Content uploaded by Patricia Snell Herzog
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patricia Snell Herzog on Dec 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
and Empirical Evidence of Systematic Non-Response Biases in Surveys1
PATRICIA SNELL, CHRISTIAN SMITH, CARLOS TAVARES, AND KARI CHRISTOFFERSEN
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
This paper provides a descriptive analysis of congregationally-based youth
programs in one geographically specified area in northern Indiana. A response rate
of 98.9 percent (N=269) from congregations on a survey questionnaire and 42
additional in-person interviews with youth ministers were conducted to compile
data on the characteristics of congregations, youth attendance, youth groups, and
youth ministers across denominational categories. Results of the study support the
hypothesis that youth programming differs across denominations. Findings also
highlight the need for high response rates and representative sampling
methodologies to provide a valid view of congregationally-based youth
programming.
The impetus for this study are the results of data collected by the National Study of Youth
and Religion (NSYR), a longitudinal and nationally representative study with more than three
thousand original youth participants, which found that religious faith was rated by over half of
teens as “very” to “extremely important” in their lives (Smith and Denton 2005). Yet the NSYR
also found the majority of teens to be inarticulate and often inaccurate about the primary
theological tenants of their faiths and their own personal beliefs. This apparent disconnect
between the value that teens place on their religious faith and their lack of knowledge about the
teachings of their religious congregations has implications for congregationally-based youth
work. Congregations may be well served to address this incongruity through systematic studies
examining the prevalence and content of congregational youth ministry programs.
At present, academic attention to congregationally-based youth1 work is scarce, and the
majority of what does exist is mostly based upon impressionistic or anecdotal information, non-
representative samples or characterized by low response rates. The literature in this area is
1Address Correspondence to: Patricia Snell, Center for the Study of Religion & Society, University of Notre Dame,
811 Flanner Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556. Email: psnell@nd.edu.
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
largely divided between the theologically based explanations of religious education that are
meant to guide the work of the youth ministers (e.g. Root 2007; Hryniuk 2005; Jones 2001;
Roebben 1999) and the more empirically-based studies meant to provide descriptions of existing
congregations and their youth ministry programs (e.g. Larson and Hansen 2006; Goreham 2004;
Strommen, Jones, and Rahn 2001). Research is needed to bridge these dual goals of practice and
systematic knowledge toward a more accurate and representative understanding of the role that
youth ministries play in the formation of younger congregation members. This study makes an
initial contribution in this direction by providing a comprehensive picture of the type and
availability of activities provided by the youth ministry programs of nearly all the congregations
located in a geographically-specified area in northern Indiana.
BACKGROUND
There are many studies of youth religiosity (e.g. Caputo 2005; Regnerus, Smith, and
Smith 2004; Benson 2004; King and Farrow 2004; Smith, et al. 2002; Gunnoe, Linder and
Moore 2002; McKinney 1999), often focusing on the parental role in faith formation (e.g. Smith
2003; Smith and Sikkink 2003; O’Connor, Hoge, Alexander 2002; Erickson 1992). However,
there is still a great deal yet to be learned about one of the main vehicles through which youth are
taught the faith of their religious congregations – youth ministries. Only a handful of studies
provide snapshots of various aspects of youth ministry programs, examining the characteristics
of congregations (membership size, denomination, theological identity, race and ethnicity, and
budget resources). A few are large-scale studies (e.g. Chaves 2004; Dudley and Roozen 2001;
Ammerman 2001).
-2-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
Only a small number of studies focus on the characteristics of the youth ministry
programs themselves: availability of youth activities, youth group attendance, frequency of
meetings, activities provided, primary focus of activities, extent of inter-organizational
collaboration, as well as information on characteristics and experiences of youth ministers. For
example, Goreham (2004) found that rural youth group participation varied significantly by
denomination, with 47 percent of Protestant youth participating compared to 18 percent of
Catholic. Conservative Protestant youth groups were reported to have the highest participation
rates. The frequency of informal youth meetings (i.e. activities provided for youth not through an
organized youth group) offered did not appear to differ significantly across denominations, while
the frequency of formal meetings offered per month is on average four for Conservative
Protestant, 2.2 for Catholic, and 1.9 for Mainline Protestant (Goreham 2004). Ninety percent of
congregations reported providing activities of some sort for their youth (Dudley & Roozen
2001), and the provision of ongoing youth programs was found to vary by denomination with 70
percent, 69 percent, and 59 percent of Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodist churches,
respectively, providing youth groups.
The type of activity provided by youth groups also appears to differ across
denominations. Religious education was found to be most prevalent among Catholic
congregations, with 86 percent offering this activity, followed by 82 percent of Conservative
Protestants, and 71 percent of Mainline Protestants (Goreham 2004). However, there do not
appear to be significant differences across denominations with regards to social and fun
activities. Nearly half of all congregations reported that they would be very likely to plan
activities with other congregations (Rouhlkepartain & Scales 1995), and about two thirds of
youth groups in each denomination participate regularly in collaboration. This is also found to
-3-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
differ by denomination, with Catholics and Mainline Protestants more likely to collaborate than
Conservative Protestants (Goreham 2004). Such information is difficult to compare or
accumulate due to the different sampling selection (e.g. small churches: Chromey 1990; rural
churches: Goreham 2004), sampling methodologies, and low response rates.
Descriptive information on youth ministers is also scarce and incomplete. Eighty percent
of youth workers are reported to be volunteers (Roehlkepartain 1995), with an average tenure on
the job of 2.5 yrs (Rouhlkepartain & Scales 1995). Catholic congregations appear to have longer
tenures because they have more paid youth workers: 28 percent of Catholic youth ministers are
paid, as compared to 13 percent of Mainline and 16 percent of Conservative Protestant (Goreham
2004). Mainline Protestant congregations appear most likely (28 percent) to have youth groups
led by the senior pastors, compared to 10 percent of Catholic and 20 percent of Conservative
Protestant congregations. The average ministry work experience of youth ministers in one study
was found to be 13 years (Lambert 2004), but this research was conducted with only with a
sample of youth ministry research faculty. Significant gender differences in youth minister
confidence in leadership and length of tenure have also been found (Strommen, Jones, Rahn
2001). Again sampling methodology is a problem in this descriptive information, as studies are
drawn from available samples of youth ministers who are faculty at educational institutions
(Lambert 2004), reside in rural areas of the country (Goreham 2004), or comprise small numbers
of research participants (Roehlkepartain 1995), making it difficult to ascertain the
representativeness and generalizability of the findings.
