There Are 6,458 (or 7.9%) Fewer US Bank Branches Now Than in 2020 — Here Are the States, Metros That Lost the Most

A brick-and-mortar bank is an essential part of financial management for some, offering in-person customer service and support. While a 2020 DepositAccounts study showed bank branch closures slowing despite the COVID-19 pandemic, these physical locations are becoming less and less available.

In fact, the newest DepositAccounts study shows there were 7.9% fewer bank branches in June 2023 than in June 2020. To understand how this trend is playing out across the U.S., we looked at each state and then metros with at least 250,000 residents.

Key findings

• There were 7.9% fewer bank branches in the 50 states and the District of Columbia in June 2023 than in June 2020. The number of full-service and retail branches decreased by 6,458 in this period, from 81,669 in June 2020 to 75,211 in June 2023.
• Hawaii (16.5%), Oregon (15.9%) and Virginia (15.4%) lost the greatest share of branches during this period. On the other hand, Utah was the only state to see an increase in the number of bank branches, from 500 in June 2020 to 503 in June 2023. Vermont and Montana were the only states to maintain the same number of branches. 
• Four metros with at least 250,000 residents lost at least 1 in 5 branches over the past three years. Those metros were Youngstown, Ohio (22.1% decrease in branches), Flint, Mich. (21.7%), Trenton, N.J. (20.1%), and Lakeland, Fla. (20.0%).
• Nevada had the fewest branches per capita through June 2023, at only 13.4 per 100,000 residents in the state. Arizona and California followed, with 13.9 and 14.5 branches per capita, respectively. In contrast, North Dakota had 50.9 branches per 100,000 residents — the most of any state. Following that, South Dakota had 48.8 and Nebraska had 48.2 branches per capita.
• Four metros had fewer than 10 full-service and retail branches for every 100,000 residents through June 2023. Bakersfield, Calif., was at the bottom, with 8.6 branches per capita, followed by Anchorage, Alaska (8.8), Merced, Calif. (9.0), and Vallejo, Calif. (9.7). 

7.9% fewer bank branches exist in June 2023 than in June 2020

According to our analysis of Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) data, there were 7.9% fewer bank branches in the 50 states and the District of Columbia in June 2023 than in June 2020. That translates to 6,458 closures of full-service and retail branches over those three years. And when you consider the timing of this research, it makes sense.

“Many people were forced to do more banking online and by smartphone during the pandemic,” DepositAccounts founder Ken Tumin says. “Many of them didn’t go back to the branches when the pandemic lessened.”

While the coronavirus crisis accelerated the switch to online banking, it’s a trend that had started before. As consumer preferences shifted, traditional banks have been forced to invest in digital technologies and reduce their dependence on physical branches. According to a J.D. Power survey from April 2020, 52% of customers visited banks in person before the pandemic. By 2021, more than 40% of core retail banking sales occurred digitally, according to McKinsey & Co. — a record high. 

Another potential factor could be the added costs of running a physical branch, from renting or buying the space to employing tellers, bank managers, loan officers, security and more. A period of extremely low interest rates limited banks’ ability to earn significant returns on the cash deposited with them, so closing physical branches could have been more attractive to the bottom line.

Of note: One-third of the bank branches closed from 2017 to 2021 were in low-to-moderate income (LMI) or majority-minority communities with severe inequities, according to a February 2022 report from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC).

Hawaii lost the greatest share of branches — here are the states that follow

The three states with the greatest share of bank branch losses during the observed period — June 2020 to June 2023 — were Hawaii (16.5%), Oregon (15.9%) and Virginia (15.4%).

Hawaii lost 43 branches over the three years. In early 2021, Honolulu-based Bank of Hawaii announced it was closing 12 in-store branches (and 50 ATMs) because customers were more commonly using digital banking options — a recurring theme seen across the U.S. amid the pandemic. The state had the seventh-fewest bank branches at the start of our period in June 2020, so fewer closures would have a greater impact than in larger states.

Back on the mainland, U.S. Bank announced in October 2020 that it was closing 32 branches in Oregon. A bank spokesperson told the East Oregonian newspaper that digital banking and the pandemic contributed to the branch closures. In January 2022, U.S. Bank shuttered the only physical branch in Nyssa, an eastern Oregon city — exhibiting the severity of the state’s closures.

