Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...
Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ... Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...
50 Table 2.4 SYETP rates, period and target group/eligibility criteria 1976-December 1985 Date of change Age Subsidy Rate $ per week Max weeks of subsidy Eligible group of unemployed CES registrants Unemployment benefit rate October 1976 15-17 58 26 15-19 school leavers 36 18-19 58 26 41.25 November 1976 15-17 59 26 All 15-19 at least 6 of last 12 36 18-19 59 26 months not in fulltime education 43.50 August 1977 15-17 63 26 All 15-24 at least 6 of last 12 36 18-24 63 26 months not in fulltime education 47.10 October 1977 15-17 66 26 All 15-24 at least 4 of last 12 36 18-24 66 26 months not in fulltime education 49.30 August 1978 15-17 45 17 No change 36 18-24 45 17 51.45 November 1978 15-17 50 17 No change 36 18-24 50 17 51.45 April 1980 15-17 50 17 No change but if unemployed for 36 18-24 50 17 4 months continuously after 51.45 SYETP then eligible for a second SYETP placement November 1980 15-17 55 17 No change but for ex-STWTP 24 36 18-24 55 17 participants who were then 53.45 immediately eligible for a SYETP placement February 1981 15-17 55 standard rate 17 Extended SYETP introduced for 36 18-24 18-24 55 standard rate 80 extended 17 First 17 of 34 18-24 unemployed at least 8 of last 12 months; with 2 periods of 17 weeks, the first at the higher 53.45 53.45 ‘extended SYETP’ rate and the second 17 weeks at the standard rate. August 1982 15-17 75 standard rate 17 No change 36 18-24 75 standard rate 17 58.10 August 1983 18-24 100 extended First 17 of 34 58.10 15-17 75 standard rate 17 No change to eligibility, but start 40 18-24 100 standard rate 17 of age tiers to subsidy 68.65 18-24 75 extended First 17 of 34 68.65 August 1984- 15-17 50 standard rate 17 No change to eligibility 45 December 1985 18-19 75 standard rate 17 78.60 20-24 100 standard rate 17 78.60 18-19 50 extended First 17 of 34 45 20-24 75 extended First 17 of 34 78.60 Source: Ross (1988) p39 Table 4. The benefit rate is in $ per week. Notes: The SYETP became part of Jobstart from January 1986. This table relates to private SYETP rates – Commonwealth SYETP mainly differed only in that the employer received the full wage costs for the subsidy period. However see section 2.2.3 for other differences to private SYETP. 24 School to Work Transition Program. This was a program made up of pre-employment education and training transition courses in Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institutes – courses generally of 12 weeks or up to 52 weeks full-time. From October 1980 STWTP was supported by a ‘transition allowance’, but until then participants were not eligible for unemployment benefit (Kesteven (1987): 57).
51 2.2.3 SYETP operation Earlier references to SYETP explained it in various ways. SYETP was initially described as a training programme that was part of the National Employment and Training System (NEAT 25 ), in a 1980 information pamphlet for CES services and Manpower Programmes (DEYA (1980)). In 1982 SYETP was listed amongst manpower programmes as a work experience programme, which was part of the Youth Training Programmes, with the following remit: “The work experience programme helps employers (both private and Commonwealth) take on young people who have found it difficult to get stable employment because they lack the required experience and qualifications by providing a subsidy for their employment.” (Paterson (1982) Appendix 1, p3). However, research documenting the programmes pointed out that the SYETP was essentially a wage subsidy to employers to take on unemployed young people (BLMR (1983): 2). In this same research, SYETP was also defined as a ‘work experience programme’. Yet the real emphasis was never on training. In 1984 programme conditions for employers included the development of a training plan for the new employee, however this seems the greatest extent of training under SYETP. Smith (1983) pointed out that this training plan could cover normal orientation for new employees. Thus it was a fairly straightforward employment subsidy programme with no real training provisions attached. In a submission to the OECD, the department in charge of administering manpower programmes described SYETP as “…one of the major programmes designed to improve access to and equity in the labour market”, one of two together with the job creation programme CEP (Community Employment Programme). It was further described as “…aimed at improving the employability of longer-term unemployed young people aged 25 An active labour market ‘umbrella’ program, NEAT consisted of a mixture of separate training and wage subsidy programs.