The remaining studies consist of youth minister experiential narratives. Much of the
literature available on youth ministry conveys “essential elements” of effective programs, yet
little of this literature is based on empirical data, measurements, or descriptions of how programs
-4-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
are determined to be effective (e.g. Banks 2004; Barna 2001; Borgman 1997; Fields 1998;
Borthwick 1990; Campolo 1989; Smoll 1987; Burns and Campbell 1986; Shelton 1983; Hoge et
al. 1982). The empirical data that exist consist mostly of statistics derived from interviews with
youth ministers; they report such things as the majority of youth ministers somewhat to strongly
agree with multiple questions regarding lack of satisfaction and happiness with their positions
(e.g. Powell, King and Clark 2005; Strommen, Jones, and Rahn 2001), high burnout (Goreham
2004), a lack of parent involvement, and youth-church disconnect (Strommen, Jones, and Rahn
2001). The biggest challenge for youth ministers is said to be “busyness,” with Conservative
Protestant youth ministers reported to be somewhat less beset by this than Catholic and Mainline
Protestant youth ministers (Goreham 2004). Many youth ministers report needing training on a
variety of topics, and one study reported theological and spiritual foundation to be the top
training desired by youth ministers, followed by psychological understanding and then capacity-
building (Powell, King, and Clark 2005). Even within this small body of literature, there are a
number of discrepancies in the findings. For example, one study reported that about one-third of
youth (36 percent) participate in church youth groups (Gallup 1999), while another showed that
only 19 percent of youth participate (Larson, Hansen, and Moneta 2006). Since it is likely that at
least some systematic non-response bias affects the results of these studies, as we demonstrate
below, it is necessary to conduct further research into youth ministry programs with further
developed methods in order to assure a more accurate view of all congregations.
METHODOLOGY
Because much of what current research on youth ministry provides is a view of the
congregations most likely to respond to social science research surveys, the goal for this study
-5-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
was to provide a comprehensive picture of all congregations located within a specific geographic
area, to eliminate non-response bias. Similar to other geographically focused congregational
studies (e.g. Cnaan 2006), the Northern Indiana Congregation Study (NICS) collected data from
an entire population of congregations with the highest response rate possible, in order to
establish the actual population descriptive percentages, not simply an estimation of percentages
inferred from a partial response sample. Therefore, the population for this study was limited to
congregations within the geographic scope of three moderately-sized (total population: 240,703)
contiguous cities located in northern Indiana. Considerable effort was made to establish the
population size accurately from multiple sources of congregational information, and multiple
attempts were made through three phases of data collection to locate and make contact with
every congregation known to exist within the confines of these city boundaries.
During the summer of 2007, we collected, compiled, and contacted lists of Christian and
non-Christian religious congregations located within the three contiguous cities. We obtained
these lists from several sources, including denomination websites, Internet searches, phonebook
listings, and a local ecumenical religious non-profit contact list. Additionally, we found
congregations not listed in any of these directories during the course of extensive driving around
the cities during the research project. From these we created a database containing all of the
congregations estimated to exist in the area – 319. We determined that 46 were not existing
congregations, for a total population of 272. Of the final 272 count, we determined that we
would have missed 27 percent of the congregational population had we relied on phonebook
listings alone. From the original 319 count, the non-existing listings were determined to be
duplicate entries listed twice due to minor differences in the contact information, physical
locations outside the specified geographic area, congregation mergers, multiple listings for wards
-6-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
or divisions which actually constituted a single congregation, potentially previously existing
congregations with no working phone and no meaningful address, and closed congregations with
no working phone and either observably abandoned buildings or neighbors’ reports of closure.
The top section of Table 1 provides this original population breakdown.
[Table 1. About Here]
The first phase of our research involved a 40-question survey conducted by phone or on
location with the existing 272 congregations.2 The survey instrument collected descriptive
information regarding the congregation (attendance, race and ethnicity, budget, etc.) and, if
applicable, youth (number), youth group (size, frequency of meetings, etc.), and youth
minister(s)3 (number, part-time, volunteer, contact information). Our second phase of contact
involved a mailing to all of the then remaining non-respondents, accompanied by emails for all
who had available email contact information, continued phoning, and followed-ups with personal
visits to all of the remaining non-respondents. This resulted in a total N of 269 and a response
rate of 98.9 percent,4 demonstrating that determination, persistence, and researching within a
specific geographic location pays off in completing these initial non-responses.
Our third phase of data collection involved in-person interviews conducted with a sample
of 42 youth ministers drawn from the population in order to cover the range of potentially
important characteristics affecting youth ministry. Of our census of 272 congregations, only 177
congregations with organized youth groups were considered in the sampling for the in-person
interview phase of the study. From these, congregations were chosen for interviews via stratified
quota sampling, based on a variety of characteristics, including denomination, church size, youth
group size, and geographical location, in order to ensure that we heard a variety of perspectives
across the range of possible youth programs in the area. Forty youth ministers who lead their
-7-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
congregations’ youth groups (composing 23.7 percent of the 177) and two additional youth
ministers of para-church organizations were contacted for a 32-question in-person interview
lasting an average duration of one hour. The interview schedule5contained questions to collect
information from the youth ministers regarding their perceptions of their work, as well as the felt
needs, challenges, and difficulties of working with their youth congregation members. Table 2
displays the congregational, youth group, and personal demographics for these youth ministers.
[Table 2. About Here]
FINDINGS
One unique aspect of our survey findings is the fact that every percentage reported is
statistically significant. Because the findings are based on nearly the total population, inferential
statistics are not needed to calculate the extent to which a sample is representative of the broader
population, and every number can be thought of as having a p value less than 0.000. This allows
the focus of the analysis to be on whether or not the differences found are substantively rather
than statistically significant.
[Table 3. About Here]
Characteristics of Congregations
The modal congregational size is 75 people or less, and size is not evenly distributed
across denominations. Table 3 shows that Conservative and Black Protestants are more likely to
be very small congregations. Mainline Protestant and Non-Christian are more likely to be spread
across very small, small and medium sized congregations, and Catholic are much more likely to
be medium to very large congregations. Forty-two percent of all congregations report a total
annual budget of less than $200,000. Since budget is based heavily on the number of attendees
-8-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
and size is denominationally skewed, the budget per person is a more telling figure. This
breakdown shows Catholic parishes (43 percent) as the most likely to operate on $1,000 per
person or less, while Mainline Protestant churches (45 percent) are the most likely to operate on
$1,000-$2,000 per person. It is difficult to know the accuracy of the budget figures, however, as
a combined 41 percent of congregations did not know their annual budget or refused to provide
the figure. As shown in Table 3, Refusal and Do Not Know responses were not evenly distributed
across denominations. Non-Christian and Black Protestant congregations were the most likely to
be in this category (64 percent and 58 percent respectively) and Mainline Protestant the least (29
percent Refusal/Do Not Know).
