When Parents Are in the Room: Experimental Evidence on Job Information and Youth Job Search

The study evaluates a tailored job-information intervention and experimentally varies the household configuration in which the information is delivered.

Before the intervention, project staff identified and verified available vacancies at the village, district, and governorate levels. For each eligible youth assigned to receive information, staff selected up to three job opportunities based on geographic accessibility, compatibility with the youth’s circumstances, and the match between the youth’s qualifications and job requirements. If none of the initial opportunities was considered suitable, up to two additional opportunities were offered. Information included the employer, job title and description, location, required qualifications, working hours, compensation, and employer contact information.

The study consists of two separately randomized experiments:

Experiment 1

* Control: no tailored job information.
* Youth Only: tailored job information delivered privately to the youth.
* Youth + Father: the same tailored information delivered to the youth with the father present.
* Youth + Mother: the same tailored information delivered to the youth with the mother present.

Experiment 2

* Control: no tailored job information.
* Youth Only: tailored job information delivered privately to the youth.
* Youth + Both Parents: the same tailored information delivered to the youth with both the father and mother present.

Parents received no separate information, training, persuasion message, transfer, or other intervention. The parental treatments vary only whether the assigned parent or parents are present while the youth receives the same job information.

2024-08-25

2025-01-31

I would be particularly careful here because the final paper states that the study was not pre-registered and had no pre-analysis plan, and that the primary multiple-testing family was designated after the fact. So if you are editing a retrospective registry, do not imply these outcomes were prospectively pre-specified.

The main outcomes are:

Taking a concrete step toward employment. An indicator for whether the respondent took a concrete job-related action, including contacting an employer, requesting information, submitting a CV/application, attending an interview, being accepted for a job, or starting work.

For the parental-treatment analysis, the first two follow-ups use actions taken on the specific job opportunities presented during the intervention. The final follow-up uses the common employment-action module administered across arms.

Currently working. An indicator for whether the respondent is currently employed/working at the time of the follow-up.

Follow-up outcomes are measured approximately two weeks, four weeks, and seven to eight weeks after the intervention. The final paper treats employment separately from concrete action.2- Job search: we will examine whether youth talk about any actions based on the involvement of any of the parents or both. This will be disaggregated by gender, age, and location.
3- Job search intensity: we will look into how strong the action the youth take to join the labor force based on the treatment arm. This will be disaggregated by gender, age, and location.
4- Joining the labor force
5- We will examine whether the job search or actions will differ or change over time.

Secondary and exploratory outcomes include:

* Looking or waiting for work without taking a concrete step.
* Action intensity, distinguishing:
* simple actions, such as contacting an employer or submitting a CV;
* medium actions, such as reaching an interview, being rejected, or declining after learning job details;
* strong actions, such as being accepted, starting work, or finding work independently.
* Not looking for work.
* Reporting inability to work or pursue an opportunity because of family constraints/guardian refusal.
* Assessments of whether the offered job opportunities are suitable.
* Broader labor-market engagement beyond the specific opportunities presented.

The paper also conducts exploratory heterogeneity/moderator analyses by gender, education and family background, baseline perceived family restrictions, characteristics of the offered jobs, and village-level marriage-transfer measures (Mahr and Shabka).

I would not list FU4 as a secondary outcome round. The final paper excludes it from the primary analysis because it uses a different retrospective three-month measurement construct and reports it only as a diagnostic.

The study consists of two separately randomized controlled experiments conducted among unemployed youth aged 18–35 in rural Upper Egypt.

Randomization was conducted at the individual level within villages.

The analytical sample contains 11,781 youth across 287 villages in six governorates.

Experiment 1 includes 7,912 participants:

* Control: 2,028
* Youth Only: 1,978
* Youth + Father: 1,973
* Youth + Mother: 1,933

Experiment 2 includes 3,869 participants:

* Control: 1,294
* Youth Only: 1,283
* Youth + Both Parents: 1,292

The two experiments were randomized separately and are analyzed separately. Experiment 1 identifies the effects of father and mother co-presence relative to Youth Only and permits a direct randomized comparison between the Father and Mother arms. Experiment 2 identifies the effect of Both Parents relative to Youth Only. The design does not permit a causal comparison between the Both Parents arm and the Father or Mother arms.

Within each experiment, comparison of Youth Only with Control identifies the effect of receiving tailored job information. Comparison of the parental treatment arm(s) with Youth Only identifies the effect of parental co-presence while holding the information intervention fixed. If this registry field expects short descriptors, I would use:

Unit of randomization: Individual youth, within village.

Randomization: Individual-level randomized assignment, stratified by village.

Number of experiments: Two separately randomized experiments.

Study population: Unemployed youth aged 18–35 who expressed an interest in finding work and were living with both parents at enrollment.

Analytical sample: 11,781 participants.

Geographic coverage: 287 rural villages across six governorates of Upper Egypt: Beni Suef, Fayoum, Minya, Assiut, Sohag, and Qena.

Treatment arms: Seven experiment-specific arms in total: four in Experiment 1 and three in Experiment 2.

Follow-up: Approximately 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 7–8 weeks after intervention delivery.

Intervention delivery: Individual jobseeker session lasting approximately 20–30 minutes; parental presence varied experimentally.

Primary treatment contrasts: Youth Only vs Control for information provision; Father vs Youth Only and Mother vs Youth Only in Experiment 1; Both Parents vs Youth Only in Experiment 2; Father vs Mother as a direct Experiment 1 contrast.

Inference: Intent-to-treat estimates with village fixed effects and heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors in the final paper.

One important registry point: if this is an existing registration that you are updating rather than creating for the first time, I would preserve the original registered outcomes/design language wherever possible and clearly mark additions as retrospective amendments. Given that the paper explicitly says there was no pre-analysis plan, we should avoid making today’s final-paper outcome hierarchy look prospectively registered if it was not.

Randomization will be done using Survey CTO on houshold level

Individual-level randomization, stratified by village.

No

11781

11781

Almost 2200 for each arm and the same for the second experiment. The overall sample for both experiments will be around 8000