National Evaluation of the 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Program: Characteristics of 

Workers Eligible Under the 

2002 TAA Program and Their 

Early Program Experiences 

Final Report 

April 2010 

Sarah Dolfin 

Jillian Berk 

 
Contract Number: 

AK-13690-04-30 

Mathematica Reference Number: 

6066-521 

Submitted to: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration 

Room N-5637 

200 Constitution Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20210 

Project Officer: Charlotte Schifferes 

Submitted by: 

Mathematica Policy Research 

(Subcontractor) 

P.O. Box 2393 

Princeton, NJ 08543-2393 

Telephone: (609) 799-3535 

Facsimile: (609) 799-0005 

Prime Contractor: 

Social Policy Research Associates 

1330 Broadway, Suite 1426 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Project Director: Ron D'Amico (SPR) 

Principal Investigators: 

Ron D'Amico 

Peter Z. Schochet 

National Evaluation of the Trade 

Adjustment Assistance Program: 

Characteristics of Workers Eligible Under 

the 2002 TAA Program and Their Early 

Program Experiences 

Final Report 

April 2010 

Sarah Dolfin 

Jillian Berk 

This report has been funded, either wholly or 

in part, with Federal funds from the U.S. 

Department of Labor (USDOL), Employment 

and Training Administration (ETA), Office of 

Policy Development and Research (OPDR) 

under Contract Number DOLJ61A20358. The 

report has been edited by OPDR. The 

contents of this publication do not 

necessarily reflect the views or policies of the 

Department of Labor, nor does mention of 

trade names, commercial products, or 

organizations imply endorsement of same by 

the U.S. Government. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 ii 

CONTENTS

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... iv

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

II.    KEY FEATURES OF THE TAA PROGRAM ........................................................... 2

A. Eligibility Process ..................................................................................... 2

B. Services Provided by TAA ......................................................................... 2

C. Services Provided by WIA to TAA Eligible Workers .................................... 3

D. Changes to TAA Through the 2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act .................................................................................... 4

III.    DATA AND METHODS .................................................................................... 6

A. Sample .................................................................................................... 6

B. Survey ..................................................................................................... 7

C. Methods .................................................................................................. 8

IV.    DESCRIPTION OF TAA ELIGIBLE SAMPLE ....................................................... 10

A. Comparison of TAA Eligible Workers and Other Displaced Workers ........ 10

B. Participation in TAA and TRA ................................................................. 16

C. Comparison of TAA Participants and Nonparticipants ............................ 19

V.    LEARNING ABOUT TAA ................................................................................. 23

A. Notification about TAA Eligibility and Services ....................................... 23

B. Knowledge of TAA Benefits .................................................................... 27
 Mathematica Policy Research

iii 

CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

VI.    APPLYING FOR TAA ...................................................................................... 31

A. Reasons for Application ......................................................................... 31

B. Reasons for Not Applying ...................................................................... 33

VII.    RECEIPT OF REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES ......................................................... 37

A. Receipt of WIA-Related Services ............................................................. 37

B. Receipt of HCTC Benefits ....................................................................... 42

C. Receipt of ATAA Benefits ....................................................................... 48

D. Receipt of Training ................................................................................ 51

VIII.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 67

REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 69

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................ A1

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................. B1
 Mathematica Policy Research

iv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I. Introduction 

The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program supports manufacturing workers who have 

suffered a trade-related job loss by providing compensation and reemployment services to help them 

adjust to changes in market circumstances. First introduced in 1962 to facilitate the passage of free 

trade legislation, this federal program has undergone several reforms that expanded benefits and 

eligibility, including those introduced by the 2002 Trade Act and the 2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA). In fiscal year 2008, almost $260 million in funding was distributed and 

42,000 new participants received program services. 

The Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, funded by the U.S. Department 

of Labor (USDOL), is designed to assess the effectiveness of the TAA program as it operated under 

the 2002 amendments in improving the labor market outcomes of eligible manufacturing workers. 

This quasi-experimental study will estimate program impacts by comparing TAA eligible workers 

who filed for Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits to a comparison group of UI claimants in the 

manufacturing sector living in the same local areas who were not eligible for the program. 

Nationally representative treatment samples will ensure that the estimates can be generalized to the 

entire TAA eligible population. Two telephone surveys of the worker samples, one conducted in 

2008-2009 and a second planned for 24 months later, will provide data on employment-related 

outcomes and receipt of reemployment services, including TAA benefits, as well as demographic 

information. 