Table 3 highlights differences across racial and ethnic composition of the congregations.
Almost 70 percent of the congregations had a white racial majority. Twenty-six percent were
majority black, four percent Hispanic, one percent Asian, and one percent other race. Because all
the Protestant denominations reporting majority black were categorized as Black Protestant, the
congregations reported in the other Protestant denominational types with a majority white are
skewed toward 100 percent of Mainline Protestant and 88 percent Conservative Protestant. This
categorization did not affect the Catholic (93 percent) and Non-Christian (72 percent) numbers,
however. There were significant differences across denominations with regards to the number of
multiracial congregations.6 Twenty-seven percent of Non-Christian, 20 percent of Catholic,
Conservative Protestant, and Black Protestant, and 11 percent of Mainline Protestant
congregations responded positively to this question. The results of this question are reported in
Table 3 (using Ns for this variable rather than percents). As one would expect, the race and
ethnicity of the second group largely reverses the pattern of the first, such that the majority of
Mainline and Conservative Protestant multiracial congregations have black as the second group
-9-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
and the majority of Black Protestant have white. Catholic and Non-Christian congregations are
more likely to have a spread across the second racial and ethnic group choices, while the
Protestant denominations are more likely to report a mixture of races and ethnicities.
We also asked congregations to self-describe their theological identity.7 As shown near
the bottom of Table 3, the majority of Conservative and Black Protestant churches consider
themselves to be Evangelical (69 percent and 53 percent respectively), as compared to 11 percent
and nine percent Fundamentalist, respectively. A small but important number of the
congregations provided self-identities that do not fit the typical categorization of their
denomination. For instance, seven percent of those categorized as Conservative Protestant
churches responded Mainline or Liberal, and nine percent of Mainline reported Evangelical or
Fundamentalist. Although Pentecostal was not provided as one of the initial response categories,
13 percent of Conservative Protestant and 25 percent of Black Protestant churches reported this
under the “other” specification. In this particular diocese, which is largely perceived as having a
conservative bishop, the Catholic breakdown was 45 percent Traditional, 38 percent Moderate,
four percent Liberal, and 14 percent other, the latter of which was typically responded to as
“other - a mixture of those” categories. These findings show that, for a number of congregations,
typical sociological categorizations of denominational types and theological identities do not fit
exactly with the view that they apparently hold of themselves.
Characteristics of Youth and Youth Group Programs
Table 4 provides the breakdown of youth, youth group, and youth minister characteristics
by denomination type. A total of eight percent of the congregations reports not having any youth
in attendance. This figure is highest for Non-Christian and least for Catholic. Table 4 shows that
-10-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
an average of 83 percent of the congregations provide some sort of activity for youth. This figure
drops significantly however when we asked whether the congregation had an organized youth
group. Only 65 percent of the congregations answered affirmatively, with little difference across
denominations. Of those congregations with a youth group, the vast majority meet once a week
or more, with Conservative and Black Protestant churches twice as likely to have a frequency of
more than once a week and Non-Christian twice as likely to meet once a month or less. As
expected, the youth group attendance pattern is similar to the pattern of congregational youth
attendance. Seventy-four percent of the youth groups reported having a mixture of boys and
girls, and Catholic, Black Protestant, and Non-Christian youth groups are slightly more likely
than Mainline and Conservative to have a composition of more girls than boys.
[Table 4. About Here]
With regards to the activities provided for youth reported in Table 4, whether
incorporated in an organized youth group or not, the most significant difference across
denominational types is in whether Bible study is provided for youth or not. Conservative and
Black Protestants are the most likely to offer this activity. Much of the other types of activities do
not differ noticeably across denominational types, though retreats are more common among the
Protestant congregations than Catholic and Non-Christian, and mission trips are more common at
Conservative Protestant congregations. All congregations are very likely to offer social and
recreational activities, with Conservative and Black Protestant churches slightly more likely to
offer this, yet unlikely to offer opportunities for youth to be on committees or boards within the
congregation. Black Protestant churches were the most likely to offer the latter. Black Protestant
churches are significantly more likely than the other denominational types to offer activities for
-11-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
non-member youth in the larger community or neighborhood; non-Christian congregations are
the least likely to offer such activities.
Perhaps due to the smaller number of congregations available for this, non-Christian
congregations are also less than half as likely (18 percent) as Christian congregations (45
percent) to collaborate with other congregation youth groups. Of the congregations who do
collaborate with other youth groups, Mainline Protestant and Catholic are the most likely to do
this on a weekly basis, Black Protestant and Non-Christian on a monthly basis, and Conservative
Protestant a few times a year or less. The most significant denominational difference across all
types of activities provided is the availability of a youth choir, with Black Protestant
congregations two to 25 times as likely to offer this activity as other types of congregations.
Twelve percent of the congregations who said they do not have a youth group did offer a youth
choir, and 72 percent of these where Black Protestant congregations. This confirms the common
perception that youth choirs often “substitute” for youth groups in Black Protestant churches.
Characteristics of Youth Ministers
Some of the strongest differences across denominational types occur among youth
ministers. Mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Non-Christian congregations are less likely to have
a youth minister than Conservative and Black Protestant congregations. Non-Christian
congregations are more likely to have their youth group led by the head pastor, rabbi, etc.
Twenty-six percent of all congregations have a paid youth minister, and this differs by
denominational types. Of those who do have a paid youth minister, the figures are roughly split
between paid part-time and paid full-time leaders, with Catholic and Conservative Protestant
more likely to employ full-time and Mainline and Black Protestant more likely to employ part-
time youth ministers.
-12-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
Regardless of whether or not they have paid youth ministers, 60 percent of all
congregations have volunteer youth ministers, with Catholic, Conservative Protestant, and Black
Protestant congregations twice as likely to have two or more volunteer youth leaders as Mainline
Protestant and Non-Christian congregations. Further, because we did not always contact the
youth minister for the survey portion of this study, we do not know the gender of the youth
ministers across all congregations. However, whenever possible we did estimate this information
from the youth minister name provided by the respondent. For congregations who do have a
youth minister, we were able to estimate this figure for 84 percent of the youth ministers and
found that Non-Christian congregations were twice as likely to have a female youth leader as a
male, Mainline and Black Protestant were slightly more likely to have a female youth leader, and
Catholic and Conservative Protestant were far more likely to have a male youth leader.
