Social workers assessing cases. Does everyone receive the same help?

Last registered on August 28, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Social workers assessing cases. Does everyone receive the same help?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0013873
Initial registration date
August 21, 2024

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
August 28, 2024, 3:02 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Cornel Nesseler
Affiliation
UiS
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Heidi Lie Eriksen
PI Affiliation
University of Stavanger
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Siv Oltedal
PI Affiliation
University of Stavanger
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-08-25
End date
2024-12-31
Keywords
Welfare
Additional Keywords
social work, discrimination
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Norway is known for its supportive welfare state. A well-functioning support system for people in need is part of the Norwegian identity. To maintain this status, it is important that everyone is treated equally and fairly. In this research project, we ask Norwegian social workers and prospective social workers to categorize typical welfare applications. We randomize the requests and include fictitious names that are either typically Norwegian or foreign sounding. The results show whether discrimination exists. In contrast to many other settings, like labor or housing market, it should be relatively easy to reduce discrimination if it exists.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Eriksen, Heidi Lie, Cornel Nesseler and Siv Oltedal. 2024. "Social workers assessing cases. Does everyone receive the same help?." AEA RCT Registry. August 28. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13873-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2024-08-25
Intervention End Date
2024-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The participants can categorize the requests as follows: Yes, Need more information to assess case, No. Each case has only one correct answer. We empirically examine if:
1. The correct categorization differs by experience or gender
2. A positive categorization differs by experience or gender
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We present current and prospective social workers with five realistic requests. Current social workers are employed by the Norwegian government. Prospective social workers are employed in a university course streamlined for social workers.

All requests are constructed by a previous social worker. Each request contains not only the request itself but randomly selects name and gender of the sender.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
We generate 24 different survey versions, one for each name we use. We have three foreign groups (Polish-, Ukrainian-, and Lithuanian- sounding names) and native sounding names. Each group has three female and three male names. One survey consists of five cases.
Randomization Unit
Per participant.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
100 participants (social workers and aspiring social workers).
Sample size: planned number of observations
Around 500.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Around 100 participants, each assessing 5 cases.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Each participant evaluates five cases. One case is one observation. Previous research shows significant discrimination in Norway (see e.g., Gomez-Gonzalez et al., 2021 or Dur et al., 2022). We assume a 15 percentage point discrimination and that a high share of the participants correctly assess the cases. Thus, the mean for correctly assessed cases for foreign-sounding names would be 0.6 and 0.75 for native-sounding names (sd=0.5 for both groups). This results in an effect size of 0.3 and means that we need 506 observations in total. Thus, around 100 participants.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan