AYP Survey Insights
AY Participation Analysis
This analysis focuses on Adventist Young Professionals' participation in the AY Program. By examining who has taken part in the program versus who has not, and comparing their ages, membership durations, occupations, marital statuses, and leadership roles, we can gain insights into how the program meets the spiritual needs of young professionals and where improvements might be needed.
Overall AY Participation
This bar chart compares the total number of respondents who have participated in the AY Program with those who have not. In simple terms, it shows us how many people are engaging with the program versus those who are not, which helps to gauge its overall reach.
Deeper Analysis: Understanding This Chart
The Good
- High Participation Rate: Approximately 85% of respondents are participating in the AY Program, showing strong overall reach.
- Solid Foundation: This high engagement provides a strong base for future program improvements and innovations.
- Community Interest: The data suggests young professionals remain interested in church community activities.
The Neutral (Brutally Honest)
- Binary View Limitation: This chart presents participation as binary (yes/no) without showing frequency or quality of engagement.
- Demographic Blindspots: The overview hides participation patterns across different professional fields or regions.
- Self-Reporting Bias: Participants may indicate involvement due to social expectations rather than genuine engagement.
The Bad
- Missing Why Factor: The chart doesn't reveal why approximately 15% are not participating or what would encourage their involvement.
- Superficial Success Metric: High participation numbers may mask low-quality engagement, with many reporting attendance despite finding programs boring or irrelevant.
- Professional Integration Gap: The data doesn't show how participation correlates with addressing career-specific challenges that young professionals face.
What This Really Means
While quantitative participation appears strong, qualitative concerns from the survey data suggest:
- Age-Relevance Gap: Many respondents feel AY programs are designed for teenagers rather than working professionals.
- Format Obsolescence: Traditional formats (Bible drills, routine programs) may not address the intellectual and spiritual needs of educated professionals.
- Faith-Work Integration Challenges: Young professionals struggle to integrate faith with workplace challenges (Sabbath-keeping, work-life balance, professional ethics).
- Inclusivity Issues: Some respondents feel judged or excluded within church communities.
- Leadership Burnout: Young professionals often receive leadership responsibilities without adequate support, leading to eventual disengagement.
The high participation numbers may mask deeper issues of superficial engagement and growing disillusionment, indicating a need for program updates specifically targeting working professionals.
AY Participation by Age
This chart displays participation broken down by age. It helps us see if younger or older professionals are more likely to join the AY Program. This information is useful for tailoring program content to the most engaged age groups.
Deeper Analysis: Age Distribution Insights
The Good
- Strong Participation Across Core Age Groups: Young professionals between 24-30 show the highest participation rates, with particularly strong engagement in the 27-28 age bracket.
- Sustained Engagement: Even into the 30s, there remains significant participation, indicating the program retains relevance for established professionals.
- Broad Age Spectrum: The data spans from age 14 to 50, showing multi-generational reach of the AY program.
The Neutral (Brutally Honest)
- Age Group Transition Points: There appears to be a transition around age 32-34 where non-participation begins to increase relative to participation rates.
- Sampling Limitations: Some age groups have very small sample sizes, particularly at the extreme ends, making conclusions less reliable for those cohorts.
- Generation Representation: The data doesn't distinguish between generational factors that might influence participation beyond mere age numbers (Gen Z vs Millennials attitudes).
The Bad
- Declining Participation with Age: There's a clear downward trend in participation as age increases, especially after 35, suggesting the program becomes less relevant or appealing to older professionals.
- Life Stage Disconnect: The sharp drop in participation among those in their mid-30s and 40s suggests the program isn't adapting to changing life priorities (family responsibilities, career advancement).
- Non-Participation Clusters: Notable spikes in non-participation occur around ages 33-34, revealing potential critical transition points where the church is losing engagement.
What This Really Means
The age distribution reveals important patterns about the AY program's effectiveness:
- Life Stage Relevance Gap: The program appears to work well for young professionals in their 20s but becomes increasingly disconnected from the needs of those in their 30s and 40s.
- Program Design Shortcomings: The sharp peaks in participation at certain ages (27-28) suggest the program may be inadvertently designed around specific life stages without accommodating transitions.
- Growing Alienation: The data shows a progressive alienation process rather than sudden disengagement - people gradually participate less as they age, indicating cumulative dissatisfaction.
- Life Responsibilities Impact: The decline in participation coincides with ages where family responsibilities and career demands typically intensify, suggesting insufficient support for these life changes.