The remainder of data gathered regarding congregational youth ministers was compiled
from the analysis of the in-person interviews. These findings cannot be assumed to be
numerically representative of all youth ministers in the area, though every effort was taken to
select a sample of participants who varied across all the characteristics thought to have a
potential influence. From theses interviews, the biggest challenge described by the youth
ministers we interviewed is “busyness of youth and families.” One youth minister, for instance,
said, “Young people have more choices than when I was growing up and youth group then was
the only thing to do. That has changed.” In response to our question, “Do you think that there are
other activities that compete with the effectiveness of your youth program?,” the vast majority
said “yes” and listed school and school activities, such as sports, band, and other extracurricular
activities, as the primary competitors for teens’ time. Other time-competitors mentioned were the
media, various forms of technology, such as texting and online chatting, home environments that
-13-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
do not support the youth group as a priority, and competition from other churches and mega
churches. A handful of youth ministers did not report busyness as a problem and said that
nothing competed for their teens’ time; or that they strategically chose to see other events as part
of what they do in youth ministry rather than as competition, and carried this out by attending
their youths’ sporting events together as a group, for example. Other challenges mentioned were
teens’ apathy or lack of motivation to participate, religious retention of teens after high school,
difficulties developing youth spirituality, relevancy, and a lack of training or education necessary
to do their jobs well.
Many youth ministers said that the resources of their congregations were sufficient to
lead their youth groups well. Some said that the resources are not adequate and that they never
have enough. But the majority said comments such as “We have more than enough,” “When a
need arises the needs are met,” and “We have a very healthy budget.” Many of the youth
ministers said that their youth groups raise the funds they need as an expense arises, but the clear
majority is supported at least in part through congregational operating budgets. All of the youth
ministers we interviewed described their institutions as somewhat to very supportive, and their
head pastors and congregation members as generally “behind,” or supportive of, what they do in
youth group. The greatest lack in resources was described as needing more adults to volunteer
with youth group. One youth minister said, “Time and people resources are a big challenge.”
Another said it was “the biggest challenge.”
Another need expressed by the youth ministers we interviewed was education and
training. Some of the youth ministers have a background or degree in religion or ministries,
while others learned the tasks of their position on the job. When asked what sort of training they
had, many of the youth ministers made comments such as, “I was born and raised in a Christian
-14-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
home, so I know Christianity,” “We do hands-on training here,” and “When I learned that I was
going to get this job, I was absolutely terrified. I’d never done any work in youth ministry.”
Some of the youth ministers described their on-the-job training as adequate, while many
mentioned the inadequacy of this informal training. Many said they were also involved in some
sort of ongoing training within the denomination or involving workshop and conference
attendance. However, many reported that these types of training were not available to them
because of the cost, which seems to contradict their earlier responses of having adequate
resources. Overall the majority of the youth ministers we interviewed listed a variety of topics in
which they wished they had more education or training, including 1) a further understanding of
what contemporary teens are “going through” today; 2) teen religiosity topics, such as the
number of religious teens, how important religion is to teens, and so on; 3) why and how teens
make the decision to attend or not to attend church and youth groups; 4) measures of how
effective their own youth ministry programs are; and 5) descriptions of effective models of youth
ministry programs.
Initial Non-Response Differences
Because we collected data with persistent, multiple attempts to contact, we were able to
note which of our respondents would have been non-responses had we stopped contact at the end
of the traditional phone calling phase. These are all congregations that we completed by actually
visiting the physical location and either completing the survey onsite or over the phone after
collecting additional contact information during our in-person visit. It is clear from these figures
that there is indeed a systematic non-response bias with harder-to-reach congregations. Forty-
five percent of the initial non-responses were Black Protestant and 41 percent Conservative
-15-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
Protestant congregations, as compared to 11 percent Mainline Protestant, three percent Catholic,
and zero percent Non-Christian. Sixty-five percent of the initial non-response congregations have
attendance of 75 people or less. Nearly 50 percent of the initial non-responses answered Do Not
Know for our annual budget questions. Forty-one percent do not have a designated youth
minister, and 87 percent do not have a paid youth minister. From these figures, we conclude that
race, size, and resources may be key factors in who is most available to participate in survey
research. In sum, surveys with low response rates very likely under-represent racial minorities,
smaller, and more resource-impoverished congregations.
[Table 5. About Here]
Table 5 compares some of the congregational characteristics we found with those of other
studies. The National Congregation Study (NCS) has provided the most comprehensive view of
congregational characteristics in the United States (Chaves 2004). The Hartford Institute (Dudley
and Roozen 2001) study also provided data regarding congregational statistics. They add a
percentage for white churches that have a subgroup race and ethnicity, otherwise known as a
multiracial congregation. This figure is not reported for any multiracial congregation having a
makeup other than a white majority. As this study did not measure congregational budgets, we
cannot compare the median budget size. Though both of these studies provide a view of
important congregational characteristics in the United States, there are significant discrepancies
in their findings, especially with regards to the percentage of congregations in each denomination
type and with each racial and ethnic majority. These differences are likely due to their distinct
sampling methodologies and response rates. For instance, there is a significant difference in their
response rates – 80 percent and 50 percent respectively. The sample for the Dudley & Roozen
(2001) study was created by contacting denominations. Fifty percent of the denominations
-16-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
contacted responded, with a total of 14,301 congregations. Assuming that the non-respondents
may be systematically biased, this many non-respondents has the potential to significantly bias
the findings. For example, a statistic of 90 percent of the congregations that provide some sort of
activity for their youth would yield an N of 12,871, but if we assume that, say, half the non-
responses do not provide any youth activity, the actual percentage of congregations would only
be only 70 percent. While some of the differences in the numbers seen in Table 5 may be a result
of regional differences, at least some may differ, however, as a result of non-response biases in
studies with lower response rates.
At the same time, contrary to the explicit conjectures of other studies (Goreham 2004;
Strommen, Jones, and Rahn 2001), we did not find that our initial non-response congregations
did not have youth or youth groups. These youth group programs, however, do appear to differ
on some important characteristics. For example, nearly half (48 percent) of the initial non-
responses offer activities for youth in their communities who are not members of their
congregation, and nearly half (47 percent) collaborate with youth group programs at other
congregations. These numbers are significantly higher than the percentages for our initial-
response congregations and so reveal features of youth programming that are very likely missed
in studies with low response rates.
