Methodology
The Moral Decay Index organizes evidence about American civic, institutional, economic, family, cultural, public-health, and social wellbeing into a framework for public understanding and moral reflection.
From evidence to an Index score
A composite score is a summary, not a substitute for the underlying evidence. Readers should examine the measures, sources, time periods, and limitations behind every conclusion.
Define the indicator
State precisely what social condition is being examined and why it matters.
Select evidence
Prefer original, public, methodologically transparent, and repeatable datasets.
Compare trends
Evaluate direction, magnitude, historical baseline, geography, and uncertainty.
Score and explain
Publish the result with its inputs, weights, update date, sources, and limitations.
Eight indicator areas
These areas are related but not interchangeable. Evidence may affect more than one indicator, and no single indicator defines the condition of the country.
What a score means
A higher score represents greater observed deterioration relative to the selected baseline and measures for that indicator. It does not represent the percentage of Americans who are immoral.
Until a complete calculation table is published, treat the displayed number as a provisional editorial estimate—not a validated scientific measurement.
A documented score should identify
- The measures included and why they were chosen
- Baseline and comparison years
- Geography and population covered
- Definitions and units
- Normalization formula
- Weight assigned to each measure
- Source for every input value
- Last update date and revision history
Evidence hierarchy
Preference is given to original, publicly accessible evidence from government agencies, universities, peer-reviewed journals, established nonpartisan research organizations, and reputable longitudinal surveys.
News reports and opinion pieces may provide context, but they should not be the sole support for an Index score. AI output is never treated as a source.
Review Data SourcesLimitations matter
Composite indexes simplify complicated realities. They can conceal regional variation, unequal effects among groups, measurement changes, missing data, uncertainty, and legitimate disagreement over what should be counted.
- Correlation does not prove causation.
- Simultaneous trends do not show that one caused another.
- Survey wording and definitions can change results.
- A national average may conceal local conditions.
The framework will evolve
Major score revisions will include an update date and an explanation of what changed. New evidence may change a score, a weight, an indicator definition, or the interpretation of a trend.
Evidence-based corrections are welcome. Send the page URL, disputed claim, and supporting source so the concern can be reviewed.
Review or challenge the work
Transparency is meaningful only when readers can inspect the evidence and question the judgment behind it.