Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

82
SYETP at 53.6 per cent, 45.6 per cent for repeat SYETP and 52.4 per cent for extended
SYETP. A small share between 5-6 per cent was in part time employment. Fulltimeemployment
prior to SYETP was lower for SYETP Private at 52 per cent, so before
controlling for individual characteristics they were more likely to hold a job after than
before the programme (Baker (1984) p16, Tables A4 and 5.1). For other SYETP, post
programme employment was lower or the same.
A probit model of response to the survey was found to indicate response bias might be
present. 55 The various programme dummies were significant in modelling response,
where response was a full response with no missing items. The post-programme full-time
employment outcome was modelled using a variable with 3 categories: continuous
employment, including those retained in the job and those who left after the subsidy but
got a job within a month; non-continuous employment, including those retained in the job
for only 1 month after subsidy expiry but who later lost it by the survey date, and those
who left after the subsidy and took longer than one month to find a job; no employment,
including unemployed, education or other states of not in the labour force. This variable
combined holding a job since the programme and the durability of the jobs held since
programme, as well as the job search success, to perhaps to reflect employability. Table
2.18 shows the distribution of this variable for the various SYETP. It can be seen for
example, that the continuous full-time work category for SYETP private is much lower at
41.1 per cent than the share in employment at interview (60.6 per cent). However, about
80 per cent of SYETP private participants had held some full-time employment.
The employment variable with three categories (no employment, continuous and noncontinuous
employment) was then modelled as an ordered probit, as if it were count data.
The selection process onto programme participation was not modelled. However, the
ordered employment probit was adjusted for non-response using the Heckman model. To
adjust for non-response, the non-response model was used “…to estimate a correction
factor LAMBDA…included as an additional independent variable”, and this variable was
55 Baker (1984) p49 Table A11 Variables included age, sex, unemployment (weeks in 52 week year before
program entry), multiple program participation, dismissal, voluntary withdrawal, 10 program dummies with
SYETP private as Base, state dummies. State dummies were not statistically significant.