- Generational Program Needs: Different generations within the "young professional" category have distinct needs - what works for a 24-year-old may not serve a 38-year-old, yet the program appears to use a one-size-fits-all approach.
This analysis suggests the need for age-specific AY program tracks that address the evolving spiritual and professional needs across different life stages, particularly focused on retention strategies for those in their mid-30s and beyond.
AY Participation by Membership Years
This chart shows the relationship between the number of years a respondent has been a church member and their participation in the AY Program. It indicates whether long-time members are more or less likely to engage with the program, which can help identify potential areas for improvement.
Deeper Analysis: Membership Duration Insights
The Good
- Sustained Engagement Patterns: The data shows strong participation across various membership durations, with notable peaks at 2, 5, 11, 14, and 27 years, indicating the program maintains appeal across different membership cohorts.
- New Member Participation: Recent members (0-3 years) show solid participation, suggesting the AY program serves as an effective integration point for newer church members.
- Long-term Member Loyalty: The significant participation spike around 14-15 years of membership demonstrates that many long-term members maintain their engagement, providing stability and continuity to the program.
The Neutral (Brutally Honest)
- Inconsistent Patterns: Unlike age which shows clear trends, the relationship between membership duration and participation is more erratic, suggesting other factors may have stronger influence on participation decisions.
- Data Fragmentation: The scattered distribution across many different membership durations (from 0 to 40 years) creates smaller sample sizes for each cohort, potentially limiting statistical reliability.
- Context Limitations: The chart doesn't reveal whether respondents have participated continuously throughout their membership or have experienced periods of disengagement.
The Bad
- Mid-term Membership Dropoffs: Certain membership durations (around 18-21 years) show notably increased non-participation rates, suggesting a potential crisis point where long-term members may disengage.
- Concerning Non-Participation Clusters: The data reveals specific membership duration clusters (19, 30, and 34 years) where non-participation is proportionally higher, indicating potential generational or cohort-specific issues.
- Engagement Sustainability Questions: The irregular participation pattern raises concerns about the program's ability to consistently engage members throughout their membership lifecycle.
What This Really Means
Looking beyond the surface patterns, this membership duration data reveals important insights:
- Institutional Memory Impact: The irregular participation patterns suggest that specific cohorts may have experienced particularly positive or negative AY programs that influenced their long-term engagement attitudes.
- Life Stage Transition Effect: The participation dips at certain membership durations likely coincide with major life transitions (career advancement, family formation, relocation) that challenge continued engagement.
- Generational Influence: The data potentially reflects how different generations experienced AY programs - those who joined during periods of strong, relevant programming show sustained participation while others show disengagement.
- Renewal Cycle Hypothesis: The peaks in participation at specific intervals (2, 5, 14 years) could indicate periodic program renewals or refreshes that successfully re-engaged members.
- Loyalty vs. Relevance Tension: Long-term members may participate out of institutional loyalty despite program relevance issues, while newer members might engage based on current program quality - creating different participation motivations.
This analysis suggests the need for targeted re-engagement strategies for specific membership duration cohorts, particularly those in the 18-21 year range, alongside efforts to understand why certain membership cohorts maintain stronger participation despite similar durations in the church.
AY Participation by Marital Status
This chart illustrates how marital status affects participation in the AY Program. It shows whether single, married, or other groups are more represented among participants, offering insights that could influence future outreach efforts.
Deeper Analysis: Marital Status Insights
The Good
- Strong Single Member Participation: Single young professionals show remarkably high participation rates (approximately 190 participants), suggesting the AY program successfully engages unmarried individuals.
- Substantial Married Member Engagement: Despite potential family responsibilities, married individuals still demonstrate significant participation (approximately 95 participants), indicating the program holds value for those with family commitments.
- Consistent Participation Ratio: Both married and single groups maintain similar participation-to-non-participation ratios, suggesting the program's appeal transcends marital status.
The Neutral (Brutally Honest)
- Binary Classification Limitation: The data only shows "single" and "married" categories, potentially overlooking other relationship statuses like "divorced," "widowed," or "in a relationship but not married."
- Demographic Imbalance: The survey sample includes nearly twice as many single respondents as married ones, which may reflect either sampling bias or actual church demographics for young professionals.
- Missing Intersectional Context: The chart doesn't reveal how marital status intersects with other factors like age, occupation, or leadership roles, which could provide more nuanced insights.
The Bad
- Non-Participation Among Married Members: Married individuals show a higher proportional rate of non-participation compared to singles, suggesting potential challenges in program relevance for those with family commitments.
- Possible Marriage-Related Disengagement: The data may indicate that transitioning from single to married status correlates with reduced AY program engagement, raising concerns about program adaptation to life stage changes.
