Please fill out this short user survey of only 3 questions in order to help us improve the site. We appreciate your feedback!
CRS Youth Ambassador Peace Building Program in Northern Ghana
Last registered on June 18, 2018


Trial Information
General Information
CRS Youth Ambassador Peace Building Program in Northern Ghana
Initial registration date
June 08, 2018
Last updated
June 18, 2018 4:41 PM EDT
Primary Investigator
University of Notre Dame
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
University of Notre Dame
PI Affiliation
University of Tampa
Additional Trial Information
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
This research project explores the impact of Catholic Relief Services peace-building activities in Northern Ghana with a particular emphasis on their Youth Ambassador Program. We ask: what was the effect of CRS 2016 Peacebuilding activities on social cohesion, youth participation, and violence reduction? Secondly we explore trust and social cohesion across various social division: ethnicity, youth/elder, gender, and farmer/herder groups. We employ surveys and experimental games as well as interviews and focus group with stakeholders in 21 program-affected communities and 21 matched pair locations. We note that this study was not conducted as an RCT and that we are building control communities post hoc. Due to some intervention activities - like radio broadcast - it is possible that control communities may have been exposed to some aspects of the treatment.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Bleck, Jaimie, Kevin Fridy and Paul Friesen. 2018. "CRS Youth Ambassador Peace Building Program in Northern Ghana." AEA RCT Registry. June 18. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3056-1.0.
Former Citation
Bleck, Jaimie et al. 2018. "CRS Youth Ambassador Peace Building Program in Northern Ghana." AEA RCT Registry. June 18. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3056/history/30954.
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details
The research hopes to uncover whether communities with stakeholders who participated in the youth ambassador training program exhibit: a) higher levels of social cohesion b) greater participation by and incorporation of youth and c) reduced levels of violence during the 2016 elections.

We also seek to understand existing social divisions including ethnicity, generational differences, gender, and occupational differences. Specifically, we are interested in cleavages among youth (those 35 and under) and older citizens (over 35) -in terms of attitudes, political preferences, participation patterns sense of inclusion, social trust, and inclusion. We use a trust game and a task game to try to assess how young vs. old citizens play (trust and task force) and also how people play (trust games) when they have partners that are old vs. young.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
anticipate youth (those under 35) will express:
H1: lower levels of internal and external efficacy
H2: lower levels of belonging with their community
H3: lower levels of political participation in formal politics (voting, campaigning, contacting and official)

We anticipate treated areas will exhibit:
H4: higher levels of social cohesion and trust
H5: greater youth participation
H6: lower levels of electoral violence

We explore existing youth/elder cleavages with experimental games and anticipate:
H7: higher interethnic trust among people under 30
H8: youth (those under 35) will be more likely to choose young task force members than those playing who are over 35
H9: youth (those under 35) will be more likely to choose women as task force members than those who are over 35
H10: youth are more likely to choose people of a different ethnic group than those who are over 35
H11: task force teams composed by youth will perform better than those composed by people over 35
H12: task force teams composed by youth will be less likely to include family members

We hope to provide CRS with an evaluation of their violence prevention and Youth Ambassador training program in Northern Ghana. Further, we hope to inform their broader strategic planning around social inclusion by providing baseline data on social cleavages and generational differences in terms of participation in those cleavages.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
We will be conducting surveys of 40 people at 36 sites (half had CRS intervention). Among the 40 people – 36 will play a trust game (measuring trust and trustworthiness) and 4 will play a task force game. The trust games are designed to measure trust and trustworthiness. The task force game is designed to measure favoritism and perceptions of skill/merit of others. Additionally, we will interview a youth leader, religious authorities, and a traditional leader at each site.

Sites were selected since they are home to one or more Youth Ambassadors Trained by CRS. Matching sites will be chosen from a list of potential sites (where there was a previous history of electoral violence) and to match characteristics of the sites that host Ambassadors. At each site, we will determine a “catchment area” around the Youth Ambassador’s neighborhood or a comparable location in the control sites. Then 40 respondents will be selected at random, using a quota sample to ensure that we have adequate variation on “old” (over 30) and “young” (under 30) respondents as well as equal numbers of women and men.

Among the 40 respondents, 4 (2 old and 2 young) will be selected at random for the task force game. The remaining 36 respondents will play a trust game (the protocol is included in the attachments).

CRS will provide contact information of the Youth Ambassador, traditional leader (where relevant), and religious authorities so that we can conduct qualitative interviews or focus groups with them. We anticipate conducting focus groups with youth and interviews with elders.

The research will be conducted by Jaimie Bleck, Kevin Fridy, and Paul Friesen along with approximately 40 youth from Northern Ghana trained as research assistants. We anticipate the survey and game will take approximately 45 minutes or less. The qualitative interviews/focus groups should take less than 2 hours. The data will be collected using tables (for the surveys and games) and recorded to be later transcribed (for the qualitative interviews). We only anticipate one visit per respondent.

Body of Evidence

We anticipate doing the following:
36 Youth Leader interviews
36 Religious Authorities Interview
36 Traditional Leader Interviews
1440 survey respondents
144 Taskforce games (720 participants)
756 Trust Games (1,512)

We have generated a list of sites based on the location of Youth Peace Ambassadors (N=18) as well as 18 control sites that are matched with treated sites based on the following characteristics: existing levels of electoral violence, ethnic composition, population size, and geographic area.

We will use CRS list of youth ambassadors to locate their homes as the basis of the sampling unit. For control areas, we will try to determine a youth leader who could have been selected for participation in the program and then similarly use their homes to generate a sampling unit.

We will draw a catchment area around Youth Peace Ambassador’s house using enumeration area maps (exact unit to be defined pending maps). We will then use a random walk procedure to sample households. In each household, we will use a quota sample –alternating whether we ask for all members 18-30 or over 30 – and from this list we will randomly select respondents using playing cards (respondent pulling the highest card is interviewed). If respondents selected are not home; we will return to the household site twice before selecting a replacement household.

Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Random walk procedure starting from school closest to youth Ambassador's house or control school. Within household, type of respondents (over/under 35 and male or female) selected using handheld device randomized through qualtrics. Then all household members with selected characteristics were assigned a playing card and highest number was the respondent. For player Bs, we used similar randomization - but used treatment to determine whether we needed to specify (over/under 35).
Randomization Unit
18 sites determined by location of 1 or more youth ambassadors. We picked the school closest to their home and used to begin random walk patterns; 18 matched control sites were also selected. Then household selection was randomized with the walk and individuals were selected via randomization described above.

Note that the initial intervention was not administered in a randomized fashion - so all assessments of the treatment need to be done using a post-hoc matching process.
Was the treatment clustered?
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
36 sites
Sample size: planned number of observations
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB Name
University of Notre Dame IRB
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Is the intervention completed?
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
Program Files
Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials
Relevant Paper(s)