The Story Vol 18

THE STORY
STATISTICS, TRENDS AND RESEARCH FOR YOUTH WORK
SPECIAL EDITION
NEW UNPUBLISHED
RESEARCH
YOUTH MINISTRY
IN A PANDEMIC:
THE STORY
OF 2020
youthscape.co.uk/research
VOL. 18
SUMMER
2021

WELCOME TO
THE STORY
To be notified about new issues or
subscribe for printed copies visit
www.youthscape.co.uk/research/
the-story
In each issue of The Story we bring you some
of the latest research related to young
people and youth work. We look for statistics,
research and trends which can shape your
work with young people – informing your
thinking and practice.
In this special issue we are taking over the
whole of Volume 18 to share the results of a
survey of 501 youth workers, completed at the
end of 2020 by the Centre for Research.
Last autumn, our local youth work team
surveyed a sample of Luton churches and found
that when COVID hit, they lost a significant
number of the young people who had been
regularly engaging – many of whom were still
absent. This raised questions for us about
whether the same pattern was true for the
wider Christian youth work community. So,
we adapted their survey and sent it out to our
networks. The findings tell a story about how
the pandemic affected youth ministry over
2020. They don’t tell the whole story – just the
story of these 501 youth workers. However, we
think they are important to share, and would
encourage you to pass this on to parents,
church leaders and anyone else who needs to
hear them. You’ll notice we’ve made the poster
free for this special issue, for that reason.
Special mention goes to Gry Apeland and
her statistical wizardry for analysing a lot of
complicated data!
Thanks for reading,
Lucie Shuker
Director of Research, Youthscape
IN THIS ISSUE:
THE 2020 YOUTH MINISTRY
COVID SURVEY
THE CHALLENGES OF YOUTH
WORK IN A PANDEMIC
CHANGE FOR THE BETTER?
YOUTH WORK OPPORTUNITIES
FROM COVID-19
YOUTH WORK DIAGRAMS
Inside a youth worker’s brain
(2020–2021)
HOW YOUTH MINISTRY IN
2020 WAS IMPACTED BY
THE PANDEMIC IN 7 CHARTS
Research News
In May we launched
a new report, in
partnership with Dr
Naomi Thompson of
Goldsmiths University,
exploring the place
of religion, faith and
spirituality on JNCrecognised
youth
work training courses
across England.
P.3
P.4–5
P.6–7
P.8
REVERSE
You can read the report at:
youthscape.co.uk/research/secular-culture
P.2

THE 2020 YOUTH
MINISTRY COVID
SURVEY
What did you ask?
In the first part of the survey we invited youth
workers to tell us about up to three different
activities they ran and asked how many
young people engaged with each activity pre
lockdown (Jan/Feb 2020), during lockdown 1
(April–June) and post-lockdown 1 (September/
October 2020). We were given information
about 822 different youth work activities.
Who completed the survey?
501 people answered the survey. One of
the limits of the survey is that we only have
demographic data for some of the respondents,
but it shows us that they were most likely to be
employed youth workers, Anglican and to be
based in the South.
• 64% were employed and 36% were
volunteers (n=300)
• 37% were Anglican, 22% Other, 17% Baptist,
10% Pentecostal/charismatic. 4% Catholic,
4% Presbyterian, 4% Methodist and 2% URC
(n=299)
• 38% lived in London and the South East,
14% South West, 9% East of England, 9%
West Midlands, 6% Yorkshire and Humber,
6% Northern Ireland, 6% North West, 4%
Scotland, 4% East Midlands, 2% Wales, 2%
North East
Anything else we need to know?
Not all 501 people answered each question,
so we tell you how many survey respondents
there were per question when we share each
finding. For some of the analysis we wanted to
track what happened to youth work activities
and the numbers of young people engaging in
them over time. In these cases, we excluded
all activities where we didn’t have information
about all three points in time and were left
with a sample of 268 participants who told
us about 409 activities. That’s still a large
enough group to run statistical analysis, but
it’s not representative of the wider youth work
community. This means we can’t generalise from
these findings to all Christian youth workers.