[Table 6. About Here]
Table 6 shows how our youth, youth group, and youth minister figures compare to other
studies available. Since there are not a great deal of studies that have comprehensive information
available on youth ministry programs, typically only one or two figures from each study can be
used as a basis of comparison. Again, it is possible that some differences in the figures are related
to uniqueness of the region in which we conducted our study or differences in sampling
-17-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
methodologies. But we think it is also evident that some differences might be due to the
particular characteristics of the kind of congregations who are typically non-responses. For
example, the percentage breakdown by denominational type in our study of congregations
offering youth Bible studies reflects lower figures, as compared to another study. It seems likely
that the differences here may be related to the fact that many of the initial non-response
congregations in our study are small, with limited resources, and high racial minority
memberships and therefore are different than the congregations most readily available to more
typical survey research that settles for lower response rates. For example, one study began with a
sample of 835 randomly selected rural churches from denomination websites, of which 400
responded, producing a response rate of 47.9 percent (Goreham 2004). The response rates were
also uneven across denominations, returning 35 percent of Catholic congregations, 50 percent of
Conservative Protestant, and 56 percent of Mainline Protestant. Yet this study described
denomination as the key variable in observed differences in other outcomes, despite the fact that
we cannot know whether this is not simply a reflection of differences in biases of non-responding
congregations.
To drive the point home, in another study (Strommen, Jones, Rahn 2001), 5,017 original
questionnaires were mailed. A total of 328 were returned as undeliverable after a few mailing
attempts, and the researchers decided to subtract them from the total N. Of the 4,689 N
remaining, 2,416 responded, for a 51.5 percent response rate. Had the initial N been used, it
would have produced a 48.2 percent response rate. Their findings additionally show that the
response rate was systematically biased across denominations, with the highest response rate
from Mainline Protestant and the lowest from Conservative Protestant denominations. This study
also reported findings of differences as percentages of Conservative versus Mainline Protestant
-18-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
denomination type. This means, for instance, that a finding of 75 percent not reporting significant
concern over their salary could be as low as 36 percent, had their non-responders all been
concerned about their salaries. A third study (Lambert 1999) reported a response rate of 46
percent. Yet their sampling methodology describes this as computed from an initial response rate
of 72 percent. Thus, 46 percent of the original 72 percent responses were included, for an actual
response rate of 33 percent. The potential for significant differences in findings in these low-
response-rate studies, combined with our empirical evidence that systematic non-response biases
by size, resources, and racial composition do in fact exist, shows the importance of high response
rates and representative sampling methodologies for obtaining valid findings on congregations.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The objective of this study was to conduct a community-based, geographically specified
census of all the congregations and their youth ministry programs in an urban area. We examined
various dimensions of congregationally-based youth ministry programs in order to help answer
the question of what is available to the youth as a means to learning the core beliefs tenants of
their faith traditions. The results are a step toward a more scientific representation of the
prevalence of and type of activities provided by congregations and their youth programs, even if
it does represent one regional location. Our evidence supports the claim that congregations and
their youth ministry programs do differ in significant ways across denominational categories.
The findings suggest that all congregations are relatively unlikely to have no youth in attendance,
though this is the case more often for Non-Christian congregations. Mainline Protestant
churches are also likely to have very few youth in attendance. All congregations are likely to
provide at least some sort of youth activity, but they are slightly less likely to have an organized
-19-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
youth group. There are, however, significant differences across denominations in terms of the
size of the youth group, frequency of meeting, type of activity provided, extent of youth
incorporation into the body of the congregation, participation in youth group collaboration, and
number and genders of youth leaders. Black Protestant churches are particularly likely to provide
youth Bible study, have youth involved in committees and boards, provide activities for youth in
the community who are not members of the congregations, and have a youth choir, while they
are the least likely to have a paid youth minister.
Furthermore, we find that broadening the methodology beyond phonebook listings and
establishing contact with the hard-to-reach congregations that are normally underrepresented in
congregational studies shows that in many respects denominational differences are in fact
stronger than has previously been shown. This study shows that it is indeed possible to collect
data with a high response rate when additional contact methods are employed for the harder-to-
reach congregations. The extremely high response rate for a total population obtained here
provides a unique dataset in which all the differences are statistically significant. This provides
the most comprehensive view on youth ministry in an area ever collected and reveals the
importance of high response rates in providing a complete and accurate account of religious
congregations. The results of this study suggest that systematic non-response biases should be
assumed to affect any study examining religious congregations. The initial non-responding
congregations do indeed differ from original cooperators on the key characteristics of size, race,
and financial resources. Important aspects of the overall story here would have been missed
without their inclusion through our persistent attempts to contact these initially non-responding
congregations.
-20-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
It is important, however, to keep in mind that these results, based on a geographically
located study of three contiguous cities in northern Indiana, are not nationally representative. The
differences in numbers found here are likely due in part to a regional difference of the
congregations located in this particular area of study (e.g. higher number of Catholic
congregations) and would not necessarily be replicated if the study were to be conducted in
another location. Nevertheless, there are indications that the results also vary from those of other
roughly similar studies for reasons other than regional differences, due to the highly
representative sampling methodology and response rate. This demonstrates that although there
are limitations in comparisons of geographical specificity, these limitations are offset by the
increased confidence in the accuracy of the non-inferential data in our study. Further research is
needed to conduct similar high response rate community studies in other regions of the country
and large-scale, nationally representative studies with higher response rates in order to determine
how our findings relate to other areas of the country. A comprehensive understanding of youth
ministry would then be more firmly based on a compilation of such findings from a variety of
geographic areas than it is currently on the semi-comparable, low response rate, small sample
size, and sometimes anecdotal studies currently available.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded primarily from a grant from the Lilly Endowment Inc. and
supplemented with a “Constant H. Jacquet Research Award” from the Religious Research
Association, for which the authors are grateful.
-21-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
Table 1. Population Identification & Response Rate (percentage)
#
Percen
t
Cum
Percent Population Estimation
272 85.3 85.3 Existing congregations in the area
15 4.7 90.0 Duplicate entries (slightly different listings within compiled directories)
3 0.9 90.9 Congregations outside the area (had offices or retreat center within boundaries)
2 0.6 91.5 Congregation mergers with existing congregations
5 1.6 93.1 Wards or divisions of existing congregations
10 3.1 96.2 Broken phone, not on denomination website, non accurate address
12 3.8 100.0 Broken phone, good address, abandoned building or neighbors reported closed
319
#
Percen
t
Cum
Percent Response Rate
160 58.8 58.8 Initial phone completions
38 14.0 72.8 Additional waves of phone completions
32 11.8 84.6 Onsite completions
39 14.3 98.9 Phone completions after visiting
3 1.1 100.0 Refused
272
Source: Northern Indiana Congregation Study (NICS) 2007.
