Proportion compliant for 34.9 32.1 2.90 first 30 days (n=58) (n=52) (p=0.59) 2.9 Proportion compliant for 18.7 17.9 all 60 days (n=31) (n=29) (p=0.86) Control % Treatment -average –average Treatment vs Control Outcome Measure compliance (95% % compliance (95% (p confidence interval) confidence interval) Proportion of days 72.1 67.7 p=0.24 compliant over 30 days (66.9 to 77.3) (62.4 to 73.0) Proportion of days 67.6 66.6 p=0.76 compliant over 60 days (63.1 to 72.1) (62.1 to 71.2) Table 4.3 Median payment made quantile regression – – Median payment $ Difference from control group p-value (95% confidence interval) Control 9,938 Control group 543 Prompt email (treatment) 10,481 0.96 (-18,403 to 19,489) Note: Results presented are from the quantile regression model. Table 4.4 calls to the ATO whether or not a call was made – – % called Difference from control p-value (95% confidence interval) Control 34.9 3.4 Prompt (treatment) 38.3 0.53 (-7.2 to 13.8)
Proportion compliant for first 30 days 34.9 (n=58) 32.1 (n=52) 2.90 (p=0.59) Proportion compliant for all 60 days 18.7 (n=31) 17.9 (n=29) 2.9 (p=0.86) Outcome Measure Control –average % compliance (95% confidence interval) Treatment -average % compliance (95% confidence interval) Treatment vs Control (p Proportion of days compliant over 30 days 72.1 (66.9 to 77.3) 67.7 (62.4 to 73.0) p=0.24 Proportion of days compliant over 60 days 67.6 (63.1 to 72.1) 66.6 (62.1 to 71.2) p=0.76 Table 4.3 – Median payment made – quantile regression Median payment $ Difference from control group (95% confidence interval) p-value Control 9,938 Control group Prompt email (treatment) 10,481 543 (-18,403 to 19,489) 0.96 Note: Results presented are from the quantile regression model. Table 4.4 – calls to the ATO – whether or not a call was made % called Difference from control (95% confidence interval) p-value Control 34.9 Prompt (treatment) 38.3 3.4 (-7.2 to 13.8) 0.53
report-improved-compliance-deferred-gst.docx