How should we read this, and talk
about it?
Because this was not a representative sample,
it can only really tell us about the people who
took part in the survey. So, the way to share
these headlines would be to say ‘One survey
of Christian youth workers showed that…’
rather than ‘Research shows that…’ It’s a small
difference, but us research pedants will love you
for it :)
So, can I still use it and share it?
Yes! There isn’t lots of data (or any really) on
how COVID has impacted youth ministry. So,
even though this was only meant to be an
internal piece of research, we wanted to share
it with you, and we’d love you to share it with
others. Although we’re now well into 2021, there
will be a need for us to advocate for young
people in the wider church for a long time still.
We hope you can use this data to make the
case that we need to recruit and support youth
workers (paid and voluntary) and keep adapting
the way we love and support teenagers through
this crisis.
P.3

THE CHALLENGES OF
YOUTH WORK IN A
PANDEMIC
The largest group of responses related to
the challenges of moving youthwork online
once it was not possible to continue meeting
in person. Our survey showed that 61% of the
youthwork activities happening pre-lockdown
moved online during lockdown 1 and this was
not easy. For many youth workers, an initial
flurry of enthusiasm amongst young people was
quickly dampened as the months of restrictions
dragged on: “Not being able to meet face to
face – very little uptake of Zoom sessions –
they became awkward with only 1 or 2 logging
in, so they were stopped.”
We were told over and over again, that it was
hard to keep young people engaged and
interested in online activities. Zoom fatigue
was partly explained by the natural limits of
what can be done online, rather than in person.
Of course, ‘online’ youth work is more than
Zoom – we know that youth workers tried
gaming, Instagram story devotionals, closed
WhatsApp groups and various other things.
Nevertheless, a clear story emerged of how
challenging it was to sustain engagement.
“Struggling to maintain connection with those
who don’t want to engage online. Unable to
read body language so easily online.”
We were told that this was, in part, because
of the way that teenagers’ entire social and
educational lives had moved online. Many just
reached their limit and dropped away from
online youth work. There were also plenty of
young people who never engaged with, or
liked, online activities in the first place: they
didn’t want to be on camera, and they just didn’t
show up. More practically, there were a group
359 people responded to the question:
“What challenges in your youth
work have you faced due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?”
of young people who it was harder to stay in
contact with, because “Some don’t have access
to digital devices to access the work in the area
that I live in or share devices and can’t come
every week. Some also don’t have their own
space to call from.”
Online youth work was also challenging
because of its format. Youth workers missed
the small interactions that happen in-person,
which build relationship and help them pick up
on how young people are, and what support
they might need. They were aware that young
people’s mental health was under strain but
found it much harder to really know what was
going on, and to be able to respond. As one
person wrote, a challenge was “That you can’t
make someone a hot chocolate or cup of tea
on a tough day.”
Related to this was the more general challenge
of losing contact with young people. Many
people reported a drop in the number of young
people engaging with activities, and this is
reflected in the average loss of 53% across
all activities (see poster). A significant theme
within this loss of contact was losing what youth
workers described as ‘the fringe’, young people
who were not part of church (or whose parents
were not) and those who had been participating
in community-focused youthwork. “Lost contact
with ‘non-church’ members. Those that would
just rock up on a Friday night didn’t log in to
Zoom socials. Many haven’t returned to our
COVID secure youth clubs since lockdown
P.4

either.” One person summed this up succinctly:
“Being a youth worker with no youth is difficult.”
There were a range of other issues youth
workers faced in relation to young people
themselves, that were mentioned less
frequently but were still difficult to respond
to. These included not being able to go into
schools, losing particular groups of young
people (e.g., older youth or girls), and the
challenge of reaching out to, or integrating
new young people while losing others. When
restrictions were lifted, youth workers then
faced new challenges: adjusting to new
guidance for in-person gatherings, the use of
masks and how to manage young people’s
looser interpretations of social distancing rules!