-22-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
Table 2. Youth Minister Demographics
(percentage, unless noted * as a range)
Congregation Denominational Types
Catholic 20
Conservative Protestant 25
Black Protestant 23
Mainline Protestant 25
Non-Christian 7.5
Majority Race/Ethnicity of Congregations
White 73
Black 23
Hispanic 5
Multiracial Composition of Congregations
Single-racial / Multiracial Composition 77 / 23
Majority Race/Ethnicity of 2nd Racial or Ethnic
Group (if applicable)
White 8
Black 18
Hispanic 20
Other 23
Congregational Size * 34-7,200
Congregational Budget Per Person * $145-$2,677,
DK, Refused
Congregation Phone Survey Response
Initial Response / Non-Response 90 / 10
Youth Attendance at Congregation * 5-1,200
Youth Group Size * 1-800
Activities Provided for Youth in Congregation
Bible Study Yes/No 79 / 21
Retreats Yes/No 95 / 5
Service Yes/No 95 / 5
Missions Yes/No 53 / 47
Recreational Yes/No 100 / 0
Youth Choir Yes/No 68 / 32
Boards or Committees Yes/No 34 / 66
Activities for Nonmember Youth Yes/No 63 / 37
Collaboration with Other Congregations Yes/No 58 / 42
Youth Minister Educational Level
High School/GED 7
Bachelors 54
Masters 34
Doctorate 5
Youth Minister Gender
Male 64
Female 36
Youth Minister Age * 25-64 yr
Youth Minister Years in the Area * 3-58 yr
Years as a Youth Minister * 3mo-18 yr
Youth Minister Salary * $0-$55K
Youth Minister Status *
Volunteer 42
Part-Time 21
Full-Time 37
Source: Northern Indiana Congregation Study (NICS) 2007.
-23-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
Table 3. Congregational Characteristics (percents unless otherwise noted)
Catholic Conservative Black Mainline Non- TOTAL
Congregation Protestant Protestant Protestant Christian
% of Congregations 11.2 39.4 24.5 20.8 4.1 100.0
% of Congregation Members 45.3 20.3 11.2 21.3 1.8 100.0
Congregation Size
Very Small (0-75) 10.0 45.3 45.5 37.5 36.4 39.4
Small (76-150) 13.3 28.3 37.9 39.3 36.4 31.6
Medium (151-470) 23.3 20.8 10.6 12.5 27.3 17.1
Large (471-1199) 13.3 5.7 6.1 7.1 0.0 6.7
Very Large (1200+) 40.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 5.2
Congregation Budget Per Person
$0- 1,000 43.3 24.5 25.2 16.1 36.4 25.6
$1,001-2,000 13.3 33.2 12.1 44.6 0.0 27.1
$2,001-3,000+ 6.7 5.7 4.6 10.7 0.0 6.3
Don’t Know / Refused 36.7 35.9 57.6 28.6 63.6 40.9
Majority Race/Ethnicity
White 93.3 88.4 0.0 100.0 72.7 68.8
Black 3.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 9.1 25.6
Hispanic 3.3 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8
Asian 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8
Other 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 1.1
Multiracial Congregation 20.0 20.2 19.7 10.7 27.3 18.4
2nd Racial Group (N reported)
White 2 2 8 0 0 12
Black 1 12 0 3 1 17
Hispanic 2 2 0 0 1 5
Asian 0 0 1 0 0 1
Other 1 2 0 1 1 5
Mixture 0 3 4 2 0 9
Protestant Identity: Self-Reported
Fundamentalist 0.0 11.0 8.5 1.8 0.0 8.3
Evangelical 0.0 69.0 52.5 7.1 0.0 48.2
Mainline 0.0 5.0 5.1 76.8 0.0 23.6
Liberal 0.0 2.0 8.5 14.3 0.0 6.9
Pentecostal 0.0 13.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 13.0
Catholic Identity: Self-Reported
Traditional 44.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.8
Moderate 37.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.9
Liberal Catholic 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5
Other 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8
Initial Non-response
Phone 93.3 72.6 51.5 85.7 100.0 73.6
Onsite/phone after onsite visit 6.7 27.4 48.5 14.3 0.0 26.4
N 30 106 66 56 11 269
Source: Northern Indiana Congregation Study (NICS) 2007.
Table 4. Religious Youth Programming Characteristics (percents)
-24-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
Youth Catholic Conservative Black Mainline Non- TOTAL
(*If applicable.) Protestant Protestant Protestant Christian
Youth Attendance 37.1 21.4 16.8 21.7 3.0 100.0
No Youth 3.6 6.7 7.6 8.9 18.2 7.5
1-10 17.8 40.0 25.8 60.7 18.2 37.6
11-25 17.8 31.4 40.9 21.4 45.5 30.9
26-100+ 70.8 22.0 25.7 9.0 18.2 24.1
Provide Any Youth Activity 90.0 83.0 86.4 75.0 81.8 82.9
Organized Youth Group / Attendance* 56.7 68.9 69.7 60.7 54.6 65.4
1-10 41.2 41.1 28.3 50.0 33.3 39.2
11-25 29.4 32.9 39.1 38.2 33.3 35.2
26-100+ 29.4 26.0 32.6 11.8 33.3 25.6
Youth Group Meeting Frequency*
Few Times a Year or Less 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 16.7 1.8
Monthly 11.8 12.5 8.9 9.7 16.7 11.1
Weekly 76.5 55.6 57.8 71.0 66.7 61.4
More than Once a Week 11.8 31.9 33.3 12.9 0.0 25.7
Youth Group Gender Composition*
Mix of boys and girls 70.6 76.7 77.8 63.6 80.0 74.0
Lot more girls 29.4 16.4 20.0 18.2 20.0 19.1
Lot more boys 0.0 6.9 2.2 18.2 0.0 6.9
Type of Activity Provided*
Bible Study 33.3 68.6 71.2 50.0 63.6 61.2
Retreats 56.7 74.3 65.2 69.1 54.6 68.2
Social Service Projects 60.0 59.6 50.0 57.1 63.6 56.9
Mission Trips 26.7 43.4 20.0 35.7 36.4 34.0
Social or Recreational 63.3 77.4 75.8 66.1 63.6 72.5
Youth committees or boards 20.7 19.8 36.9 25.0 18.2 25.1
Other (not asked about) 33.3 26.4 25.8 30.4 54.6 29.0
Activities for Youth in community 30.0 41.5 60.3 33.9 10.0 41.9
Collaboration / Freq* 41.4 47.2 47.0 42.9 18.2 44.4
Few Times a Year or Less 66.7 89.6 74.2 64.0 50.0 77.1
Monthly 8.3 8.3 22.6 12.0 50.0 13.6
Weekly 25.0 2.1 3.2 24.0 0.0 9.3
Youth Choir / Freq* 20.0 10.4 56.1 1.8 10.0 20.9
Few Times a Year or Less 0.0 18.2 11.1 100.0 0.0 13.0
Monthly 33.3 18.2 8.3 0.0 0.0 13.0
Weekly 66.7 63.6 80.6 0.0 0.0 74.1
Designated Adult Youth Leader 60.0 67.0 71.2 55.4 27.3 63.2
Pastor Leads 6.7 3.8 1.5 0.0 27.3 3.7
Volunteer Youth Leader / #* 56.7 64.8 68.2 44.6 50.0 59.9
One 0.0 9.5 7.6 8.9 11.1 7.9
Two 10.0 10.5 7.6 10.7 0.0 9.4
Three or More 46.7 45.7 53.0 25.0 33.3 42.9
Paid Youth Leader / #* 40.0 31.1 16.7 25.0 9.1 26.4
One 36.7 27.4 13.6 21.4 0.0 22.7
Two 3.3 1.9 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.9
Three or More 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.6 0.0 1.1
Estimated Youth Leader Gender*
Male 62.5 68.8 47.2 42.9 33.3 57.1
Female 37.5 28.1 52.8 50.0 66.7 40.1
Couple 0.0 3.1 0.0 7.1 0.0 2.7
N 30 106 66 56 11 269
Source: Northern Indiana Congregation Study (NICS) 2007.