The purpose of this report is to better understand the characteristics of the population eligible 

for the 2002 provisions of TAA and its members’ experiences with the program. A descriptive 

analysis of survey data from the sample of TAA eligible workers, including both participants and 

nonparticipants, enables us to examine participation rates as well as reasons for participation and 

nonparticipation. The report provides information that will help us interpret program impact 

estimates in the future; it will also provide policymakers with information that can be used to assess 

and improve program implementation. 

II. Key Features of the TAA Program 

The main benefits provided by the TAA program under the 2002 amendments include 

subsidized training and extended Unemployment Insurance (UI) payments called Trade 

Readjustment Allowances (TRA) for up to 104 weeks (130 weeks if remedial training is needed), 

coverage of 65 percent of health insurance premiums through the Health Coverage Tax Credit 

(HCTC), and wage subsidies for workers over age 50 who find a full-time job with earnings of 

$50,000 a year or less through Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). Other benefits 

offered by TAA include job search and relocation allowances for workers who look for and find 

work in another area, and supplemental assistance payments for expenses associated with attending 

training in another area. 

In addition to the services provided by the TAA program, Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 

core and intensive services are also available to all TAA eligible workers, as they are to all other UI 

claimants. These services include job listings and other information on the labor market and 

information about training services; workshops on resume writing and interviewing; assessments of 

skills, aptitudes, and interests; determination of eligibility for programs; group and individual 
 Mathematica Policy Research

v 

counseling; and job development and placement. The TAA program requires that these services be 

made available to trade-affected workers and encourages co-enrollment with WIA. 

Current program entrants face a different set of rules. Changes introduced by the 2009 ARRA 

expanded eligibility and services for workers covered by petitions filed on or after May 18, 2009. 

Thus the findings in this paper do not necessarily pertain to the current population of TAA eligible 

workers. 

III. Data and Methods 

The analysis uses survey data from a nationally representative sample of TAA eligible workers. 

The nationally representative sample of workers who are eligible for the TAA program as it operated 

under the 2002 amendments was selected using a two-stage, stratified sample design. In the first 

stage, 26 states were randomly selected in geographic strata with probabilities proportional to the 

expected number of TAA participants in the state. These 26 states, all of which agreed to participate 

in the study, contained approximately 90 percent of the TAA eligible population (see Schochet 

2009). In the second stage, we selected a sample of workers who were laid off from TAA certified 

firms in each state and also subsequently received a first UI payment. The sample frame consisted 

of claimants in state UI claims data files who also appeared on lists of covered workers that certified 

firms provided to the states. 

We specified a one-year window in which workers’ firms were certified (that is, approved) for 

TAA to ensure that the sample was eligible for TAA services after the full implementation of all the 

2002 reforms (which took effect in August 2003) and that the analysis would not be affected by 

seasonal layoff patterns. To ensure worker eligibility for TAA, we further restricted the sample to 

workers laid off during the specific time period covered by the petition. Given the time required to 

collect and process UI claims data from states in order to begin interviewing in March 2008, 

however, the sample of 2,860 workers does not cover the full post-certification coverage period. 

Instead, the sample covers 17 months of the 24-month post-certification period for the average 

petition; on average, eligible workers in the sample were laid off between September 1, 2004, and 

January 31, 2008. Supplemental analysis suggests that this sample is largely representative of tradeaffected workers in our certified-worker universe (Schochet 2009). 

Our sample includes both TAA participants and nonparticipants. Participants include those 

who received any core TAA services: TRA, TAA-funded training, HCTC, or ATAA. 

Nonparticipants are TAA eligible workers who had not received any of these services at the time of 

the baseline interview. However, some of these nonparticipants may receive TAA or other 

reemployment services subsequently. 

The survey asks about program experiences and service receipt since the UI claim date that is 

associated with (and is a proxy for) the trade-related job separation. There are three important 

caveats to note. First, the survey is not conducted at the time of the UI claim but rather 28 months 

afterwards on average. Second, some services, especially training, could still be in progress at the 

time of the interview or may not yet have been received. Finally, the UI claim date associated with 

the trade-related job separation is not necessarily the date at which workers became eligible for 

TAA. Some services reported in this analysis, including reemployment services, may have been 

received before workers obtained eligibility. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

vi 

Descriptive statistics on eligible workers’ characteristics and their experiences with the TAA 

program are computed for TAA eligible workers, TAA participants, TAA nonparticipants, and 

worker subgroups as appropriate. All statistics are calculated using sample weights so that the 

estimates can be generalized to eligible workers in the intended study population. Any differences 

discussed are statistically significant, unless otherwise indicated. Table ES.1 presents key findings 

from the analysis. 

It is important to emphasize that comparisons between participants and nonparticipants should 

not be interpreted as impacts of the TAA program. Participation was not randomly assigned but 

determined as a result of individual choice. Differences between these groups instead reflect 

differences between the populations who do and do not choose to participate. 