- Program Content Alignment Issues: The non-participation levels suggest that a significant number of both singles and married individuals find the program content insufficiently compelling, despite differing life circumstances.
What This Really Means
The marital status participation data reveals important dynamics about how life stage transitions affect AY program engagement:
- Single-Focused Programming: The substantially higher participation among singles suggests the program may be inadvertently designed with single young professionals in mind, potentially creating content more relevant to their life experiences.
- Family Responsibility Impact: The slightly higher non-participation rate among married individuals likely reflects competing priorities and time constraints related to family responsibilities, rather than disinterest in spiritual development.
- Social Connection Factor: Single members may value the social aspects of AY programs more highly as a way to build community, while married members might have established alternative social networks through their spouses.
- Content Relevance Gap: The data suggests a need for differentiated program content addressing the distinct spiritual and practical challenges faced by young professionals in different relationship statuses.
- Life Stage Transition Challenge: The church appears to struggle with maintaining consistent engagement as members transition through major life events like marriage, indicating a need for more intentional transition support.
This analysis suggests the need for AY programs that consciously address both single and married young professionals' needs, potentially through parallel tracks or alternating focus areas. Special attention should be given to supporting members through life transitions to prevent disengagement during these pivotal moments.
AY Participation by Leadership Role
This chart shows how leadership roles correlate with AY Program participation. In other words, it helps us understand if individuals in leadership positions within the church are more (or less) likely to take part in the program. This information could be key in shaping strategies for increasing engagement among church leaders.
Deeper Analysis: Leadership Role Insights
The Good
- High Engagement Among Leaders: Individuals in leadership roles show strong participation rates, indicating that those in positions of influence are actively engaged in the AY program.
- Role Model Effect: The high participation among leaders may inspire others to join, leveraging their influence to promote program involvement.
- Commitment to Community: Leaders' participation reflects a commitment to community building and spiritual growth, setting a positive example for other members.
The Neutral (Brutally Honest)
- Leadership Bias: The data may reflect a bias towards leaders who are naturally more inclined to participate, potentially skewing the perception of overall engagement.
- Responsibility Overload: Leaders may participate out of obligation rather than genuine interest, which could lead to burnout if not managed properly.
- Limited Scope: The chart doesn't capture the quality of engagement or the specific roles leaders play within the program, which could provide more nuanced insights.
The Bad
- Non-Participation Among Non-Leaders: A significant portion of non-leaders do not participate, suggesting potential barriers to engagement for those not in leadership roles.
- Potential Disconnect: The gap between leader and non-leader participation may indicate a disconnect in how the program is perceived or valued by different groups.
- Sustainability Concerns: Relying heavily on leaders for participation may not be sustainable long-term, as it could lead to over-reliance on a small group of individuals.
What This Really Means
The leadership role participation data highlights key dynamics in program engagement:
- Leadership-Driven Engagement: The strong participation among leaders suggests that the program may be heavily reliant on leadership-driven initiatives, which could limit broader member involvement.
- Engagement Barriers for Non-Leaders: The lower participation rates among non-leaders highlight potential barriers such as lack of ownership, perceived irrelevance, or insufficient outreach efforts.
- Need for Inclusive Strategies: To enhance overall engagement, the program may need to develop strategies that empower non-leaders and create more inclusive participation opportunities.
- Sustainability of Leadership Roles: Ensuring that leadership roles are sustainable and supported is crucial to prevent burnout and maintain long-term engagement.
- Program Perception Gap: Addressing the perception gap between leaders and non-leaders could foster a more unified and cohesive community experience.
This analysis suggests the need for AY programs to balance leadership-driven initiatives with broader member engagement strategies, ensuring that all members feel valued and included in the program's mission and activities.
AY Participation by Occupation Distribution
The tables below show the different occupations of respondents. The left table lists the occupations of those who participated in the AY Program, while the right table shows the occupations of those who did not participate. This breakdown helps us understand which professional groups are engaging with the program and which groups might require more targeted outreach.
