Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

90
An advantage over earlier SYETP analyses is that the comparison group was nonparticipants
rather than participants in other programmes. This allows the more pertinent
question for evaluation to be asked: instead of whether the programme was effective
relative to another programme to whether the programme was effective in improving
post-programme employment in an absolute sense compared to non-participants.
Retention in the post-programme job is addressed through sample selection for those
where continuous employment to the end of 1986 was not the case. This has potential to
introduce the need to further model the selection process of retention or tenure in the one
job, as it may be endogenous. Essentially, it selects a sample with short tenure jobs, and
durations are censored at 1986. This might introduce other difficulties related to duration
modelling and censoring of spells too. Richardson (1998), in relation to concerns for the
sample reduction, examines the means of the retained amongst the treated and
comparisons, and the effect on size of the treated sample against that of the comparisons.
The conclusion of no bias problems relies on the observation that the retained are a
similar share of treated and of comparisons, and that the proportion of SYETP before and
after sample reduction is the same. This examination is more related to balance of the
retention characteristic in the treated and comparison groups than whether retention is
related to participation in SYETP.