- Page 15 and 16: xv Abstract The job subsidy Special
- Page 17 and 18: 1 1: Wage subsidy theory and evalua
- Page 19 and 20: 3 programs of providing benefits an
- Page 21 and 22: 5 The empirical methods used for th
- Page 23 and 24: 7 how the outcomes from these metho
- Page 25 and 26: 9 employment effect could be mainly
- Page 27 and 28: 11 Real Wage Employment Figure 1.1:
- Page 29 and 30: 13 are two types of unemployment, s
- Page 31 and 32: 15 Real wages are predetermined whe
- Page 33 and 34: 17 Vella (1998), Heckman, Lalonde a
- Page 35 and 36: 19 Each individual has two potentia
- Page 37 and 38: 21 this case, if there was no data
- Page 39 and 40: 23 correlation for the error of the
- Page 41 and 42: 25 Table 1.3 collects together some
- Page 43 and 44: 27 Table 1.3 Brief overview of rece
- Page 45 and 46: 29 necessarily brief. Then, the evi
- Page 47 and 48: 31 limited applications, such as fo
- Page 49 and 50: 33 who participated. It was conclud
- Page 51 and 52: 35 term unemployed for over 12 of t
- Page 53 and 54: 37 importance of the subsidy second
- Page 55 and 56: 39 differences in characteristics t
- Page 57 and 58: 41 Matching methods are theoretical
- Page 59 and 60: 43 2.2 SYETP implementation As SYET
- Page 61 and 62: 45 In July1978, the subsidy was cal
- Page 63 and 64: 47 In January 1979, variations were
- Page 65: 49 benefits were paid at a slightly
- Page 69 and 70: 53 ceiling constraints’ applied t
- Page 71 and 72: 55 Award Conditions for employment
- Page 73 and 74: 57 Harris (2001) claims that during
- Page 75 and 76: 59 display boards listed details of
- Page 77 and 78: 61 restriction was used. If there w
- Page 79 and 80: 63 to the end of the 1980’s. An o
- Page 81 and 82: 65 for teens overall had risen, emp
- Page 83 and 84: 67 for Australia using data from th
- Page 85 and 86: 69 training, can provide a form of
- Page 87 and 88: 71 employer survey estimates were t
- Page 89 and 90: 73 provisions for SYETP and extende
- Page 91 and 92: 75 withdrawals occurred at similar
- Page 93 and 94: 77 Table 2.17 State usage of progra
- Page 95 and 96: 79 2.3.1 Stretton (1982, 1984) 53 S
- Page 97 and 98: 81 Stretton attributed the success
- Page 99 and 100: 83 included in the employment model
- Page 101 and 102: 85 completers. Their argument was t
- Page 103 and 104: 87 was an issue for the data. Unlik
- Page 105 and 106: 89 Table 2.21 Richardson (1998) Est
- Page 107 and 108: 91 2.3.5 General discussion Some ge
- Page 109 and 110: 93 Controlling for differences in i
- Page 111 and 112: 95 taken by a previous researcher a
- Page 113 and 114: 97 If employability is assumed to b
- Page 115 and 116: 99 suitability of the underlying as
50<br />
Table 2.4 SYETP rates, period and target group/eligibility criteria 1976-December 1985<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> change Age <strong>Subsidy</strong> Rate<br />
$ per week<br />
Max weeks<br />
<strong>of</strong> subsidy<br />
Eligible group <strong>of</strong> unemployed<br />
CES registrants<br />
Unemployment<br />
benefit rate<br />
October 1976 15-17 58 26 15-19 school leavers<br />
36<br />
18-19 58 26<br />
41.25<br />
November 1976 15-17 59 26 All 15-19 at least 6 <strong>of</strong> last 12 36<br />
18-19 59 26<br />
months not in fulltime education 43.50<br />
August 1977 15-17 63 26 All 15-24 at least 6 <strong>of</strong> last 12 36<br />
18-24 63 26<br />
months not in fulltime education 47.10<br />
October 1977 15-17 66 26 All 15-24 at least 4 <strong>of</strong> last 12 36<br />
18-24 66 26<br />
months not in fulltime education 49.30<br />
August 1978 15-17 45 17 No change<br />
36<br />
18-24 45 17<br />
51.45<br />
November 1978 15-17 50 17 No change<br />
36<br />
18-24 50 17<br />
51.45<br />
April 1980 15-17 50 17 No change but if unemployed for 36<br />
18-24 50 17<br />
4 months continuously after 51.45<br />
SYETP <strong>the</strong>n eligible for a second<br />
SYETP placement<br />
November 1980 15-17 55 17 No change but for ex-STWTP 24 36<br />
18-24 55 17<br />
participants who were <strong>the</strong>n 53.45<br />
immediately eligible for a SYETP<br />
placement<br />
February 1981 15-17 55 standard rate 17 Extended SYETP introduced for 36<br />
18-24<br />
18-24<br />
55 standard rate<br />
80 extended<br />
17<br />
First 17 <strong>of</strong> 34<br />
18-24 unemployed at least 8 <strong>of</strong><br />
last 12 months; with 2 periods <strong>of</strong><br />
17 weeks, <strong>the</strong> first at <strong>the</strong> higher<br />
53.45<br />
53.45<br />
‘extended SYETP’ rate and <strong>the</strong><br />
second 17 weeks at <strong>the</strong> standard<br />
rate.<br />
August 1982 15-17 75 standard rate 17 No change<br />
36<br />
18-24 75 standard rate 17 58.10<br />
August 1983<br />
18-24 100 extended First 17 <strong>of</strong> 34<br />
58.10<br />
15-17 75 standard rate 17 No change to eligibility, but start 40<br />
18-24 100 standard rate 17 <strong>of</strong> age tiers to subsidy<br />
68.65<br />
18-24 75 extended First 17 <strong>of</strong> 34<br />
68.65<br />
August 1984- 15-17 50 standard rate 17 No change to eligibility<br />
45<br />
December 1985 18-19 75 standard rate 17 78.60<br />
20-24 100 standard rate 17 78.60<br />
18-19 50 extended First 17 <strong>of</strong> 34 45<br />
20-24 75 extended First 17 <strong>of</strong> 34<br />
78.60<br />
Source: Ross (1988) p39 Table 4. The benefit rate is in $ per week.<br />
Notes: The SYETP became part <strong>of</strong> Jobstart from January 1986. This table relates to private SYETP rates –<br />
Commonwealth SYETP mainly differed only in that <strong>the</strong> employer received <strong>the</strong> full wage costs for <strong>the</strong><br />
subsidy period. However see section 2.2.3 for o<strong>the</strong>r differences to private SYETP.<br />
24 School to Work Transition Program. This was a program made up <strong>of</strong> pre-employment education and<br />
training transition courses in Technical and Fur<strong>the</strong>r Education (TAFE) institutes – courses generally <strong>of</strong> 12<br />
weeks or up to 52 weeks full-time. From October 1980 STWTP was supported by a ‘transition allowance’,<br />
but until <strong>the</strong>n participants were not eligible for unemployment benefit (Kesteven (1987): 57).