Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

80
who completed job-based programmes and were not retained to those who left early to no
job. The results of this model were held to show that of those who withdrew early
without a job to go to, those who began job-based programmes had higher probability of
employment than those in EPUY. Overall, it was concluded SYETP and GTA had better
employment outcomes than EPUY. Although this was the conclusion, the size of the
employment effects for these programmes were not calculated but were instead inferred,
with conclusions drawn from the positive and statistically significant coefficients from
the SYETP and GTA regressions.
Stretton (1984) did not have a control group. Instead, participation in one programme was
compared to participation in another programme by including dummies. The main
disadvantage to this is that it alters the evaluation question from whether the programme
was effective in improving post-programme employment in an absolute sense, to the
relative issue of whether the programme was effective compared to another programme.
The participation in different programmes, which was included as right hand side
variables, might be endogenous. The various programme participations are not modelled
and this introduces the problem of selection bias. No adjustment for non-response is
made, although the potential presence is briefly treated. The investigation of retention
holds a number of problems. EPUY remained in the first model as the base, and yet postprogramme
employer retention was impossible for this education programme. The
dummies to reflect completion combined completion with all the programme types, and
are not ideally constructed. The construction is problematic as retention rates varied by
programme, as well as completion rates, and the length of each programme was very
different. In discussion Stretton points out that two thirds of EPUY participants left early
to start a job, but then of these 40 per cent started an SYETP job. This indicates that in
the second retention model the ‘leaving early to a job’ is really a type of EPUY-SYETP
programme combination. That less than 5 per cent of SYETP or GTA programme
participants left early indicates the base would be very small. Bases for the regressions
are not shown in the results presented so this cannot be assessed. In concluding, Stretton
pointed out that non-response bias could also play a role in the ‘early leaver’ analysis.