kansas with low density, a small portion of its residents are LDS, experienced growing density and Utah, the state with the highest density, and rapidly growing population experienced a loss of density. 
The data hides more than it reveals.  Membership changes due to births, deaths, conversions and excommunications.  A state can benefit by a high birth rate and conversions but if more members move out than move in, it will suffer a decline in membership.  And I must add that a one year trend is not particularly telling.  I still have much to learn, but I enjoyed the process of comparing changes in church membership across states. 

State	GD =	((1+GC)	PO/PN	-1)*100
Alabama	.907%=	((1+.013)	.996	-1)*100
Alaska	-.283%=	((1+.009)	.988	-1)*100
Arizona	.804%=	((1+.019)	.989	-1)*100
Arkansas	1.365%=	((1+.019)	.994	-1)*100
California	-.293%=	((1+.007)	.991	-1)*100
Colorado	.333%=	((1+.017)	.986	-1)*100
Connecticut	1.620%=	((1+.018)	.999	-1)*100
Delaware	-4.675%=	((1-.039)	.992	-1)*100
Florida	.690%=	((1+.019)	.991	-1)*100
Georgia	.797%=	((1+.019)	.998	-1)*100
Hawaii	.826%=	((1++.017)	.992	-1)*100
Idaho	-.201%=	((1+.009)	.991	-1)*100
Illinois	-.024%=	((1+.002)	.998	-1)*100
Indiana	.395%=	((1+.008)	.996	-1)*100
Iowa	2.707%=	((1+.031)	.996	-1)*100
Kansas	1.344%=	((1+.018)	.996	-1)*100
Kentucky	.218%=	((1+.007)	.995	-1)*100
Louisiana	.628%=	((1+.013)	.994	-1)*100
Maine	.257%=	((1+.003)	.999	-1)*100
Maryland	2.610%=	((1+.034)	.993	-1)*100
Massachusetts	1.191%=	((1+.016)	.995	-1)*100
Michigan	.901%=	((1+.009)	1.00	-1)*100
Minnesota	.194%=	((1+.008)	.994	-1)*100
Mississippi	1.009%=	((1+.013)	.997	-1)*100
Missouri	.693%=	((1+.009)	.998	-1)*100
Montana	.597%=	((1+.013)	.993	-1)*100
Nebraska	-.206%=	((1+.005)	.993	-1)*100
Nevada	-.043%=	((1+.007)	.993	-1)*100
New Hampshire	.283%=	((1+.004)	.999	-1)*100
New Jersey	1.505%=	((1+.018)	.998	-1)*100
New Mexico	.717%=	((1+.015)	.992	-1)*100
New York	.659%=	((1+.012)	.996	-1)*100
North Carolina	1.006%=	((1+.020)	.990	-1)*100
North Dakota	12.432%=	((1+.140)	.986	-1)*100
Ohio	.489%=	((1+.006)	.999	-1)*100
Oklahoma	1.183%=	((1+.020)	.992	-1)*100
Oregon	-.113%=	((1+.008)	.991	-1)*100
Pennsylvania	1.504%=	((1+.017)	.998	-1)*100
Rhode Island	1.605%=	((1+.015)	1.001	-1)*100
South Carolina	1.085%=	((1+.020)	.991	-1)*100
South Dakota	1.889%=	((1+.028)	.991	-1)*100
Tennessee	1.856%=	((1+.026)	.993	-1)*100
Texas	1.471%=	((1+.032)	.984	-1)*100
Utah	-.623%=	((1+.009)	.985	-1)*100
Vermont	.008%=	((1+.001)	.999	-1)*100
Virginia	.702%=	((1+.016)	.991	-1)*100
Washington	.088%=	((1+.014)	.987	-1)*100
West Virginia	1.905%=	((1+.012)	.999	-1)*100
Wisconsin	2.524%=	((1+.029)	.996	-1)*100
Wyoming	1.521%=	((1+.022)	.994	-1)*100
USA	.497%=	((1+.012)	.993	-1)*100

Derivation of Formula

Russian Nationalism

Political institutions in Russia continue to suppress membership growth.  It is a single data point supporting the proposition I made in “Culture vs. Political and Economic Institutions,” that political and economic institutions may be more important determinants of church growth than culture.  The economic theory upon which my suggestion is based was developed by Acemoglu and Robinson who divide institutions into two types: inclusive and extractive.  The church is an inclusive institution that uses its resources to develop the talent and ability of members, feed and clothe the poor, and educate its youth.  The Soviet Union was an example of a political system set up by Communist Party elites to establish powerful extractive institutions to maintain their wealth and power.

The Soviet Union collapsed from the weight of its extractive institutions which inherently lack innovation.  A somewhat freer Russia rose from the wreckage.  Many freedoms expanded including religious freedom.  In 1989, the church began to hold meetings and missionaries arrived shortly afterward. 

While freedom grew, it did not blossom.  Freedom House gives Russia a rating of 5.5 out of 7 in freedom, and the Heritage Foundation rates its economic freedom as mostly unfree.  The church occasionally runs afoul of the government which still requires members to register their religious affiliation.  In an “Into All The World” episode, Charles Cranney, a former president of the Russia, Moscow Mission, described how a tightening of the visas reduced the number of missionaries in his mission to 27.  Anna Nemtsova writes  

Last autumn, Mr Putin called on police to monitor "totalitarian sects" supposedly threatening Russia's internal security. At a meeting at his Novo-Ogarevo residence last October, he also hinted that religious groups might have less-than-holy motives for attracting members. "This is not just a hunt for souls," he intoned. "This is a hunt for people's property."

Political protests followed in which members of groups with ties to Putin’s party claimed that missionaries were sent by the FBI and CIA, a false rumor probably as old as the CIA and one I heard as a missionary in Argentina during that countries Dirty War.  I don’t know who the CIA hires, but they must have much better political connections than missionaries who are busy preaching the gospel.  If you don’t believe me, follow one.  You will be converted or bored to tears. 

Obstacles are not new to missionaries.  Some political obstacles such as war, banning of meetings or missionaries may prove impossible to overcome in the short run but members will continue to pray and work to fulfill the mandate of the church.  

Church Growth by State

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.  

In the future, I hope to empirically test the theory of membership osmosis. My next step will to regress the change in density against the distance (the miles from a state’s most populous city to Salt Lake City) and population growth to see if the relationships between the variables have empirical validity.

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