IV. Description of TAA Eligible Sample 

Prior to the TAA eligibility expansion in the 2009 ARRA, the TAA program supported 

manufacturing workers who had suffered a trade-related job loss (results not shown in Table ES.1). 

These workers tended to differ from other displaced manufacturing workers. TAA eligible workers 

tended to be full-time workers with long-term employment at their previous job. On average, TAA 

eligible workers had been with their former employer for 13 years. They had relatively high-paying 

positions with generous employment benefits that typically included health insurance, paid 

vacations, paid holidays, and a retirement pension benefit. Most lost their position when their plant 

closed or moved, and few expected to be recalled. Unlike many layoffs in the manufacturing sector, 

most TAA eligible workers were faced with a permanent job loss. 

The characteristics of the TAA eligible population highlight the challenges that these displaced 

workers faced as they tried to find new employment of similar quality. They had long tenure at their 

former employer and likely developed a specialized set of non-transferrable skills. The TAA eligible 

workers were also older and less educated than other workers looking for employment. Moreover, 

local job opportunities may be limited as TAA eligible workers were more likely to live in nonmetropolitan areas and areas with lower average earnings. 

The services offered by the TAA program appealed to many eligible workers. We find that half 

of TAA eligible workers participated in the program. Virtually all TAA participants received TRA 

(98 percent). TAA participation rates were higher among females, older workers, and workers with 

less education (Figure ES.1), although differences based on age are significant only after regression 

adjustment. 

V. Learning about TAA 

The 2002 Trade Act requires state outreach to eligible workers in two specific ways: through the 

provision of Rapid Response services after a TAA petition has been filed and sending letters to 

workers to notify them of their potential eligibility after a petition has been certified. In many 

respects, this outreach seems successful. More than 80 percent of TAA participants and 65 percent 

of nonparticipants reported receiving Rapid Response services. A similar share of participants 

reported receiving a letter about their TAA eligibility. A majority of participants, but not 

nonparticipants, attended a TAA orientation (79 percent and 45 percent). Substantial fractions of 

both participants and nonparticipants were knowledgeable about particular benefits available to 

them under TAA, but notification and knowledge were more common among TAA participants. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

vii 

Table ES.1. Key Measures of Receipt of Reemployment Services (Percentages Unless Noted) 

Mean of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants 

Notification about TAA 

Received Rapid Response services following job loss 83.1*** 65.6 

Received a letter from the state 79.9*** 57.0 

Attended TAA orientation or met with TAA representative 79.1*** 45.2 

Knowledge of Available TAA Benefits 

Subsidized training 90.1*** 59.8 

HCTC 58.1*** 26.1 

ATAA 57.2*** 38.5 

All Reasons Why Applied for TAA 

Interested in training/schooling 65.2 n.a. 

Interested in TRA benefits 25.5 n.a. 

All Reasons Why Did Not Apply for TAA 

Got a job n.a. 36.1 

Lack of information n.a. 37.7 

Wasn’t interested in training n.a. 10.4 

Receipt of WIA-Related Reemployment Services 

Received any reemployment services 93.9*** 72.7 

Received all seven key services and any counseling 18.7*** 6.0 

Services were helpful in finding a job 66.1*** 50.1 

Services were helpful in finding suitable education or 

employment program 70.4*** 47.4 

Receipt of HCTC 

Applied for HCTC (among those with knowledge of 

benefit) 28.3*** 8.0 

Received HCTC (among HCTC applicants) 83.0 n.a. 

Main reason did not apply for HCTC: too expensive 36.2*** 14.3 

Main reason did not apply for HCTC: already had health 

plan 30.9** 42.6 

Receipt of ATAA 

Applied for ATAA (among those with knowledge of 

benefit) 13.2 14.2 

Received ATAA (among ATAA applicants) 53.9 n.a. 

All reasons did not apply for ATAA: could not find job 31.2*** 15.5 

All reasons did not apply for ATAA: wanted training 28.6*** 0.0 

Receipt of Traininga

Received any training after layoff 59.8*** 14.0 

Weeks of training (average) 30.2*** 18.9 

Hours of training per week (average) 23.9 20.7 

Completed any training program after layoff 80.0 78.4 

Sample Size 2,228 632 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. 

a

Data pertain to all training programs enrolled in during the 12 months following the determination of TAA 

eligibility. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is significantly different from zero 

at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

n.a. = Not applicable. 

ATAA = Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; HCTC = Health Coverage Tax Credit; TAA = Trade 

Adjustment Assistance; TRA = Trade Readjustment Allowances; WIA = Workforce Investment Act. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Figure ES.1. Participation in TAA among Eligible Workers 

Sample size is 2,860. 

VI. Applying for TAA 

The most common reason for applying for TAA among TAA participants was an interest in 

training (65 percent). Interest in training greatly exceeded interest in receiving TRA benefits (26 

percent), particularly among younger workers. Among education subgroups, eligible workers with 

the lowest and highest levels of education were least interested in training. 

The most common reason that TAA nonparticipants did not apply for TAA services was that 

they had found a job (36 percent). Lack of information about the program or the application 

process was another common reason for not applying (38 percent in total). A small share of 

workers did not apply because they were not interested in training (10 percent). 

VII. Receipt of Reemployment Services 

Receipt of WIA-Related Reemployment Services. The TAA program aims to help 

participants obtain rapid, suitable employment by delivering TAA services through One Stop Career 

Centers and thus facilitating linkages with other reemployment services such as WIA. Nearly all 

TAA participants (94 percent) received at least one reemployment service. A substantial proportion 

reported taking advantage of all seven key WIA-related services the survey asked about as well as 

counseling (19 percent). TAA participants were more likely than nonparticipants to use WIA-related 

services (except job search and relocation allowances). Most participants found the services they 

received to be “very helpful” or “moderately helpful” in finding a job (66 percent) or in identifying a 

suitable education or training program (70 percent); nonparticipants did not find the services as 

helpful in finding employment or training (50 percent and 47 percent, respectively). 

viii 
 Mathematica Policy Research

ix 

Receipt of HCTC Benefits. Nearly 60 percent of TAA participants knew about HCTC 

benefits at the time of the survey. Among TAA participants who knew about HCTC, 28 percent 

applied for HCTC and 83 percent of these applicants received the benefit, representing 14 percent 

of TAA participants and 7 percent of all TAA eligible workers. HCTC recipients received $1,150 on 

average, compared with the $1,610 they spent out of pocket in the past 12 months. The most 

commonly reported reasons for not applying for HCTC benefits were that the program was too 

expensive or that the respondent already had health coverage. Among TAA participants who knew 

about HCTC, 36 percent cited cost as the main reason they did not apply, whereas 31 percent 

reported that they already had health coverage. For those who had coverage, it was usually provided 

through their spouse’s employer rather than through a government program (like Medicare, 

Medicaid, or S-CHIP) or a former employer. Few cited problems related to the program itself, like 

complicated rules or excessive paperwork, as the main reason they did not apply. 

Receipt of ATAA Benefits. Almost 60 percent of TAA eligible workers age 50 and over were 

informed about ATAA. Among these workers, 13 percent applied for ATAA and 54 percent of 

these applicants received the benefit, receiving $8,600 on average; this represents about 4 percent of 

TAA participants age 50 and over. The most common reason given by TAA participants for not 

applying was that the worker could not find a job (31 percent); another common reason was that the 

worker wanted to enroll in training (29 percent). Some reasons for not applying indicate problems 

accessing program services. Ten percent did not understand the program, and 11 percent missed 

the application deadline. 

Receipt of Training. Consistent with their primary reason for participation, TAA participants 

received more training than nonparticipants. During the 12 months following the determination of 

TAA eligibility, 60 percent of TAA participants enrolled in training, compared to 14 percent of 

nonparticipants. TAA participants attended training for an average of 30 weeks and spent 24 hours 

per week in training. While 80 percent of enrolled participants had completed a training program 

during this period, 28 percent were still enrolled in a program at the time of the survey. 

TAA participant and nonparticipant trainees were most likely to enroll in training for a skill or 

occupation; trainees most commonly received their training at a two-year college. Among 

participants, types and locations of training varied depending on whether the main program was 

funded by TAA. TAA-funded training was more commonly for a skill or occupation or for a twoyear community college program and was more likely to be received at a two-year college or 

vocational training center. In contrast, training not funded by TAA was more likely to be for a 

GED, ESL courses, or noncredit adult education and was more likely to be received at an adult high 

school or night school, One-Stop Career Center, or private company. TAA-funded programs 

tended to be more expensive than programs funded by other sources, but participants paid a smaller 

portion of the costs. 

The most common reason given by TAA participants for not enrolling in training was that they 

were not interested (45 percent), though a sizeable proportion said that they got a job (20 percent). 

A small proportion of workers cited barriers to enrollment, including cost, unavailability of training, 

and ineligibility, as a reason for not enrolling. 

Subgroup Findings. There were some notable differences in service receipt depending on 

workers’ demographic groups and program experiences. Females were more likely than males to 

participate in TAA, and among participants, they were more likely to receive HCTC and training. 