These youth workers also experienced a series
of challenges around the impact of
the pandemic on themselves and their
teams. Some leaders were furloughed during
lockdown 1, and found it hard not being able
to support their young people at such an
important time. Lockdown hit volunteer capacity
quite hard, and many of those who completed
our survey reported their teams struggling
in a range of ways. This included individuals
managing loss of income, working from home,
being furloughed, struggling to adapt to
online work, responsibility for home-schooling,
sheltering, bereavement or personal ill-health.
“Volunteer availability, as some were shielding
and unable to return when lockdown lifted, and
increased workloads meant some were unable
to serve.”
Then there was the impact of the general
experience of lockdown and living through
a pandemic in 2020. These youth workers
found it hard to manage so much change and
uncertainty, as well as to understand and take
account of ever-changing restrictions and
government guidance. Some people found
themselves with low motivation for youth work,
and/or carried a sense of failure because they
lost contact with young people, or online youth
work was not thriving. Others felt guilty that
they weren’t doing enough, or that they found
themselves benefitting from a slower pace:
“Feelings of guilt that I wasn’t doing more for
the young people. Losing interest in doing youth
work as time went on”. We heard about youth
workers feeling exhausted and isolated: “Just
having any emotional and mental resources left
to give to the young people, after what’s needed
for family at the moment.”
What does this mean?
It’s clear from these comments that online
youthwork has been a defining experience
for those supporting young people. We
know it has worked really well in some
situations, but it has also been incredibly
challenging for many of you. If you have
struggled with any of the issues described
here, we hope you know you are not alone!
For all the creativity and perseverance
demonstrated in this time, it has still been
incredibly hard.
Aside from validating some of these shared
experiences, we hope you can take from
this the need to recognise the toll taken
by the pandemic, and the need to ask for
support and investment to build youth
ministry back up again. 2021 will have
brought its own, new challenges and
we’re not out of the other side of this yet.
Galatians 6:9 says “Let us not become
weary in doing good, for at the proper time
we will reap a harvest if we do not give
up.” We pray you will find this is true for
you, and your teams.
P.5

CHANGE FOR THE
BETTER? YOUTH WORK
OPPORTUNITIES FROM
COVID-19
350 youth workers responded
to our open question:
“What opportunities in your youth
work have you found due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?”
The most popular response was that the
pandemic forced groups to adapt and grow
in their understandings of new technologies
and ways of doing youth work e.g., TikTok,
Instagram, online services, online gaming (143
references). “Zoom has been brilliant!” said one
youth leader (things we never thought we’d
hear?). This was a time for rapid upskilling, “an
opportunity to engage in ways that we never
would have thought of doing before”. For
some, the door to the online world was finally
forced open: “We’ve been trying for a while but
were always told no. However, this gave us no
choice!”
97 people said that the changes resulted in
enhanced group cohesion or engagement.
Groups were sharing more, relationships
(between young people or from leaders to
young people) were going deeper: “Young
people are really enthusiastic about meeting
together and seeing greater levels of
engagement than ever before.” Distance has
its benefits for some: “Some find it easier to be
honest because there’s no-one else actually
there in the room with them.” Alongside this,
many people told us that there had been
more time for 1-1s (e.g., walks, calls, checking
up on individuals more) and small groups (84
references). “I felt we got to know our youth
a lot more and went a lot deeper with them
during the lockdown months.”
With greater engagement and cohesion came
references to an increase in spiritual depth
and discipleship – e.g. more engagement with
prayer or Bible study (58). “Young people
have been more open to praying and Holy
Spirit on Zoom, which has been super fun!”
Another said: “Sharing prayer needs together
has felt significant, too: this didn’t happen
before Covid.” Sometimes engagement,
intimacy and spiritual depth all came together:
“We have prayed more. Running just our
in-house youth Bible group we’ve seen
unexpected growth with some youth club
teenagers joining. We’ve planned more and
seen amazing new leaders emerge. We have
opportunities to set up mentoring. We’re excited
about the future.”
