|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
We study how childcare decision-makers respond to email inquiries from parents. In a US field experiment with daycare centers, we send an email that varies (i) whether the message frames the situation as an exogenous emergency (“we unexpectedly moved”) or as an endogenous oversight (“we dropped the ball”), and (ii) whether the sender is a mother or a father (by using a male or female sounding name). We measure if and how centers respond (reply rate and speed), whether they offer an appointment or a spot (and timing), and the tone/helpfulness of replies. Some centers are randomly assigned to receive a neutral follow-up five days after the initial email if no reply has been received.
|
After
We study how childcare and eldercare decision-makers respond to email inquiries from parents or children. In a US field experiment with daycare and eldercare centers, we send an email that varies (i) whether the message frames the situation as an exogenous emergency (“our caregiver is moving unexpectedly”), as an endogenous oversight (“we dropped the ball”), or does not specify a reason reason (ii) whether the sender is male or female (by using a male or female sounding name) and (iii) whether the sender is a single parent in the case of childcare. We measure if and how centers respond (reply rate and speed), whether they offer an appointment or a spot (and timing), and the tone/helpfulness of replies.
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
September 01, 2025 03:19 PM
|
After
February 26, 2026 11:58 AM
|
|
Field
Randomization Unit
|
Before
Daycare center.
|
After
Daycare or eldercare center.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
We plan to include approximately 2,000 daycare centers in the pilot study. Each daycare center represents one cluster, as responses are measured at the center level. Following the pilot, we will update our power calculations based on the observed effect sizes.
|
After
We included about 2000 daycares in the first pilot study. And we plan to include approximately 3000 daycare centers and 1500 eldercare centers in the second pilot study. Each center represents one cluster, as responses are measured at the center level. Following the pilot, we will update our power calculations based on the observed effect sizes.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
Because each daycare center is contacted only once (with a follow-up in the encouragement arm if no response), the total number of observations will also be 2,000 daycare centers for the primary outcomes in the pilot. Each observation corresponds to one unique center’s response (or non-response) to our email. The secondary outcomes (e.g. sentiment of the email response) will be determined by the response rate to our various treatments.
|
After
Because each center is contacted only once, the total number of observations will also be 2000 & 4500 carecenters for the primary outcomes in the first and second pilots. Each observation corresponds to one unique center’s response (or non-response) to our email. The secondary outcomes (e.g. sentiment of the email response) will be determined by the response rate to our various treatments.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
We are running a 2×2 factorial design with four treatment arms with equal size samples in each treatment:
T1_M: “Unexpected move” message, male sender
T1_F: “Unexpected move” message, female sender
T2_M: “Dropped the ball” message, male sender
T2_F: “Dropped the ball” message, female sender
We plan to have 2,000 centers in the pilot.
|
After
We are running a 3×6 factorial design with eighteen treatment arms with equal size samples in each treatment:
T1_M_S: “Unexpected Need” message, male sender, single parent
T1_F_S: “Unexpected Need” message, female sender, single parent
T2_M_S: “Dropped the ball” message, male sender, single parent
T2_F_S: “Dropped the ball” message, female sender, single parent
T3_M_S: No reason message, male sender, single parent
T3_F_S: No reason message, female sender, single parent
T1_M_N: “Unexpected Need” message, male sender, non-single
T1_F_N: “Unexpected Need” message, female sender, non-single
T2_M_N: “Dropped the ball” message, male sender, non-single
T2_F_N: “Dropped the ball” message, female sender, non-single
T3_M_N: No reason message, male sender, non-single
T3_F_N: No reason message, female sender, non-single
T1_M_C: “Unexpected Need” message, male sender, child
T1_F_C: “Unexpected Need” message, female sender, child
T2_M_C: “Dropped the ball” message, male sender, child
T2_F_C: “Dropped the ball” message, female sender, child
T3_M_C: No reason message, male sender, child
T3_F_C: No reason message, female sender, child
We plan to have 2000 centers and 4500 centers in the first and second pilots.
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
Binary outcomes (reply yes/no):
With n=500 centers in each treatment arm (four arms total, N=2000), a two-sided α=0.05 and 80% power, the Minimum Detectable Effect (MDE) for arm-to-arm comparisons is approximately 7–9 percentage points depending on the true baseline reply rate
For example, if the baseline reply rate is 20%, the MDE is ~7.1pp; if 30%, ~8.1pp; if 40%, ~8.7pp; if 50%, ~8.9pp.
These minimum detectable effects are appropriate for a pilot; the full-scale experiment will be powered to detect smaller effects once expanded.
|
After
See pre-analysis plan for power calculation details
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
The main intervention is whether US daycare centers respond differently to inquiries from fictitious parents depending on (a) how the message frames the childcare request (unexpected relocation vs. “we dropped the ball”) and (b) whether the sender is a mother or a father. This is a 2×2 between-subject factorial design.
In addition, at the daycare-center level, 50% of centers are randomly assigned to receive a follow-up email 5 days later (if no reply has been received). This serves as a randomized encouragement to respond and is independent of the content of the original message. We can use this as an instrument for selection into receiving any response from a center. Two weeks after the original email is sent, we will send an email informing the center that alternative childcare arrangements have been made and we no longer need their assistance.
All details of email wording, sender identities, domains, and procedures are documented in the protocol and Pre-Analysis Plan (PAP).
|
After
The main intervention is whether US daycare and eldercare centers respond differently to inquiries from fictitious parents or children depending on (a) how the message frames the request (unexpected daycare closing or caregiver moving vs. “we dropped the ball” vs. no framing) (b) whether the sender is male or female and (c) whether the sender is a single parent or not in the case of childcare. This is a 2×6 between-subject factorial design.
In addition, at the daycare and eldercare-center level, the time and day of the week that each email is sent is randomized. We can use this time and day variation as an instrument for selection into receiving any response from a center. About 23.5 hours after any response from a childcare or eldercare center is received, we will send a response email informing the center that alternative arrangements have been made and we no longer need their assistance. For any facility that has not responded after two weeks of receiving an initial email, we will send an email informing them that “We have made other arrangements.”
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
· ReplyLatency: Continuous measure of time to reply (in hours or days) from when the email was sent. This is the primary definition for latency and will be used in all main analyses.
· Tone / sentiment of response.
· Length of reply (word/character count).
. Content: Measures based on the content of the response (e.g. offer to schedule a tour/appointment, provision of alternative options or helpful resources, etc.
Note on robustness: While the primary definition of ReplyLatency is continuous, for robustness and interpretability we may also categorize response time into bins (e.g., within 1 day, within 7 days, or before/after the 5-day encouragement follow-up).
|
After
· ReplyLatency: Continuous measure of time to reply (in hours or days) from when the email was sent. This is the primary definition for latency and will be used in all main analyses.
· Tone / sentiment of response.
· Length of reply (word/character count).
. Content: Measures based on the content of the response (e.g. offer to schedule a tour/appointment, provision of alternative options or helpful resources, etc.)
Note on robustness: While the primary definition of ReplyLatency is continuous, for robustness and interpretability we may also categorize response time into bins (e.g., within 1 day, within 7 days).
|