Older workers were more likely to participate in TAA than younger workers but were less likely to 
 Mathematica Policy Research

x 

enroll in training, consistent with differences in these workers’ reasons for applying for TAA. 

Workers with different levels of completed education selected different training programs; among 

trainees funded by TAA, high school dropouts were more likely to enroll in GED or ESL programs, 

while those with a high school diploma or some college were more likely to enroll in two-year 

community college programs. In addition, workers who were notified about TAA through Rapid 

Response services, a state letter, or an orientation were more likely to know about available TAA 

services and receive WIA-related employment services. 

VIII. Conclusions 

These findings on TAA eligible workers’ profiles, receipt of services, and experiences with the 

program can help guide policymakers in assessing and improving the implementation of the TAA 

program as the 2009 program amendments are put into place. As ARRA expands eligibility for 

TAA and increases the accessibility and flexibility of benefits, it may lead to greater rates of service 

receipt among eligible workers. Findings from this report suggest that the changes to HCTC and 

ATAA in particular may lead to increases in rates of application for these benefits by addressing 

some concerns that discouraged workers in our sample from applying. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program supports workers who have suffered a traderelated job loss by providing compensation and reemployment services to help them adjust to 

changes in market circumstances. First introduced in 1962 to facilitate the passage of free trade 

legislation, this federal program has undergone several reforms that expanded benefits and eligibility, 

including those introduced by the 2002 Trade Act and the 2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA). In fiscal year 2008, almost $260 million in funding was distributed and 

42,000 new participants received program services. 

The Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, funded by the U.S. Department 

of Labor (USDOL), is designed to assess the effectiveness of the 2002 amendments to the TAA 

program in improving the labor market outcomes of eligible manufacturing workers. This quasiexperimental study will estimate program impacts by comparing TAA eligible workers who filed for 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits to a comparison group of UI claimants in the manufacturing 

sector living in the same local areas who were not eligible for the program. Nationally representative 

treatment samples will ensure that the estimates can be generalized to the entire TAA eligible 

population. Two telephone surveys of the worker samples, one conducted in 2008-2009 and a 

second planned for 24 months later, will provide data on employment-related outcomes and receipt 

of reemployment services, including TAA benefits, as well as demographic information. Additional 

earnings and employment information will be collected from UI wage records. 

The purpose of this report is to better understand the characteristics of the population eligible 

for the 2002 TAA provisions and their experiences with the program. A descriptive analysis of the 

sample of TAA eligible workers, including both those who decided to participate in the program and 

those who did not, enables us to examine participation rates as well as reasons for participation and 

nonparticipation. For this analysis, we use detailed survey data reported by TAA eligible workers 

rather than administrative program records and do not seek to compare data from the two sources. 

The findings illustrate the types and intensity of the use of TAA and other services among TAA 

eligible workers. This will help us interpret program impact estimates in the future because impacts 

are only expected if the treatment group received services through the TAA program. The analysis 

will also provide policymakers with information that can be used to assess and improve program 

implementation. Understanding reasons why eligible workers participate or not, how they use 

services, and differences in service receipt across worker subgroups can help them determine 

whether services are being provided as intended. 

The remainder of the report is organized as follows. Section II describes key features of the 

TAA program, including the eligibility process and available benefits. Section III discusses data and 

methods. The subsequent sections present findings from the analysis. Section IV describes the 

sample of TAA eligible workers, including participants and nonparticipants. Sections V and VI 

present results on how eligible workers learned about TAA and their reasons for applying or not 

applying, respectively. Section VII presents findings on the receipt of services, including Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) services, Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC), Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (ATAA), and training. Section VIII concludes. 

 
 Mathematica Policy Research

2 

 

II. KEY FEATURES OF THE TAA PROGRAM 

The TAA program following the 2002 amendments provides benefits to manufacturing workers 

who lose their jobs or experience reductions in working hours for trade-related reasons. Broadly 

speaking, these reasons include a shift of production to certain foreign countries (excluding China 

and India) or increased competition from imports. The amendments reflected an increased focus on 

early intervention, upfront assessment, and reemployment services. The following sections outline 

key features of the TAA program during this period and before ARRA, the focus of this report. We 

discuss the process to determine eligibility for TAA and the benefits that workers may receive, 

including those provided by the TAA program and by WIA. This background is presented to 

provide a context for the descriptive analysis of the use of these services; more detailed information 

may be found in D’Amico et al. (2007). By way of comparison, we then outline key changes to the 

program introduced through the 2009 ARRA. 