60 youth leaders said that the pandemic was
an opportunity to really evaluate what the
group did and why. With familiar forms of
youth work now unavailable, it was a chance
to reflect, to go back to basics and adjust the
ministry to people’s needs, perhaps reaching
out to those previously missed and doing so in
ways previously unexplored. “It has allowed a
chance to stop and totally reassess all that we
are doing and take an extended break from
the constancy of programming that can make
it difficult to reassess.” This was sometimes
painful but insightful: “We moved our services
online so easily. That’s not right is it? It shouldn’t
have been so easy to capture what we do and
put into a video. It’s highlighted the opportunity
of the church needing to go deeper than
running services.” Covid was a “chance to stop
things that we maybe should have stopped a
P.6

while ago” and “although a horrible, shared
experience... (it) has meant a great opportunity
to reflect together and listen to each other’s
stories and learn together”.
53 said the changes meant they were now
reaching a wider group of individuals, e.g.,
those living further away. There was overlap
here with the 48 who said online youth work
was more accessible and easier to fit in
with young people’s schedules. It was also
often a superior form of gathering for those
with additional needs or more introverted
personality types. Where some usually
struggled with in-person meetings, they now
thrived in online settings: “Young people on
the edges, particularly those on the autistic
spectrum, have really flourished in online youth
work.”
Some youth workers (36) said they now had
improved relationships with parents and
families, and a number felt that online youth
work has empowered young people to take
the lead (34) – particularly where they became
more involved in online services. It wasn’t all
good news of course, 25 said opportunities had
been few or non-existent: “most things we’ve
experimented with haven’t worked”.
18 leaders said the changes meant they
had more time and resources. They were
less stretched, and so were able to focus on
different things, such as team training, study,
or just having more time to plan. Some felt
online youth work was actually better than inperson
meetings (13), and ten said that working
outside (whether for walks or larger gatherings
like ‘forest church’) had proven beneficial:
“Makes me wonder if perhaps the church
building itself is such a barrier to young people
attending church”. Finally, nine said they’d had
opportunities for working with local schools.
What does this mean?
There’s encouraging news here. There
were 239 references to an increase in
depth during 2020 – be that growing
engagement (97), more time for 1-1’s and
small groups (84), or more time with the
Bible and prayer (58). 1 Covid has exposed
a capacity to adapt, and with that the
possibility that change can bring about
growth, not merely survival. Positive things
have emerged through this disruption, that
probably wouldn’t have done otherwise. Of
course, there hasn’t been one overriding
narrative for all youth workers – we know
there have been enormous challenges and
many have really struggled. The survey also
raises new questions. Why did some groups
flourish? The pandemic forced adaptation,
but were some youth workers in a better
context or position to ride that wave?
Perhaps more importantly, if a new
capacity has been discovered, it will need
to be cultivated in order to endure. Some
youth workers weren’t able to try online
models until they had no choice. Will the
Church at large still be open to that kind of
innovation once ‘normal’ life creeps back
in? If disruption is a catalyst for growth,
perhaps youth work – and the structures
that support it – will need to learn to invite
disruption and change, even when we’re
not in a pandemic.
1. Some of these were mentioned by the same people, so it is not necessarily the case that this equates to 239 people.
P.7

YOUTH WORK
DIAGRAMS
Inside a youth worker’s
brain (2020–2021)*
A
B
C
Pyjama bottom gland
The increasing inability
to wear uncomfortable
clothing on the bottom half
of the body.
Eye-reading area
Understanding what
mumbling young people
are saying behind the
face mask.
One-way-system-thalamus
Sending brain signals when
you are going in the wrong
direction around the church
building.
VIDEO CALL
CORTEX
That’s what
my hair
looks like!
ONLINE GAMES REGION
Am I on
mute?