-25-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
Table 5. Comparison of Results from the Current Study
with two National Congregation Studies (percents
unless otherwise noted)
Congregations NIYR NCS Hartford
Response Rates 99 80 50
Congregation Size (median) 100 75
Fewer than 100 74 59 50
Denominational Types
Catholic/Orthodox 11 7 7
Conservative Protestant 39 45 27
Black Protestant 25 16 13
Mainline Protestant 21 28 27
Non-Christian 2 6 14
No denomination affiliation 20 19
Protestant Identity
Conservative 58 59
Middle 37 29
Liberal 5 11
Multiracial Congregation 18 13
Congregation Majority Race/Ethnicity
White 69 66 78
Black 26 16 16
Hispanic 4 2 2
Asian 1 1
Other 1 2
Median Budget (in thousands $) 100 56
Source: Northern Indiana Congregation Study (NICS) 2007.
* (A: NIYR 2007; B: Chaves 2004; C: Dudley and Roozen 2001)
-26-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
Table 6. Comparison of Results with six Youth Ministry
Studies (percents)
Congregation Youth A B C D E F
Response Rate by Denomination 99 48 ** 50 52 27
Catholic 100 35
Conservative Protestant 98 49 45
Black Protestant 99
Mainline Protestant 100 56 54
Non-Christian 100 0
Provide Any Youth Activity 83 90
Organized Youth Group 65
Catholic 57
Conservative Protestant 69
Black Protestant 70
Mainline Protestant 61 66
Non-Christian 55
Percent of cong. youth in youth group 63 36
Protestant 69 47
Catholic 21 18
Non-Christian 61 18
Bible Study 61
Catholic 3 86
Conservative Protestant 7
Black Protestant 71 82
Mainline Protestant 50 71
Non-Christian 64
Collaboration with Other Youth Groups 44 66 50
Catholic 40 31
Conservative Protestant 47 9
Black Protestant 47
Mainline Protestant 43 25
Non-Christian 18
Volunteer Youth Leader(s) 60 80
Paid Youth Leader(s) 26 100
Catholic 40 28
Conservative Protestant 31 15
Black Protestant 17
Mainline Protestant 25 13
Non-Christian 9
Source: Northern Indiana Congregation Study (NICS) 2007.
* (A: NIYR 2007; B: Goreham 2004; C: Gallup 1999; D: Dudley and Roozen 2001;
E: Strommen, Jones, and Rahn 2001; F: Roehlkepartain and Scales 1995): Gallup
1999 study has an unreported response rate.
-27-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
1 Throughout the course of this paper, youth and teens will be used interchangeable to denote 12-19 year olds.
2 Respondents for the telephone survey were informants of the congregation, including pastors, associate pastors,
deacons, pastor wives, youth ministers, and congregation secretaries. Specificity of responses provided by differing
respondents were verified using repeat questions, such as youth attendance and youth group size, asked of the youth
ministers during the in-person interviews. The data provided by the youth ministers was not found to significantly
differ from that provided by the other congregation informants, enhancing our confidence in the accuracy of the
survey data.
3 Though we found that different congregations and denominations employ a variety of titles for the person
designated to lead the youth program, we also found that among them “youth minister” seemed to be a term that all
congregations were aware of, and therefore we will use it throughout this paper to refer to this position.
4 Three congregations refused to participate in the research. All three of these congregations are small, Conservative
Protestant denominations not listed on denominational websites. One of the congregations is Hispanic, and one is
Black Protestant. Two refused over the phone, and one refused over the phone after a visit to the congregation. The
later had a phone number that consistently rang with no answer and no answering machine throughout the first
several attempts to contact. No one was on the premise of the congregation when we visited, and it was not clear
whether the congregation was in fact still functioning. On one occasion of attempting to contact this congregation a
man answered the phone and reported that the pastor is only in once a month but would not answer any of our
questions. We were never able to reach anyone at the congregation after this attempt. Another of the congregations
had a phone number that is also listed online as a local business phone number, and the phone was answered with
this business name. However, when we asked if it was the phone number to the congregation, they replied
affirmatively. We were unable to find an address for this congregation.
5 Available from the authors upon request.
6 This was measured by responses to the question: “Does your congregation also include members of another racial
or ethnic group which makes up about 15 percent or more of the total?”
7 Protestant churches were asked: “When it comes to the church’s general theological identity as a whole, would you
consider your church to be: Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Mainline, or Theologically Liberal Protestant?” and
Catholic parishes were asked: “On a spectrum of types of Catholic parishes, would you say that your parish is:
Traditional Catholic, Moderate Catholic, or Liberal Catholic?”
-28-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
REFERENCES
Ammerman, Nancy T. 2001. “Doing Good in American Communities: Congregations and
Service Organizations Working Together.”
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/about/about_orw_cong-report.html.
Banks, Robert J., and Bernice M. Ledbetter. 2004. Reviewing Leadership: A Christian
Evaluation of Current Approaches. Baker Academic.
Barna, George. 2001. Growing True Disciples: New Strategies for Producing Genuine Followers
of Christ. Waterbrook Press.
Benson, Peter 2004. “Emerging themes in research on adolescent spiritual and religious
development.” Applied Developmental Science, 8:47-50.
Borgman, Dean 1997. When Kumbaya is Not Enough: A Practical Theology for Youth Ministry.
Hendrickson Publishers.
Borthwick, Paul 1990. Feeding Your Forgotten Soul: Spiritual Growth for Youth Workers.