A. Eligibility Process 

Worker eligibility for TAA is determined through a two-step process. First, groups of workers 

at a firm or their representatives file a petition with the Employment and Training Administration of 

USDOL. A determination is made within 40 days. If a petition is certified (that is, approved) for 

TAA, individual workers covered by the petition are notified of their potential eligibility to receive 

TAA benefits and services. Covered workers are those who are laid off or experience reductions in 

working hours within one year before the petition filing date and up to two years after the petition 

approval date (the “impact period”). These workers are eligible to receive TAA services but must 

first submit individual applications for approval. In the second step, workers apply for TAA 

reemployment services and TRA benefits (which require workers to satisfy additional eligibility 

criteria, as described below) using a single joint application. 

B. Services Provided by TAA 

The main benefits provided by the TAA program include subsidized training and extended UI 

payments called Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA); partial compensation for health coverage 

through the HCTC; and for workers over age 50, wage subsidies through ATAA. These benefits are 

described below. 

Training. TAA subsidizes the cost of “training” for up to two years.1

 Approved training 

options include occupational training and education programs, remedial education (such as GED or 

English as a Second Language courses), and on-the-job training. The 2002 Trade Act increased 

funding for training from $110 million to $220 million. 

TRA. Weekly TRA payments are intended to support workers enrolled in training programs. 

Following the exhaustion of their UI benefits, eligible workers who experienced a job separation 

within the defined impact period may receive these payments as long as they meet certain other 

criteria. Specifically, the workers must have had 26 weeks of work with the certified employer in the 

1 While some states required that workers select providers from state-approved training providers on the Eligible 

Training Provider List (ETPL), most states recommended but did not require that providers be chosen from these lists 

(see D’Amico et al. 2007). 
 Mathematica Policy Research

3 

52 weeks before job separation and must either enroll in training or receive a waiver from training 

within the later of 8 weeks after certification or 16 weeks after job separation (with 45 days for 

extenuating circumstances). TRA benefits include up to 52 weeks of basic TRA; that is, once 

workers have exhausted UI benefits (which generally last 26 weeks, or more if extended benefits are 

in effect), they receive TRA benefits until week 52. However, participants can receive 52 weeks of 

additional TRA so long as they are in training. Moreover, TRA benefits can be extended up to 26 

weeks further for participants enrolled in remedial education. Thus regular training can be 

supported for up to 104 weeks and up to 130 weeks if remedial training is needed. Trainees can 

continue to receive TRA payments during breaks in training of less than 30 days (not including 

weekends and holidays). Because training typically is long term, and because some workers do not 

begin training until their UI benefits have expired, the TRA payments might end before workers 

have completed training. 

ATAA. As investments to retrain older workers—both the workers’ own investment of time 

and effort and the government’s investment in expenditures—may not pay off before such workers 

retire, the TAA legislation established ATAA, which pays a wage supplement to encourage rapid 

reemployment. ATAA is available to workers who are at least 50 years old, who are covered by a 

petition for which ATAA was submitted and certified, and who find a full-time job within 26 weeks 

of job separation from a new employer at earnings that do not exceed $50,000 a year. The wage 

supplement is 50 percent of the difference between the worker’s pre-dislocation wage and postdislocation wage, up to a maximum of $10,000 over a two-year period. Workers who receive ATAA 

cannot receive TRA, training, or job search allowances, but they can receive HCTC and relocation 

allowances (which offset the costs of moving to take a job in another area). 

HCTC. HCTC is a tax credit covering 65 percent of the cost of health coverage for the 

individual and qualified family members (generally the spouse and dependents, for IRS purposes). 

TAA eligible workers can obtain health insurance by continuing their former coverage if available 

through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), by contributing 

to a spouse’s plan (so long as the employer does not pay more than 50 percent of the premium), by 

buying coverage through state qualified health plans (usually state high-risk pool plans), or by using 

individually purchased coverage that the worker has had for 30 days or more prior to job separation. 

Workers can claim the credit when filing their tax returns; alternatively, it can be paid in advance as 

premiums become due. HCTC is only available to those individuals who receive TRA benefits (or 

would be eligible to receive them if they had exhausted UI), a waiver from training, or ATAA. 

Other benefits offered by TAA include job search and relocation allowances for workers who 

look for and find work in another area, and supplemental assistance payments for subsistence and 

transportation expenses associated with attending training in another area. Job search allowances 

cover 90 percent of allowable costs up to $1,250 while relocation allowances cover 90 percent of 

costs up to the statutory limit for federal employees and provide a lump sum payment of up to 

$1,250. 