A
What is
small talk?
Not another
break-out room
MULTIPLE PLAN
CREATOR REGION
PLAN A
PLAN B
PLAN C
PLAN D
SUPER FLEXIBLE
ADAPTOR LOBE
Responding at a
moment’s notice to
the government’s
latest guidance.
MENTAL BANK
of good
youth
work times /
face to face
interactions /
warm hugs to
sustain you.
MISSING
FACE-TO-FACE
YOUTH WORK
CENTRE
SOCIAL MEDIA
SKILL LOBE
Mastering Instagram
only to find that young
people have moved
to TikTok.
C
B
ADDITIONAL
HEAT CENTRE
for outdoor
activities in
sub-zero
temperatures.
INSTINCTIVE
SOCIAL
DISTANCING
GAUGE
For more #youthworkdiagrams
follow us on Twitter @YWresearch
DISAPPOINTMENT
PREVENTION STEM
at having to change
the plan AGAIN.
*Adapted from Melissa Balmain’s ‘Inside a toddler’s brain’
TWITTER POLL:
WHAT DID YOU DO ‘THAT’ SUMMER?
Bute Mills, 74 Bute Street,
Luton, LU1 2EY
hello@youthscape.co.uk
01582 877220
Registered charity no. 1081754.
Registered company no. 3939801
registered in England, a company
limited by guarantee.
Cover photo by Marjan Blan
| @marjanblan on Unsplash.
With no exams to sit, Year 11 has come to a very early end for
many young people we know. What will they do with this long
summer stretching out before them? Well, what did you do, the
summer after taking exams? We asked youth work friends on
twitter how they spent most of their post GCSE months.
WORKING 9–5
(FOR LOW PAY)
DISTURBING
THE PEACE
SLEEPING TILL
NOON
LEARNING FROM
MY MISTAKES
41% 16% 43% 0%
P.8

HOW YOUTH MINISTRY IN 2020 WAS IMPACTED BY THE PANDEMIC IN 7 CHARTS
The survey was completed by 501 respondents, who told us about 822 different youth work activities they ran. We asked how many young people engaged with each activity at three time points: pre lockdown (January 2020), during lockdown (March-
June 2020) and post-lockdown (September-October 2020). The survey respondents had a choice of reporting up to 3 youth work activities each. These youth workers were not representative of the whole youth work community, so this data should not be
generalised. It tells us the story of what happened to these particular youth workers, not what happened to everyone.
CHART 1
OF THE 822 YOUTH WORK ACTIVITIES
WE WERE TOLD ABOUT…
61%
STOPPED
MOVED ONLINE
4%
35%
REPLACED BY SOMETHING ELSE
CHART 2 CHART 3
ACROSS ALL ACTIVITIES THERE WAS AN AVERAGE LOSS OF 53%
OF YOUNG PEOPLE.
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
19
PRE-LOCKDOWN
6
LOCKDOWN
9
POST-LOCKDOWN
ACTIVITIES THAT MOVED ONLINE WERE STATISTICALLY
MORE LIKELY TO RESTART IN PERSON OR CONTINUE
ONLINE, THAN THOSE THAT STOPPED IN LOCKDOWN 1.
RESTARTED
IN PERSON
(60)
NOT RESTARTED (165)
CONTINUED
ONLINE (21)
STOPPED (273)
OTHER (21)
(25)
NOT RESTARTED
OTHER (21)
REPLACED (28)*
RESTARTED IN PERSON (231)
ONL INE
MO V E D
(4 8 2)
CONTINUED ONLINE (205)
We asked what happened to each activity once
lockdown 1 started in March 2020.
CHART 5
CHURCH GROUPS WERE MORE LIKELY TO MOVE ONLINE THAN OTHER GROUPS.
250
200
150
100
50
0
91
151
51
247
SUNDAY SERVICE CHURCH GROUP COMMUNITY GROUP OTHER
128
We asked how many young people attended each activity at each different timepoint, and this graph
shows us the average number of young people across all different activities.
