Please fill out this short user survey of only 3 questions in order to help us improve the site. We appreciate your feedback!
Child-led Social Accountability
Last registered on June 16, 2019


Trial Information
General Information
Child-led Social Accountability
Initial registration date
June 22, 2018
Last updated
June 16, 2019 1:03 AM EDT
Primary Investigator
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
BRAC International
Additional Trial Information
On going
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
How to hold education and health service providers accountable for the quality of services they deliver, and how to empower service users to voice their concerns, is a question relevant across all contexts. A collaboration of three NGOs in Bangladesh has been piloting an innovative approach to achieve this objective. The child-led social accountability (CLSA) approach involves organising and informing groups of children to monitor quality of services provided at education and health facilities, hold discussions with service providers to determine actions to address their concerns, and follow up on progress against the agreed actions. This study evaluates the impact of the CLSA approach.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Dixit, Akshay and Sulaiman Munshi. 2019. "Child-led Social Accountability." AEA RCT Registry. June 16. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3105-5.0.
Former Citation
Dixit, Akshay, Akshay Dixit and Sulaiman Munshi. 2019. "Child-led Social Accountability." AEA RCT Registry. June 16. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3105/history/48131.
Experimental Details
The overall objective of the Child-led Social Accountability (CLSA) project is to contribute to the realization of children’s rights to health and education through increased accountability and responsiveness of primary health and education service delivery in Bangladesh.
The specific objective is to design and test a child led social accountability framework, to improve the accountability and responsiveness of primary health and education improved service delivery.

The following activities were envisaged to achieve the above objectives:
I. Stakeholder mobilization
This component involves introducing the project to the key “audience” (including local government officials and representatives, service providers, youth, and children) and encouraging them to participate.

II. Service assessments & Interface
i. Information: Children are informed of their rights and entitlements, with a focus on those specific to education and health.
ii. Social accountability tools: Children, service providers, and local government representatives co-design social accountability tools to monitor service delivery

III. Accountability for service improvement
i. Action Plans: Children discuss their issues with service providers, and children and service providers agree on certain actions that providers will take to improve the quality of service delivery
ii. Follow-up on Action Plans: Children follow-up on the progress against the Action Plan.
iii. Refresher information sessions for children
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
1. Access to health/education services for deprived groups of children
2. Quality of health/education service delivery
3. Children's wellbeing (health, education and protection outcomes)
4. Children's agency
5. Children's democratic values
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Quality of service delivery - Facility infrastructure; Presence & functionality of feedback mechanism; Provider effort/engagement; Children’s perceptions of quality
Children's Agency - Grit scale; Locus of Control scale
Democratic Values - Political Communication; Political Awareness; Democratic Agency; Tolerance
See pre-analysis plan for a full description.
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The experimental design involves two arms:
1. Treatment - Including all components described in the intervention section.
2. Comparison - Including the stakeholder mobilization component, and the information aspect of the service assessments component.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
The 62 education/health facilities were randomly assigned to the two experimental arms via paired random assignment.
Further, the group of participating children in the treatment group was randomly divided into 3 groups of approximately equal size for each facility. This randomization was stratified by age (younger/older than the median age), gender, and whether the child’s guardian completed at least primary school.
Was the treatment clustered?
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
62 facilities (including 36 schools and 26 health facilities)
Sample size: planned number of observations
2861 children
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
31 facilities (18 education+13 health) treatment, 31 facilities (18 education+13 health) comparison
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
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information
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)