No Wrong Door Initiative: C.O.P.E. simulation highlights challenges facing low-income families – mariettatimes.com

Community Initiative Addresses Poverty and Sustainable Development Goals Through Experiential Simulation

Executive Summary

A collaborative community event, the Cost of Poverty Experience (C.O.P.E.), was recently held to provide local stakeholders with direct insight into the challenges faced by low-income families. Hosted by the No Wrong Door initiative and facilitated by the Family and Children First Council, the simulation directly supports the advancement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 1 (No Poverty). The event engaged educators, service providers, and community members in an experiential learning exercise designed to foster empathy and strengthen local support systems.

Event Methodology and Structure

The C.O.P.E. simulation was structured to immerse participants in the day-to-day realities of living with financial insecurity. The methodology aimed to build understanding of the systemic barriers contributing to poverty, a core target of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

1. Profile Assignment: Participants were organized into “family units” and assigned profiles based on real-life scenarios, including those involving single-parent households, grandparents raising grandchildren, and individuals with disabilities.
2. Simulated Timeframe: The experience consisted of four 15-minute sessions, each representing one week.
3. Task and Decision-Making: Family units were required to manage limited resources to secure housing, employment, food, child care, and transportation.
4. Community Interaction: Volunteers staffed stations representing essential services such as employers, banks, schools, and social service agencies, simulating the complex navigation required to access community resources.

Direct Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The simulation’s design and objectives demonstrated a strong connection to a range of interconnected SDGs.

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The primary focus was to illustrate the daily struggle against poverty. Participants, such as Joy Edgell of the Ohio Valley Educational Service Center, reported that simulated incomes were insufficient to cover basic monthly expenses, forcing difficult choices between necessities like food and housing. This highlights the challenge of food insecurity, a key component of SDG 2, which is addressed by participating organization GoPacks, a local food-support nonprofit.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) & SDG 4 (Quality Education): The simulation underscored how financial instability creates barriers to well-being, as families must decide whether to pay for medication or other essentials. The participation of educators emphasized the link between poverty and educational outcomes, as understanding family challenges is critical to providing quality education (SDG 4) and support for young children.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): By engaging with simulated employment and financial systems, participants gained a deeper appreciation for the barriers to securing and maintaining decent work. The event’s overarching goal was to reduce judgment and increase empathy, contributing to the reduction of inequalities within the community.

Collaborative Framework: A Model for SDG 17

The C.O.P.E. event was organized under the “No Wrong Door” initiative, a multi-agency coalition that exemplifies SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

The “No Wrong Door” Initiative

This initiative represents a commitment by local organizations to create a more integrated and accessible support network, aligning with the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Core Mission: To ensure that any resident seeking assistance can access the necessary resources and support, regardless of their initial point of contact.
• Intended Outcomes: According to GoPacks founder Heather Warner, the goal is to foster a stronger, more empathetic community where individuals are supported rather than judged.
• Impact: By bringing together diverse stakeholders including teachers, police officers, and nonprofit workers, the initiative strengthens the community’s capacity to address complex social challenges collaboratively.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • The entire article revolves around understanding and addressing the challenges of poverty. The “Cost of Poverty Experience (C.O.P.E.)” simulation is designed to help participants understand the “daily challenges faced by low-income families,” which is the central theme of SDG 1.
2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article mentions “GoPacks, a local food-support nonprofit,” indicating a community need for food assistance. It also highlights the difficult choices low-income families face, such as deciding whether to “buy food” or “pay rent,” which directly relates to food security.
3. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The involvement of “Local educators” and the Director of Preschool Services from the Ohio Valley Educational Service Center shows a direct link to education. The director’s goal to “assist with our families starting off at that earliest age” specifically points to the importance of early childhood education and support for children in low-income families.
4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The simulation required participants to make decisions about “employment” and featured an “employment booth.” This highlights the critical role of stable and sufficient employment in overcoming poverty.
5. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The simulation’s purpose is to build “empathy,” “kindness,” and achieve “less judgment” towards people in poverty. By fostering a community-wide understanding of the barriers faced by low-income families, the initiative aims to create “stronger support systems” and reduce the social exclusion of vulnerable groups.
6. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article describes the “No Wrong Door initiative,” which is a “coalition of agencies” including nonprofits (GoPacks), social service councils (Family and Children First Council), and educators. This collaborative effort to ensure residents can access services exemplifies a multi-stakeholder partnership to achieve common goals.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.
   • The C.O.P.E. simulation directly addresses the multidimensional nature of poverty by having participants navigate challenges related to “housing, employment, child care and transportation under tight financial constraints.”
2. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
   • The “No Wrong Door initiative” aims to create a robust support system where residents can “find the resources and support they need” regardless of which agency they first approach. This is a direct effort to implement a more effective local social protection system.
3. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • The existence of “GoPacks, a local food-support nonprofit,” and the mention of families having to choose between buying food and paying rent, points to efforts and challenges in ensuring consistent food access for the poor.
4. Target 4.2: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education.
   • The Director of Preschool Services’ attendance and her statement about wanting to “assist with our families starting off at that earliest age” directly aligns with the goal of providing quality early childhood support and education, especially for vulnerable families.
5. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men.
   • The simulation’s focus on employment as a key factor for survival for the family units highlights the importance of access to decent work for financial stability.
6. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social… inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status.
   • The simulation’s goal is to foster “more empathy, more kindness” and “less judgment,” thereby promoting the social inclusion of people experiencing poverty and making the community more supportive.
7. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.
   • The “No Wrong Door initiative” is described as a “coalition of agencies” involving a nonprofit (GoPacks) and a council (Family and Children First Council), which is a clear example of a civil society partnership aimed at providing more effective services.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 1 (Poverty):
   • An implied indicator is the number of families requiring assistance from social service agencies. The article describes scenarios of families struggling to cover their budget, implying a need that can be measured. Another indicator is the number of individuals and organizations participating in poverty awareness training like the C.O.P.E. simulation.
2. For SDG 2 (Hunger):
   • A direct indicator is the number of families or children served by food-support nonprofits like GoPacks. This measures the level of food insecurity and the reach of support systems in the community.
3. For SDG 4 (Education):
   • An implied indicator is the enrollment rate of children from low-income families in public preschool programs. The Director of Preschool Services’ focus on this area suggests this is a key metric for her organization.
4. For SDG 8 (Employment):
   • The article implies that the local employment/unemployment rate for low-income households is a critical factor. The simulation’s inclusion of an “employment booth” suggests that securing a job is a primary and measurable step for families.
5. For SDG 10 (Inequalities):
   • A qualitative indicator is the level of community understanding and empathy towards poverty, which the simulation aims to increase. This could be measured through pre- and post-simulation surveys of participants. The number of diverse participants (“teachers, police officers, nonprofit workers”) also serves as an indicator of community-wide engagement.
6. For SDG 17 (Partnerships):
   • A clear indicator is the number of local organizations actively participating in the “No Wrong Door” coalition. The article mentions it brings together “multiple local organizations,” which is a quantifiable measure of the partnership’s strength.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: mariettatimes.com