Iowa State University Extension

As educators develop programs or deliver services to this growing audience, it's important to recognize the issues they face every day. Focus groups conducted in 1996 with ISU Extension staff and human service agencies showed that many professionals didn't understand the issues because they had never experienced poverty.

To help reduce this barrier and build the ability of organizations and communities to work with low-income youth and families, ISU Extension is using a poverty simulation exercise developed in Missouri. The first simulation was an in-service for 75 Extension educators in September 1995. Since then, ISU Extension staff have conducted 43 simulations for nearly 2,000 social workers, health care providers, educators, clergy and community volunteers throughout Iowa.

The simulation

The poverty simulation is a copyrighted learning tool created by the Reform Organization of Welfare (ROWEL) Education Association of Missouri. It was designed to increase public awareness about issues related to poverty. The exercise, known as the ROWEL Welfare Simulation, promotes experiential learning as participants live through a "real-life" situation.

A simulation requires about 3 hours, 10-15 volunteers, and 30-75 participants who assume the roles of up to 26 different families living in poverty. Each "family" receives a packet of information that describes their family make-up, resources, and needs. The task of each family is to provide for basic necessities and shelter for one month, which are four 15-minute time periods, each representing a week. Families spend each 15-minute period buying food, paying rent and interacting with other community resources.

The simulation is conducted in a large room with families seated in the center. Tables representing community resources (such as banks, the employment office, grocery store and pawn broker) are placed around the perimeter of the room. Volunteers representing a police officer, utility collector, landlord, and illegal activities person also circulate. Many of the volunteers who represent community resources are people who have lived in poverty. After the one-hour simulation, another hour is spent "debriefing." In small groups, participants and volunteers discuss their experiences and share conclusions with the large group.

An Evaluation of the Iowa Use of the ROWEL Simulation

ISU Extension staff conducted an evaluation study in early 1998 to answer four research questions:

• What impact does participation in the poverty simulation have on one's understanding of poverty and behaviors toward those who are poor?
• What changes in policies and programs result after a poverty simulation is conducted in a community or organization?
• What kind of activities are needed in a community following a poverty simulations?
• How can state project staff and local organizers increase the effectiveness of poverty simulations as an educational tool?

 

Staff analyzed data from several sources, including end-of-meeting evaluations from 872 participants and 120 volunteers, focus groups conducted in southeast and north central Iowa, and follow-up surveys mailed to 80 participants a year following a simulation.

Findings for Question 1: Impact on attitudes

In general, the simulation sensitized participants to the plight of families living in poverty. Many participants were surprised that the program could replicate the frustrations and stresses of being poor. Those employed in agencies said they would be or were much more understanding and less judgmental of their clients after participating in the program.

Focus group participants said they became more compassionate and concerned for clients, better understood the client's experiences, and were less judgmental of low-income families after participating in the program. About 85 percent of the respondents in the one-year follow-up survey said the simulation helped them understand what it might be like to live in poverty. When asked to list barriers that poor people have in becoming self-sufficient, they most often identified inadequate transportation, child care problems and the presence of illegal activities.

Findings for Question 2: Changes in policies and programs

Changes in individual attitudes did not automatically translate into changes in programs and policies. People identified a variety of possible changes that could be made to better support poor families, but reported little concrete action. However, 50 percent of the respondents in the follow-up survey indicated that they had met with others to discuss ways to change programs. In the focus groups, participants suggested several changes including a resource directory that lists services, development of bilingual information, and moving service agencies to a centralized location.

Findings for Question 3: Follow-up activities

Although few people had implemented follow-up activities, they had several suggestions such as offering community forums about poverty issues, enhancing resource and referral networks, conducting customer service training for agency staff, providing bilingual services, and starting local task forces on community needs. Seventy-two percent of all respondents in the one-year follow-up survey recommended the poverty simulation to others including co-workers, clergy, retail store clerks, human service agency employees and supervisors, school personnel, and friends.

Findings for Question 4: Ways to improve the simulation

Some participants questioned the realism of the simulation, especially in the area of transportation. Others suggested that key issues were needed to be added to the family scenarios like child care and health care. The simulation also could be improved by providing more training to volunteer "staffers," giving clear instructions at the beginning of the simulation, allowing more time for "debriefing," and using a room that is large enough for all participants. Some people recommended providing participants with printed information on poverty statistics and trends, and on community resources and services as a part of the simulation. A suggestion also was made to lengthen the time to allow for planning follow-up activities at the end of the simulation.

Recommendations for improving the simulation

• Enhance the kit instructions for conducting the poverty simulation. Pay special attention to: securing a large enough room; the role of the simulation director in giving instructions to the participants; training staffers; the physical room arrangement; and the importance of "debriefing."
• Use small props, such as hats.
• Incorporate child care and health care issues into selected family scenarios.
• Produce a videotape that describes the poverty simulation and how it has been used by communities for use by groups interested in sponsoring simulations.
• Develop displays, a brochure and other printed materials to distribute to participants on poverty and welfare reform.
• Offer a train-the-trainer in-service to groups interested in sponsoring a poverty simulation.

 

Recommendations for follow-up activities

• Add time at the end of the simulation for planning future activities.
• Prepare a chart that shows a continuum of possible follow-up activities for community groups, and suggest resources that might be helpful.
• Offer in-service training program to community groups who have held poverty simulations to explore possible follow-up experiences.
• Target specific groups like legislators and employers to participate in a poverty simulation.
• Create a world wide web site with information about the simulation and an opportunity for people to submit suggestions or ask questions.

This evaluation of the poverty simulation demonstrates that it is an effective educational approach for helping people better understand the situation of low-income families in our country. The results are being used to improve the program, provide appropriate follow-up activities and technical assistance to community groups.

For more information about this report, contact Diana Broshar, ISU Extension to Families, 101 MacKay Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1122, 515-294-8204, or E-mail: dmbro@iastate.edu