96
11 5 13
15
11
3
CHART 4
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF
YOUNG PEOPLE ENGAGING
IN POST-LOCKDOWN
ACTIVITIES CHANGED,
DEPENDING ON WHAT
YOUTH WORKERS DID
IN LOCKDOWN 1.
ONLINE
OTHER FORMAT
RE-STARTED IN PERSON
STOPPED (273)
MOVED ONLINE (482)
REPLACED (28)
We tracked what happened to each of the activities during lockdown 1
(inner circle) and after restrictions were eased (outer circle).
* Of the 28 activities that were replaced during lockdown 1, 14 were restarted in person, 5 were not restarted,
4 moved online and 5 continued as ’other activities’
9
11
14
OTHER
(8)
POST LOCKDOWN
LOCKDOWN 1
Pre-lockdown
there were 19 young
people per activity
on average.
STOPPED
(0)
9 13
10
9
MOVED
ONLINE
(10)
13
11
STOPPED
MOVED ONLINE
REPLACED BY SOMETHING ELSE
We broke down what happened during lockdown by type of activity i.e., regular provision for young people aged 11+ during
Sunday service, and regular activity or group mainly aimed at young people either in the church (e.g., mid-week youth group) or
in the community (e.g., drop-in, detached, schools work).
We tracked how the average number of young people engaging in activities changed, depending on whether activities
stopped, moved online or were delivered in some ‘other’ format. The circles in this diagram show the average number of
young people engaging in the different models of post lockdown youth work depending on what happened in lockdown
1. Though the averages shown here are not hugely different, overall significantly more young people attended activities
that were restarted in person, than those that continued online.
CHART 6 CHART 7
COMMUNITY YOUTH WORK EXPERIENCED THE MOST SEVERE LOSS OF YOUNG PEOPLE.
VOLUNTEER-LED YOUTH WORK LOST SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER YOUNG PEOPLE DURING LOCKDOWN.
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
28
15
14
PRE-LOCKDOWN
9
6
3
LOCKDOWN
10
8
POST-LOCKDOWN
20
16
12
8
4
0
19
18
12
PRE-LOCKDOWN
6
5
LOCKDOWN
9
7
6
POST-LOCKDOWN
SUNDAY SERVICE
CHURCH GROUP
COMMUNITY GROUP
PAID WORKER
VOLUNTEER
MINISTER / CHURCH LEADER
We looked at how the type of activity affected the number of young people engaging at three different points in time.
The higher number of young people in community youth work might reflect work in schools, which would have been
heavily impacted by their closure in 2020.
We divided the activities into three groups depending on whether respondents told us that their youth work was mainly led by a paid
worker, volunteer or minister. This chart shows the average number of young people per group at each time point. Paid workers were
over-represented in our sample, so this chart may be showing the impact of furlough on the number of young people they engaged with.
CHART 2: The number of activities reported varied at the three time-points as follows: Pre-lockdown – 821, Lockdown – 722 and Post-lockdown – 767. CHART 4: In lockdown 1, 273 activities stopped, 441 moved online and 69 were replaced by ‘other’ activities. Post-lockdown, of those that stopped, 157 were not restarted, 57
restarted in person, 26 went online and 17 were ‘other’ activities (n=257 in total). Of those that moved online, 18 did not restart in person, 228 did restart in person, 201 stayed online and 20 were ‘other’ activities (n=467 activities overall). Of those that were replaced by ‘other’ activities, 1 did not restart, 14 re-started in person, and
4 went online (n=23 in total). CHART 5: A total of 285 activities stopped, 505 moved online and 32 were replaced by other kinds of activity. CHART 6: The number of activities reported varied at the three time-points as follow: pre lockdown = 821 activities, lockdown = 722 activities and post lockdown = 767 activities.
CHART 7: 626 activities reported number of young people at all 3 timepoints + type of youth leader.