Meanwhile, PNC Bank announced in March 2023 that it would close 47 branches in June, with BestLife reporting Virginia would be the hardest-hit. Earlier in late 2021, Atlantic Union Bank said it would shut 14 branches in the state, according to American Banker.

5 states that lost the most bank branches between June 2020 and June 2023 (by %)

Source: DepositAccounts analysis of Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) data between June 2020 and June 2023.

Of interest: Only one state in the U.S. saw an increase in the number of bank branches during the three years we analyzed. This exception was Utah, where branches went from 500 in June 2020 to 503 in June 2023. 

Bank of America noted in June 2023 that it had opened 20 Utah locations since May 2019. While part of that would be outside the examined period, it exemplifies the growth. And according to an October 2021 report from the University of New Hampshire, Utah was one of two states that had recovered its lost jobs amid the pandemic, surpassing pre-crisis numbers. That could have made the state more attractive to banks looking to expand during this period.

Two states — Vermont and Montana — were the only to maintain the same number of branches during this period. Both states have significant rural populations, meaning physical bank branches may still play a crucial role in providing financial services to residents. In these states, access to digital banking services might be limited due to connectivity issues or a preference for in-person banking.

Full rankings

States that lost the most bank branches between June 2020 and June 2023 (by %)

Source: DepositAccounts analysis of FDIC data between June 2020 and June 2023.

4 metros lost at least 20% of their bank branches over the past 3 years

These bank closures more heavily impacted some metros than others. In fact, four metros (each with at least 250,000 residents as of 2021) stood out for having at least one-fifth fewer bank branches than three years ago:

• Youngstown, Ohio (22.1% decrease in branches)
• Flint, Mich. (21.7% decrease)
• Trenton, N.J. (20.1% decrease)
• Lakeland, Fla. (20.0% decrease)

Mercer, Pa. — a small borough within the Youngstown metro — lost three branches (Citizens Bank, Huntington Bank and PNC Bank) in the 18 months between November 2021 and April 2023, according to WKBN news. And early in 2022, PNC Bank notified customers that it was shutting branches in Howland and Canfield, Ohio — also part of the wider metro, according to the Tribune Chronicle. All told, there were 32 fewer branches in the metro at the end of our observed period compared to the beginning.

4 metros that lost at least 20% of bank branches between June 2020 and June 2023

Source: DepositAccounts analysis of FDIC data between June 2020 and June 2023. Note: Metros are limited to those with populations of at least 250,000. Population data is from the U.S. Census Bureau 2021 American Community Survey with five-year estimates.

Economic challenges may contribute here, as low economic prosperity generally means less profitability for banks. All four cities (excluding the cities and towns in the wider metro) have poverty levels higher than the U.S. national rate of 11.6%. Here’s the poverty rate of each city:

• Youngstown: 35.3%
• Flint: 35.5%
• Trenton: 27.7%
• Lakeland: 15.1%

Additionally, the median household income in each city is significantly lower than the U.S. median of $69,021. Youngstown’s median income is more than twice as low at $31,020. Following that, the median income in each city is:

• Flint: $32,358
• Trenton: $39,718
• Lakeland: $52,972

Full rankings 

Metros that lost the most bank branches between June 2020 and June 2023 (by %)

Source: DepositAccounts analysis of FDIC data between June 2020 and June 2023. Note: Metros are limited to those with populations of at least 250,000. Population data is from the U.S. Census Bureau 2021 American Community Survey with five-year estimates.

Nevada has the fewest branches per capita

We also examined the relative accessibility of bank branches in each state, based on the number of branches per capita. Here, Nevada emerged as having the fewest branches per capita through June 2023 (13.4 per 100,000 residents). That’s compared with the U.S. average of 22.8 per capita. Arizona and California followed Nevada, with 13.9 and 14.5 branches per capita, respectively.

These states placed relatively high among those that lost the most bank branches since 2020, coming in sixth, 11th and seventh, respectively.

3 states with the fewest branches per capita

Source: DepositAccount analysis of FDIC data from June 2023.

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, North Dakota had the highest number of branches per capita, at 50.9. South Dakota and Nebraska followed with 48.8 and 48.2 branches per capita.

As expected, these three states tended to be toward the bottom of our rankings for having the most lost bank branches over the past three years.

