Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

165
comparison group where the share is only 41.5 per cent. Those on SYETP spent more
time prior to June 1984 unemployed (72.4 per cent) than did those in the comparison
group (62 per cent).
Comparison of columns1 and 2 of Table 5.4 shows the impact of the sample reduction on
the difference between the treatment and comparison group characteristics. The effects of
the sample reduction lead some characteristics of the treated and comparison profiles to
diverge further, while the effect of the sample reduction on other features make the
treated and comparison groups more similar in profile. The change in gender composition
of the SYETP group results in raising the difference between the treated and the
comparison gender composition. Raising the share of those with year 12 in the SYETP
leads to a marked increase in the difference between the treated and comparison for this
aspect. The reduction in the proportion whose mother was not employed amongst the
SYETP, also leads to a heightened difference between the treated and the control for this
feature. On the other hand, the fall in the share of those with year 10 in the SYETP results
in the profile of the treated and the comparison groups being very similar for this. For
some other traits, the overall effect is a reduction in the divergence between the treated
and comparison, these include the proportion that held a job of less than one year, the
average proportion of time spent in unemployment prior to June 1984, the share observed
with employment in 1986 and the share observed in a government programme in 1986.