C. Services Provided by WIA to TAA Eligible Workers 

In addition to the services provided by the TAA program, WIA core and intensive services are 

also available to all TAA eligible workers, as to all other UI claimants. The 2002 TAA program 

amendments require that these services be made accessible and encourage co-enrollment of TAA 

participants in WIA to ensure that participants are offered the full array of services that could help 

them find appropriate training or employment. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

4 

WIA funded core services are for individuals age 18 or over, although youth under age 18 may 

access core services by using Wagner-Peyser funds. Many core services can be accessed by 

customers without staff assistance either in the resource room at the One-Stop Career Center or 

remotely via the internet. These self-assisted offerings include job listings and other information on 

the labor market (such as lists of high-demand occupations); information on services provided via 

WIA and other programs; information on WIA providers; internet access; computer software for 

assessments and resume writing; and access to telephones, fax machines, and copy machines. Other 

core services require some staff assistance. These include workshops on resume writing and 

interviewing; initial assessments of skills, aptitudes, and interests; determination of eligibility for 

programs; help in contacting an employer; and information about training services. 

Intensive services are available to customers who are unable to obtain employment with the 

help of core services alone. The determination of the need for intensive services is made by OneStop Career Center staff. The services include comprehensive and specialized assessments; help in 

developing an individual employment plan (IES); group and individual counseling; placement in 

work experience and internships; job development and placement; and short-term prevocational 

services, such as works skills development. Some services, such as workshops, may be considered 

either core or intensive, depending on their length. 

D. Changes to TAA Through the 2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act 

This paper analyzes the characteristics and TAA program experiences of a nationally 

representative sample of TAA eligible workers covered under the 2002 amendments to the program. 

However, current program entrants face an updated set of rules. Changes introduced by the 2009 

ARRA expanded eligibility and services for workers covered by petitions filed on or after May 18, 

2009. Eligibility was expanded to service and public sector workers in addition to manufacturing 

workers and those affected by trade with any countries rather than only those countries with which 

the U.S. has a free trade agreement. Services were broadened and made more accessible. 

Specifically, important changes to key services include the following: 

• The deadline to enroll in training was extended to the later of 26 weeks after either layoff 

or certification, rather than the later of 8 weeks after certification and 16 weeks after 

layoff. Certified workers may begin training before the layoff occurs, rather than waiting 

until afterwards. Allowable training options have been extended from full-time only to 

include part-time training. Funding for training was increased to $575 million a year. 

• The amount of time for which TRA payments can be received was increased by 26 

weeks, from 104 weeks to 130 weeks for workers enrolled in full-time training and from 

130 weeks to 156 weeks for workers also enrolled in remedial training. 

• The percent of health insurance premiums covered by HCTC was increased from 65 

percent to 80 percent. (This change went into effect in May 2009 for all workers, 

regardless of certification date.) 

• ATAA, now known as Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance (RTAA), no longer 

requires a deadline for reemployment. The maximum allowable annual earnings level at 

the new job was increased from $50,000 to $55,000 and the maximum wage supplement 

from $10,000 to $12,000. Workers participating in RTAA, unlike ATAA, are allowed to 

enroll in TAA-approved training. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

5 

• The amounts of job search and relocation allowances were increased. Job search 

allowances now cover 100 percent of allowable costs up to $1,500 (rather than 90 

percent of costs up to $1,250) while relocation allowances now cover 100 percent (rather 

than 90 percent) of costs up to the statutory limit for federal employees and provide a 

lump-sum payment of up to $1,500 (rather than $1,250). 

Thus the findings in this paper do not necessarily pertain to the current population of TAA 

eligible workers. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

6 

III. DATA AND METHODS 

The analysis uses survey data from a nationally representative sample of workers who were 

eligible for TAA as it operated under the 2002 amendments. The following sections describe the 

sample, survey, and analytical methods; more details are available in Schochet (2009). 

A. Sample 

The sample of workers who are eligible for TAA was selected using a two-stage, stratified 

sample design. In the first stage, 26 states were randomly selected in geographic strata with 

probabilities proportional to the expected number of TAA participants in the state. These 26 states, 

all of which agreed to participate in the study, contained approximately 90 percent of the TAA 

eligible population (see Schochet 2009). In the second stage, we selected a sample of workers who 

were laid off from TAA certified firms in each state during the period covered by certification and 

who subsequently received a first UI payment. The sample frame consisted of claimants in state UI 

claims data files who also appeared on lists of covered workers that certified firms provided to the 

states. The use of UI claims data ensured that the TAA eligible workers and the comparison group 

for the impact analysis were drawn from the same population. Workers were age 16–80 and living 

in the state at the time of their UI claim. 

The sample was restricted to eligible workers experiencing trade-related layoffs from firms 

whose petitions were certified during the one-year period from November 1, 2005, to October 31, 

2006. We specified this one-year certification window to ensure that the sample was eligible for 

TAA services after the full implementation of all the 2002 reforms (which took effect in August 

2003) and that the analysis would not be affected by seasonal layoff patterns. 

