Change in Recording Sacrament Meeting Attendance

[russellhltn]

Looking at it another way, there were 458 ward-member-opportunities to take the sacrament; of those, 301 were taken. In this case, 66% of the opportunities that were available to take the sacrament were taken.

Interesting way of looking at it.

Although, I do question: "Each Sunday that an attendance number is reported, throw the number of membership records into Bucket B."

Is it really done that way or is it an average of all Sundays regardless of attendance reports? I noticed in your math you averaged each bucket instead of just dividing the two. The difference would only come into play if some Sundays are not reported. But it does make a difference in the complexity of the coding. The only issue I see there is that Sundays with no reports are not likely to have the memberships as up to date at the end of the day because there was no meetings. (Which brings up another question - is the count done at the end of Sunday or at the start of it?)

Who knew that such a simple concept could go so far into the weeds?

[greenwoodkl]

(Which brings up another question - is the count done at the end of Sunday or at the start of it?)

Does the meeting start time of the unit play into the calculation?

[russellhltn]

Does the meeting start time of the unit play into the calculation?

Good question. I have noticed that starting time tends to affect the numbers. It's most noticable when wards rotate their starting times at the first of the year. But I haven't seen how that enters into the calculations.

[scgallafent]

Is it really done that way or is it an average of all Sundays regardless of attendance reports?

If there is no attendance for the day, that day is omitted and doesn't affect the calculation.

(Which brings up another question - is the count done at the end of Sunday or at the start of it?)

I think they call the service to get the count when the clerk enters the number. If I understand it correctly, right now that creates an issue where entering the value weeks later could affect the denominator.

Who knew that such a simple concept could go so far into the weeds?

/me raises hand

[russellhltn]

(Which brings up another question - is the count done at the end of Sunday or at the start of it?)

I think they call the service to get the count when the clerk enters the number. If I understand it correctly, right now that creates an issue where entering the value weeks later could affect the denominator.

Let me guess - it's the number of people who moved in before that date and are still in the ward. (The move-outs after that date being persona non grata.)

[scgallafent]

(Which brings up another question - is the count done at the end of Sunday or at the start of it?)

I think they call the service to get the count when the clerk enters the number. If I understand it correctly, right now that creates an issue where entering the value weeks later could affect the denominator.

Let me guess - it's the number of people who moved in before that date and are still in the ward. (The move-outs after that date being persona non grata.)

It would inflate the count by people who moved in and deflate the count by the number of people who moved out after the Sunday in question.

[russellhltn]

It would inflate the count by people who moved in and deflate the count by the number of people who moved out after the Sunday in question.

So, it's recording the count at the time the attendance is recorded as opposed to any kind of "look back" to calculate the count for that day?

I guess clerks should process as many move-outs as they can before recording attendance.

[scgallafent]

I guess clerks should process as many move-outs as they can before recording attendance.

We figure it won't take long for clerks to figure out how to game the system, although I'm still trying to figure out why. Budget is based on total attendance, not percentage.

[russellhltn]

We figure it won't take long for clerks to figure out how to game the system, although I'm still trying to figure out why.

Look good to the stake?

I just remember my stint as a ward clerk and getting questions from EQ and RS that was all about making the numbers look better. Not by actually having better results, but my making the denominator smaller. Usually by trying to exclude the hard-core inactives from the HT/VT stats. It may not have been the birth of my clerk cynicism, but it sure was the fertilizer.

[lajackson]

Statistics are interesting.

I was once asked in a bishopric training meeting what our ward home teaching percentage was. I turned to my counselors and neither of them knew the answer.

I turned back to the stake president and said, I don't know. I can look it up, or I expect that your clerk has the number. In fact, I'm almost certain you know what it is. Everybody laughed because we all knew it was true.

The stake president told us and then said, Bishop, if you don't even know what your home teaching number is, why does your ward have the highest home teaching percentage in our stake?

I said, President, I do not think that is a very good number. We'll try to do better. I spend most of my time encouraging our priesthood holders to visit the members. I never ask them if they visited their families. I ask them how their families are doing.

If they don't know, I ask them to go find out and let me know.

I will try to follow up better next month.