These states are in the Midwest (in fact, they share borders). And many Midwestern states tend to have less dense populations than other U.S. regions, such as the Northeast or South. So these states may not require as many branches to have high per-capita figures. Plus, the Midwest has seen particularly sluggish population growth over the past decade, further contributing to this trend.

Full rankings

States with the fewest branches per capita

Source: DepositAccount analysis of FDIC data from June 2023.

Bakersfield, Calif., has only 8.6 bank branches per 100,000 residents

When it came to per-capita branches in metros (again, with at least 250,000 residents as of 2021), there were four that had fewer than 10 full-service and retail branches per 100,000 residents through June 2023. Bakersfield, Calif., was at the bottom of this list, with just 8.6 branches per capita. Anchorage, Alaska (8.8) came in second, followed by Merced, Calif. (9.0), and Vallejo, Calif. (9.7).

It’s hard to nail down why certain metros have fewer bank branches per capita. For example, Bakersfield lost 10.3% of its bank branches between June 2020 and June 2023, but that was good for only 69th on our greater list. (The metro’s economy is primarily centered around agriculture, manufacturing, petroleum extraction and refining.)

Similarly, Anchorage had 12.5% fewer bank branches — five total — at the end of the examined period, but 42 metros saw a higher rate of losses.

Metros with fewer than 10 bank branches per 100,000 residents

Source: DepositAccounts analysis of FDIC data from June 2023. Note: Metros are limited to those with populations of at least 250,000. Population data is from the U.S. Census Bureau 2021 American Community Survey with five-year estimates.

Meanwhile, Vallejo lost 18.5% of its branches in the observed period — the 10th-highest total among the metros examined. That, combined with a labor force that has yet to fully recover from the pandemic’s impacts, could make the metro a difficult place to do business, making it harder for banks to put roots down there.

Full rankings

Metros with the fewest bank branches per capita

Source: DepositAccounts analysis of FDIC data from June 2023. Note: Metros are limited to those with populations of at least 250,000. Population data is from the U.S. Census Bureau 2021 American Community Survey with five-year estimates.

Another interesting facet is that seven of the 10 metros with the fewest bank branches per capita were in California. Unsurprisingly, the Golden State ranked seventh among the states that lost the most bank branches over the past three years, with 786 fewer (or 12.1% less) at the end of our observed period.

The collapse of two California banks (Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic) may make other banks skittish. And the mass exodus of residents — the state lost more than 500,000 residents in two years, according to ABC7 — no doubt had an impact.

3 things to consider when choosing a bank 

If you’re looking for a new bank, you’ll want to make sure it meets your unique needs. Here are a few key aspects you may wish to consider:

• Whether you’ll get access to your ideal banking experience: Not everyone will care about whether a bank has physical branches. Online account management may be more important, so it can be essential to ensure it's available. But branches can provide much-needed perks for those who prefer to talk to someone in person. “Nearby bank branches can be one factor to consider, especially if you expect that you’ll need regular transactions that require a branch, like cash deposits,” Tumin says.
• Recent lawsuits or enforcement actions against banks of interest: A banking relationship can provide access to valuable tools, such as certificates of deposits (CDs) and loans. But this relationship goes both ways, and it’s important to examine any possible lawsuits that a bank may have faced in recent years — and the context around them — when evaluating a new bank. For example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an enforcement action to Bank of America in July 2023 for charging repeat $35 nonsufficient funds fees.
• The costs (and profits) associated with accounts: As Tumin notes, account features such as interest rates and fees can significantly influence financial experiences with a given bank. After all, nonsufficient funds fees can add up fast, especially if you don’t have a steady source of income. It’s important to understand the potential impact on your bottom line. Some things you may wish to look out for include account minimums, ATM fees and interest rate discounts. 

“Don’t forget that it can often make sense to have multiple banks,” Tumin says. “It can be useful to have a checking account at a local bank or credit union and a high-yield savings account at an online bank. It’s easy to electronically transfer money back and forth. This allows you to earn more interest on your savings.”

Methodology

Using Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) data, DepositAccount researchers analyzed bank branch location data from June 2023 and compared it branch location data through June 2020 to calculate the changes in branch availability by state and metro.

Branches were limited to those designated as either full-service brick-and-mortar or retail locations. The metro analysis was limited to those with populations of at least 250,000 in 2021. Population data is from the U.S. Census Bureau 2021 American Community Survey with five-year estimates.