Migration Trends 1992-2007 and 2002-2007

Highlights of Interstate Household Migration

Migration Patterns. Although most Amish families remain rooted in the areas where they were born and raised, others move to different Amish settlements within their home state or to other states. Each year a steady stream of Amish families moves in and out of many of the 27 states and one Canadian province with Amish settlements. This summary focuses on the migration of households (family units of one couple or one couple with their children) in or out of a state or province; it does not include migrations within a state or province.

Gainers and Losers. Gainer states have a net increase of migrating families in the Amish shuffle each year. States with large, long-established Amish populations are more likely to be net losers because some of their families may flee from suburbs encroaching on older Amish communities. A gain or loss of families may have little or great impact on a state’s total Amish population, depending on the size of the state’s initial Amish population.

1992-2007 Migrations. Approximately 5,700 Amish households moved across state lines in the 16-year period from 1992 through 2007. New York had the largest net gain with 298 households. Other states with a net gain of 100 or more included Kentucky (212), Michigan (183), Wisconsin (173), and Illinois (100). The three states that lost the most households were Pennsylvania (592), Ohio (482) and Delaware (144).

See Migration 1992-2007 tables for details.

2002-2007 Migrations. Approximately 2,700 families moved from one state to another over the six-year period from 2002 through 2007. See Migration 2002-2007 tables for details.

Top Eight Gainer States (2002-2007). Eight states had a net gain of 30 or more immigrant Amish families over the six-year period: New York (307), Kentucky (88), Iowa (54), Kansas (49), Minnesota (47), Virginia (43), Colorado (36), and Wisconsin (31). New York towers above all other states with total of 385 immigrant households and a net gain of 307 new families. Kentucky follows with 273 immigrant families and a net gain of 88. Although Colorado and Virginia have small Amish populations, they received 36 and 43 new families respectively. Wisconsin shows a peculiar pattern. It had 356 new immigrant families between 2002 and 2007, very similar to the influx in New York. But unlike New York, Wisconsin lost 325 families, yielding a net gain of only 31 households. See Migration Top Eight tables for details.

Top Eight Loser States (2002-2007). Ohio, home to the largest Amish population (55,600), welcomed 213 arrivals from other states but lost 515, for a net loss of 302 families. Pennsylvania, the second most populous Amish state (51,600), claimed 187 new families but lost 468 to other states, for a net loss of 281. Other states experiencing a net loss include Missouri (171), Michigan (117), Delaware (94), Indiana (22), Tennessee (13), and Maryland (13). For states such as Delaware with a small estimated Amish population of 1,200, a loss of 94 families over the past six years has a far greater impact than a similar size loss would have for Amish-heavy states such as Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Push Factors for Migration. Amish migration is influenced by both push reasons for leaving and pull reasons that entice families to a new state. Push reasons may include 1) suburban congestion and sprawl, 2) high land prices, 3) tourism and other intrusive outside influences, 4) disputes with municipal authorities over issues such as zoning, 5) weak regional economies, 6) occupational changes (closing of markets, jobs, factories), and 7) church-related troubles or disputes.

Pull Factors in Migration. The following reasons, among others, may entice families to migrate to a new state: 1) fertile farmland at reasonable prices, 2) non-farm work in specialized occupations, 3) rural isolation that supports a traditional, family based lifestyle, 4) hospitable social and physical environments (climate, governments, services, economy) conducive to the Amish way of life, and 5) proximity to family or other similar Amish church groups.

Notes:

1. The data includes all Amish groups (Old Order and New Order) that use horse-and-buggy transportation, but excludes car-driving groups such as the Beachy Amish and Amish Mennonites.

2. Stephen Scott, Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, gathered and compiled the data.

Sources: Settlement reports provided by scribes in various Amish publications, annual migration reports published in The Diary, and informants in various settlements.

To cite this page: “Amish Migration Trends 1992-2007 and 2002-2007.” Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, Elizabethtown College. http://www2.etown.edu/amishstudies/Migration_Trends.asp.

Save This Page