1. Mad City Money
Simulation
A United Way of Greater Kansas City Initiative

2. Previous Literature
 Many young people never learn the importance
of being financially prudent
 Class of 2015 average student loan debt is
$35,000 (Sparshott, 2015).
 Class of 2015 average starting salary is
$45,478 (Poppick, 2015).

3. Previous Literature Continued
 Financial literacy/illiteracy tends to persist.
 Many young people learn their spending habits
from watching their parents
 Campenhout (2015) suggests delivering
financial literacy on a “just-in-time” basis. Mad
City Money intervenes “just-in-time”

4. Mad City Money Program
Evaluation
 Primary goal: evaluate the
participants attitude
changes in the way they
perceive their finances,
budgeting, and financial
goals that the student’s may
experience due to their
participation in the Mad City
Money Program.

5. Method- Participants
 Students from targeted low income schools that
participated in the Mad City Money Simulation became
the participants for the Mad City Money Program
Evaluation.
 Targeted schools:
 Grandview
 Allen Village
 Center
**Targeted schools = higher
rates of poverty

6. Method- Materials
 Two surveys were administered to the participants.
 Time 1 – initial assessment: prior to the program
simulation the students were asked to fill out a survey
regarding their perception and knowledge of money
and their future finances.
 Time 2 – second assessment: approximately three
weeks after the program simulation the students were
asked to fill out another survey regarding their
perception and knowledge of money and their future
finances.

7. Method- Procedure
 Paired samples t-test was used to analyze the data
 Typically used in pre- and post- test studies
 Important to match the pairs in order to be able to
statistically conclude whether the Mad City Money
Simulation had any impact on the student’s who
participated in it.
Statistical significance – A result that is not likely to occur
randomly, but rather is likely to be attributable to a specific
cause. For example to be significant a p value has to be .05
or less .05 means there is less than a 1% likelihood that the
finding is due to chance.

8. Method-Procedure
 Chose to run a dependent t-test because it eliminates the
individual differences that occur between subjects. This
increases the power of the test.
 More likely to detect any significant differences using the
dependent t-test vs. the independent t-test.
 Mean = average of all of the student’s answers for a
particular question. It is important to match the means of the
answers of the questions from the pre- and post- test
surveys to convey if the Mad City Money simulation had an
increase, decrease, or no effect on the knowledge of
financial literacy of the students.

9. Results
 Budgeting – “How likely are you to budget for
monthly expenses?”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Time One Time Two
Mean Average
Mean Average
P=.05

10. Results
 Budgeting – “How much do you know about
budgeting?”
4.6
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
Time One Time Two
Mean Average
Mean Average
P=.05

11. Results
 Spending – “How often do you track your
spending?”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Time One Time Two
Mean Average
Mean Average
P< .01

12. Results
 Confidence – “How confident are you in your ability
to set financial goals?”
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
Time One Time Two
Mean Average
Mean Average
P = .02

13. Surprising Results
 GPA – Importance of having a high GPA
 Statistically significant decrease
 Time One: 7.17
 Time Two: 6.8
 GPA – Importance in relation to how much a person
can earn upon graduation
 No statistical significance was found
 Time One: 5.91
 Time Two: 5.78

14. Results
 Bank Account – “How much do you know about
opening a bank account?”
 No statistical significance was found
 Time One: 4.26
 Time Two: 4.83
 Spending – “How likely are you to spend money on
items you want but are not a necessity?”
 No statistical significance was found
 Time One: 4.70
 Time Two: 4.68

15. Results
 Confidence – Importance of setting aside money for
long-term goals
 No statistical significance
 Time One: 6.52
 Time Two: 6.58
 Confidence – “How confident are you in your ability
to manage money in the real world?”
 No statistical significance
 Time One: 5.83
 Time Two: 5.96

16. Discussion
 Findings demonstrate that the Mad City Money Simulation
helped to provide students with knowledge on how to budget.
 Participants reported having a statistically significant increase
in confidence with ability to set financial goals, knowledge
about budgeting, and ability to track their spending.
 The most surprising finding was in relation to GPA. The goal
was to increase the importance of maintaining a high GPA,
however the data demonstrated that there was a decrease in
perceived importance of maintaining a high GPA and no
change in their perception of how GPA is related to later
earning potential.

17. Implications
 Based off of the data we recommend continuing the
current curriculum in most areas.
 Re-focus how to convey the importance of GPA and
future financial success.

18. Future Directions
 On post-test create a question asking if the student
attended the Mad City Money Evaluation.
 Excluded three students who indicated that they did not
participate in the Mad City Money simulation.
 On pre-test create a question asking if the student had
attended the Mad City Money Evaluation before.
 Keep the name and/or student ID number line the same for
both pre- and post- surveys to be able to match up more
pre- and post- surveys.

19. Future Directions Continued
 Putting a date on the pre- and post- surveys so that we
know when each of the surveys was administered
 Be able to obtain complete demographic data from
each school district.
 Ask teachers to check the survey sheets when
collecting them to ensure that every student wrote their
name on the survey.

20. References
 Beverly, S., (2012). Assets for Independence. CSD Working Papers.
 J. Sparshott. (2015, May 8). Congratulations, Class of 2015. You’re the Most
Indebted Ever (For Now) [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/08/congratulations-class-of-2015-
youre-the-most-indebted-ever-for-now/
 S. Poppick (2015, April 22). Here’s What the Average Grad Makes Right Out
of College. [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://time.com/money/3829776/heres-what-the-average-grad-makes-right-
out-of-college/
 Pillai, K. R., (2012). Financial Prudence among Youth. The Journal
Contemporary Management Research, 6(2), 52 – 68.
 Campenhout, G. V., (2015). Revaluing the Role of Parents as Financial
Socialization Agents in Youth Financial Literacy Programs. The Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 49(1), 186 – 222. doi: 10.1111/joca.12064