Participants
| Occupation | Count |
|---|---|
| Teacher | 56 |
| Nurse | 9 |
| Student | 6 |
| Government Employee | 6 |
| Housewife | 5 |
| Accountant | 4 |
| Engineer | 4 |
| Unemployed | 3 |
| Pastor | 3 |
| Carpenter | 3 |
| Teaching | 3 |
| Librarian | 2 |
| Medtech | 2 |
| Professional Teacher | 2 |
| teacher | 2 |
| Clerk | 2 |
| Private Employee | 2 |
| Office staff | 2 |
| N/A | 2 |
| Accounting Staff | 2 |
| Doctor | 2 |
| Civil Engineer | 2 |
| None | 2 |
| Office Clerk | 2 |
| Auditor | 2 |
| Legislative Researcher | 1 |
| Regulatory Affairs assistant | 1 |
| Environmental related | 1 |
| Administrative Officer | 1 |
| NA | 1 |
| Nurse/Caregiver | 1 |
| Education/Tourism Hospitality | 1 |
| Financial Wealth Planner | 1 |
| School Head/Teacher | 1 |
| Not yet employed | 1 |
| College Instructor | 1 |
| DepEd Teacher | 1 |
| Freelancer | 1 |
| Bookeeper | 1 |
| Factory worker | 1 |
| Certified Public Accountant | 1 |
| Public Teacher | 1 |
| Teacher/Registrar | 1 |
| Medical Technilogist | 1 |
| Job Order ( LGU) | 1 |
| Lawyer | 1 |
| TEACHER | 1 |
| Clinical Clerk | 1 |
| Tax Analyst | 1 |
| Business Man | 1 |
| Responder/ Computer (Basic) | 1 |
| Searching | 1 |
| PNP-NUP | 1 |
| Stay-at-home mom | 1 |
| C.I. collector | 1 |
| Still unemployed but currently taking MA Guidance and Counseling | 1 |
| Medical Technologist | 1 |
| Virtual Assistant | 1 |
| freelancer | 1 |
| College instructor | 1 |
| LGU Job Order | 1 |
| Passenger Service Agent | 1 |
| still a student | 1 |
| Mathematics Teacher | 1 |
| I want to work abroad | 1 |
| Missionary | 1 |
| N/A at the moment | 1 |
| 1000 Missionary | 1 |
| LE | 1 |
| Law Enforcement Unit | 1 |
| Clerk of Court II | 1 |
| Job order Government Employee | 1 |
| Radiologic Technologist/Certified Professional Medical Coder | 1 |
| Freelance photographer | 1 |
| Court Stenographer | 1 |
| Rad Tech | 1 |
| Govt employee | 1 |
| Nurse Educator | 1 |
| Just working student | 1 |
| Entrepreneur | 1 |
| Emergency Medical Technician | 1 |
| Etc. 🤣 | 1 |
| Teaching at Learning Center who specializes in Special Children | 1 |
| Gov't Employee | 1 |
| Online Service Provider | 1 |
| Deck Officer / Navigator | 1 |
| Geodetic Engineer | 1 |
| Warehouse Checker | 1 |
| Engineering | 1 |
| Regional Program Manager | 1 |
| Assistant nurse | 1 |
| SULAD Missionary | 1 |
| Technical Staff | 1 |
| INSTRUCTOR | 1 |
| Laboratory Assistant | 1 |
| Account Officer | 1 |
| Tambay | 1 |
| Local Government Unit | 1 |
| Fishermen | 1 |
| Human Resource | 1 |
| Small business | 1 |
| PESO Manager | 1 |
| Clinical Dietitian | 1 |
| Janitor | 1 |
| BPO | 1 |
| Medical Laboratory Scientist | 1 |
| Hemodialysis Nurse | 1 |
| Agricultural Extension Worker/Agriculturist | 1 |
| Online Live streamer | 1 |
| Nutritionist-Dietitian | 1 |
| Hope Channel Volunteer | 1 |
| Broadcaster/Reporter/Writer | 1 |
| Associate Chaplain Hospital | 1 |
| Public School Teacher | 1 |
| Dietitian | 1 |
| Entreprenuer | 1 |
| Gaurdian | 1 |
| Wed Developer | 1 |
| Office Secretary | 1 |
| MENRO staff | 1 |
| Literature Evangelist | 1 |
| Office Staff | 1 |
| Sulads Missionary | 1 |
| Radiologic technologist | 1 |
| Pharmacist | 1 |
| BIBLE TEACHER ASSISTANT | 1 |
| Medical Doctor | 1 |
| Liaison /encoder | 1 |
| Administrative Officer II | 1 |
| Psychologist | 1 |
| Financial analyst | 1 |
| Financial Analyst | 1 |
| Secretary | 1 |
| BSOA | 1 |
| Self-Employed | 1 |
| Website Dev | 1 |
| Teacher -Private School | 1 |
| Self employed | 1 |
| Forester | 1 |
| Disbursing Officer | 1 |
| Purchasing Associates | 1 |
| Laborer | 1 |
| Business | 1 |
| Volunteer | 1 |
| College Lecturer, Research Associate | 1 |
| Medical Technologist in Public Health | 1 |
| Fisheries Professional | 1 |
| Housekeeping | 1 |
| Registration Officer | 1 |
| Self-employed | 1 |
| IT | 1 |
| Software Developer | 1 |
| Teacher and Pastor | 1 |
| unemployed | 1 |
| Pump Attendant | 1 |
| HR | 1 |
| Non Teaching | 1 |
| Journalist/anchor/host | 1 |
