Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

88
participant, were excluded from the employment equation and included in the
participation equation. Additionally, some variables such as marital status were 1984
dated in the participation equation but updated to 1985/6 values for the employment
equation. Employment was any non-subsidised post-programme period employment.
Additional variables that were included in both the SYETP and employment models were
sex, children in 1984, children interacted with sex, ethnicity, State of residence in 1984,
marital status, education: school type, year left school, post-school qualifications; initial
labour market experience: duration of longest job to 1984 reference period; past
programme participation, pre-programme unemployment in the year to reference period,
health problems affecting work, attitude to women working and attitude interacted with
sex, parental education and occupation, number of siblings, English skills, spousal
employment in 1984, parental education and occupation, religion, urban/rural/overseas
residence before aged 14.
The bivariate probit results gave a negative correlation coefficient and Wald tests of the
correlation coefficient rejected the hypothesis that the errors of the employment and
participation equations were uncorrelated. The comparison for the bivariate probit to the
univariate probits showed a strong difference in the measured employment effects. The
marginal effects of SYETP on post-programme employment were calculated to give
positive employment effects of SYETP participants over non-participants of 26 per cent
in 1986 and 20 per cent in 1987 (Richardson (1998): 11). To examine retention of
subsidised jobs, the modelling was repeated for employment in 1987 and the sample was
limited to exclude those in the treatment or comparison groups who were continuously in
a job from the 1984/5 reference period until the 1986 interview. It was noted that similar
shares of the SYETP and comparison groups were excluded. The results were similar to
those found from the first bivariate probit model. The marginal effect calculated for this
equation showed again a positive employment effect for SYETP participants over the
comparisons of 23.7 per cent (Richardson (1998): 12). Retention was concluded to be
important, but not the only source of positive post-programme employment effects for
SYETP participants. Table 2.21 summarises the employment effects found for
Richardson (1998).