Zondervan.
Burns, Ridge, and Pam Campbell. 1986. Create in Me a Youth Ministry. Victor Books.
Campolo, Anthony 1989. Growing Up in America: A Sociology of Youth Ministry. Zondervan
Publishing Company.
Caputo, Richard K. 2005. “Religiousness and Adolescent Behaviors: A Comparison of Boys and
Girls.” Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work 24:39-67.
Chaves, Mark 2004. Congregations in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chromey, Rick 1990. Youth Ministry in Small Churches. Loveland, CO: Group Books.
Cnaan, Ram A. with Boddie, Stephanie C., McGrew, Charlene C., and Jennifer Kang. 2006. The
Other Philadelphia Story: How Local Congregations Support Quality of Life in Urban
America. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dean, Kenda C. and Paul R. Yost. (1991). “A Synthesis of the Research on, and a Descriptive
Overview of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish Religious Youth Programs in the United
States.” Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Washington, DC.
Dudley, Carl S. and David A. Roozen. 2001. “Faith Communities Today: A Report on Religion in
the United States Today.” http://fact.hartsem.edu/Final percent20FACTrpt.pdf. Accessed
January 5, 2008. Hartford Institute for Religion Research, Hartford Seminary.
Erickson, Joseph A. 1992. “Adolescent Religious Development and Commitment: A Structural
Equation Model of the Role of Family, Peer Group, and Educational Influences.” Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion 31:131-152.
Fields, Doug 1998. Purpose-Driven (r) Youth Ministry: 9 Essential Foundations for Healthy
Growth. Zondervan.
Furrow, James L., King, Pamela E., and Krystal White. 2004. “Religions and positive youth
development: Identity, meaning, and prosocial concerns.” Applied Developmental
Science, 8, 17-26.
-29-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
Gallup, George H. 1999. The Spritual Life of Young Americans: Approaching the Year 2000.
Princeton, NJ: The George H. Gallup International Institute.
Goreham, Gary A. 2004. “Denominational Comparison of Rural Youth Ministry Programs.”
Review of Religious Research, 45:336-348.
Gunnoe, Marjorie Lindner, and Kristin A. Moore. 2002. “Predictors of Religiosity Among Youth
Aged 17–22: A Longitudinal Study of the National Survey of Children.” Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 41:613-622.
Hansen, David M., Larson, Reed W., and Jodi B. Dworkin. 2003. “What adolescents learn in
organized youth activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences.”
Journal of Research on Adolescence 13:25-56.
Hoge, Dean R., Heffernan, Esther, Hemrick, Eugene F., Nelsen, Hart M., O’Connor, James P.,
Philibert, Paul J., and Andrew D. Thompson. 1982. “Desired Outcomes of Religious
Education and Youth Ministry in Six Denominations.” Review of Religious Research,
23:230-254.
Hryniuk, Michael 2005. “Creating Space for God: Toward a Spirituality of Youth Ministry.”
Religious Education 100:139-156.
Jones, Tony 2003. Soul Shaper: Exploring Spirituality and Contemplative Practices in Youth
Ministry. Zondervan.
King, Pamela E., and Farrow, James L. 2004. “Religion as a resource for positive youth
development: Religion, social capital, and moral outcomes.” Developmental Psychology
40:703-713.
Lambert, D. 2004. “Determining Research Needs in North American Christian Youth Ministry: A
Delphi Study.” The Journal of Youth Ministry 3:65-96.
Lambert, Dan 1999. Determining the Research Needs in North American Christian Youth
Ministry: A Delphi Study. Dissertation. University of Cincinnati.
Larson, Reed W., Hansen, David M., and Giovanni Moneta. 2006. “Differing Profiles of
Developmental Experiences Across Types of Organized Youth Activities.”
Developmental Psychology, 42:849-863.
McKinney, John P. (ed.). 1999. Adolescents and religion: A view from the millennium [Special
issue]. Journal of Adolescence 22.
O'Connor, Thomas P., Dean R. Hoge, and Estrelda Alexander. 2002. “The Relative Influence of
Youth and Adult Experiences on Personal Spirituality and Church Involvement.” Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:723-732.
Powell, Kara King, Pamela E., and Chapman Clark. 2005. “The Needs of Youth Ministry at the
Turn of the Century: Hearing the Voice of the People.” The Journal of Youth Ministry
4:85-98.
Regnerus, Mark D., Smith, Christian and Brad Smith. 2004. “Social Context in the Development
of Adolescent Religiosity.” Applied Developmental Science 8:27-38.
Roebben, Bert 1999. “Youth Ministry in and beyond the Church? The sacrament of confirmation
in the Roman Catholic Church as a testcase.” Journal of Beliefs & Values 20:51-59.
-30-
Denominational Differences in Congregational Youth Ministry Programming
Root, Andrew. 2007. “Youth Ministry as an Integrative Theological Task: Toward a
Representative Method of Interdisciplinarity in Scholarship, Pastoral Proactice, and
Pedagogy.” Journal of Youth Ministry 5:33-50.
Roehlkepartain, Eugene C. and Scales, Peter C. 1995. Youth Development in Congregations: An
Exploration of the Potential and Barriers. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.
Shelton, Charles M. 1983. Adolescent Spirituality: Pastoral Ministry for High School and
College Youth. Loyola University Press.
Smith, Christian 2003. “Religious Participation and Parental Moral Expectations and Supervision
of American Youth.” Review of Religious Research 44: 414-424.
Smith, Christian and Melinda Denton. 2005. Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives
of American Teenagers. NY: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Christian 2003. “Religious participation and network closure among American
adolescents.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42:259-267.
Smith, Christian and David Sikkink. 2003. “Social Predictors of Retention in and Switching from
the Religious Faith of Family of Origin: Another Look Using Religious Tradition Self-
Identification.” Review of Religious Research 45: 188-206.
Smith, Christian, Melinda L. Denton, Robert Faris, and Mark Regnerus. 2002. “Mapping
American Adolescent Religious Participation.” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 41:597-612.
Smoll, Frank L., and Ronald E. Smith. 1987. Sport Psychology for Youth Coaches: Personal
Growth to Athletic Excellence. National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry.
Steensland, Brian, Park, J.Z., Regners, Mark D., Robinson, L.D., Wilcox, W. Brad, and Robert
D. Woodberry. 2000. “The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State
of the Art.” Social Forces 79:291-318.
Strommen, Merton P., Jones, Karen, and Dave Rahn. 2001. Youth Ministry That Transforms: A
Comprehensive Analysis of the Hopes, Frustrations, and Effectiveness of Today’s Youth
Workers. Zondervan/Youth Specialties.
-31-