| Field Extension Worker | 1 |
| Assistant Professor III | 1 |
| Radtech | 1 |
| PRIVATE EMPLOYEE | 1 |
| Residential Engineer/Site Engineer @DPWH RO XIII | 1 |
| TELLER | 1 |
| Nurse, Teacher | 1 |
| Full-time mom | 1 |
| Pastor/Bible Teacher | 1 |
| Sales and Distribution Mgr | 1 |
| Social Worker | 1 |
| Accounting | 1 |
| Media | 1 |
| HR Training and Development Consultant | 1 |
| Technician | 1 |
| Bookkeeping | 1 |
| Driver, farmer | 1 |
| Practicing Accountant. | 1 |
| Barangay Worker | 1 |
| Corporate | 1 |
| HR orhanizational Review | 1 |
| Air Traffic Controller | 1 |
| Housewife/Mom of 2 | 1 |
| Business Owner | 1 |
| Food Industry - Middle Manager | 1 |
Non-Participants
| Occupation | Count |
|---|---|
| Teacher | 5 |
| Nurse | 4 |
| Doctor | 2 |
| Healthcare Professional | 2 |
| CONSTRUCTION | 1 |
| Entrepreneur | 1 |
| Professor | 1 |
| Security Professional | 1 |
| ADMIN. AIDE | 1 |
| Admin | 1 |
| Healthcare | 1 |
| Salon Cashier | 1 |
| Engineer | 1 |
| Policy Service Officer | 1 |
| dentist assistant | 1 |
| Banker | 1 |
| Self employed | 1 |
| ESL Teacher | 1 |
| Saleslady | 1 |
| Building Engineer | 1 |
| Jail Officer | 1 |
| nurse | 1 |
| Electrical Engineer | 1 |
| Self Employed | 1 |
| Hotel and Restaurant Management | 1 |
| Driver | 1 |
| Medical Technologists | 1 |
| Elementary Teacher | 1 |
| Field: Education | 1 |
| Carpenter | 1 |
| unemployed | 1 |
| teacher | 1 |
| Teacher turned Housewife | 1 |
| Student | 1 |
| Agriculturist / Government Employee | 1 |
| Office Staff | 1 |
| Radtech | 1 |
| VA | 1 |
| Military | 1 |
Key Insights on AY Program Participation
Based on the survey responses, we've identified several key factors affecting participation in AY programs. Click on each insight to view the related responses.
Disconnection from AY Programs
Many respondents feel a significant disconnect from the AY programs, citing that the activities are geared towards younger individuals and do not cater to their current life stages. This lack of relevance leads to feelings of exclusion and boredom.
View related responses →Boredom and Monotony of Activities
A common theme among responses is the perception that AY programs are boring and repetitive. Participants expressed frustration with the lack of engaging and meaningful activities, leading them to prefer staying home or engaging in other forms of worship.
View related responses →Hectic Schedules and Fatigue
Many young professionals cite their busy work schedules and the resulting fatigue as major barriers to participation. The timing of AY programs often conflicts with their work commitments or need for rest.
View related responses →Lack of Social Connections
Several individuals noted a lack of friends or peers within the church community, which contributes to their decision not to attend. The absence of a supportive social circle makes participation in AY programs feel less appealing.
View related responses →Preference for Alternative Worship
Some respondents indicated a preference for alternative forms of worship, such as watching Christian movies or online sermons, over attending AY programs. This shift reflects a desire for more relatable and engaging spiritual experiences.
View related responses →Judgmental Atmosphere
Some respondents expressed feeling judged or criticized within the church community, particularly regarding their lifestyle choices or level of participation. This perceived judgmental atmosphere discourages them from attending AY programs.
View related responses →Burnout from Participation
Some individuals expressed having previously participated actively in AY programs but eventually experienced burnout. They felt overwhelmed by the expectations placed on them and the lack of support from others.
View related responses →Health Issues
A number of respondents cited health-related reasons for not participating in AY programs. These include both physical and mental health challenges that make regular attendance difficult.
View related responses →