In order to be covered by the certification and hence eligible for TAA, workers had to have 

been laid off during the impact period: between one year prior to the petition filing date and two 

years after the petition certification date. Thus our sample includes eligible workers who were laid 

off between September 1, 2004, and October 31, 2008. 

 However, while the sample covers the full pre-certification period, it does not include the full 

post-certification coverage period. As the sample consists of UI claimants, it was necessary to 

collect UI claims data from each of the states in the study. This data was provided at different times 

throughout 2008. Since most states provided data on all workers receiving a first UI payment from 

the first quarter of 2004 to the most recent quarter that UI records were available, the data coverage 

period differs somewhat across states. The period covers through part of 2007 for 22 of the 26 

states. Thus, the sample covers 17 months of the 24 month post-certification period for the average 

petition and at least 12 months after the petition certification date for three-quarters of the petitions. 

Using UI claim and petition data, we found that about 90 percent of trade-affected workers filed for 

UI either before or within 12 months after their certification date. This suggests that our sample is 

largely representative of trade-affected workers in our certified-worker universe (Schochet 2009). 

Our sample includes both TAA participants and nonparticipants. Participants include those 

who received any core TAA services: TRA, TAA-funded training, HCTC, or ATAA. 

Nonparticipants are TAA eligible workers who had not received any of these services at the time of 

the baseline interview. However, some of these nonparticipants may receive TAA or other 

reemployment services subsequently. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

7 

 

B. Survey 

The Baseline Survey was administered by telephone to the 4,381 TAA eligible workers in our 

sample. Using telephone numbers and contact information reported in the UI claims data and 

certified worker lists, sample members were contacted for interviews between March 2008 and April 

2009. Post-response incentive payment checks of $25 for TAA participants and $25 or $50 for 

nonparticipants were mailed to respondents in order to enhance response rates.2 The overall 

response rate among TAA eligible workers was 65.3 percent, with TAA participants responding at 

higher rates than nonparticipants (68.7 percent versus 58.8 percent). The respondent sample 

includes 2,860 TAA eligible workers: 2,228 TAA participants and 632 nonparticipants. See Schochet 

(2009) for a detailed description of the survey design and administration. Because respondents and 

nonrespondents differ, we used sample weights in our analysis to help reduce the potential bias due 

to interview nonresponse. 

The survey questionnaire includes a battery of questions about workers’ experiences with the 

TAA program and their demographic and labor market backgrounds. Questions ask about whether 

and how workers learned about TAA and other benefits; whether and why they applied or did not 

apply for benefits; whether they received WIA-related reemployment services, TRA payments, 

HCTC benefits, ATAA benefits, or training; and the characteristics of the training programs they 

attended. Information was also collected on pre- and post-claim employment and income, 

demographic characteristics, and mobility. 

The survey asks about experiences since the UI claim date that is associated with (and is a proxy 

for) the trade-related job separation. There are three important caveats to note. First, the recall 

period varies. The survey is not conducted at the time of the UI claim but rather about 28 months 

afterwards on average (27.5 months among TAA participants and 28.3 months among 

nonparticipants). This lag ranges from about 4.5 months to almost 50 months after the UI claim 

date; only 1.6 percent of the respondent sample is interviewed less than a year after the claim and 

67.1 percent is interviewed more than two years after the claim. Second, some services, especially 

training, could still be in progress at the time of the interview or may not yet have been received. 

Thus, this report reflects initial rather than long-term experiences with TAA. 

Finally, the UI claim date associated with the trade-related job separation is not necessarily the 

date at which workers became eligible for TAA. As discussed above, workers who are eligible for 

TAA may have been laid off before their firm’s petition was certified. Those displaced before 

certification may not become eligible for TAA until more than a year following their dislocation. In 

our sample of TAA eligible respondents, more than 54 percent were displaced before certification, 

though only about 14 percent were displaced more than six months before certification. Thus, some 

services reported in this analysis, including reemployment services, may have been received before 

workers obtained eligibility. 

2 The incentive payment to TAA nonparticipants was increased from $25 to $50 partway through the survey 

administration period in an effort to boost response rates for this group, which were lower than response rates among 

participants. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

8 

C. Methods 

 Baseline survey data for TAA eligible workers are used to examine these workers’ characteristics 

and their experiences with the TAA program. Descriptive statistics are computed for TAA eligible 

workers, TAA participants, and TAA nonparticipants as appropriate. The statistics presented 

include means as well as percentiles of the distributions of selected key measures. All statistics are 

calculated using sample weights so that the estimates can be generalized to eligible workers in the 

intended study population. Any differences discussed are statistically significant, unless otherwise 

indicated. Statistical tests account for design effects due to state-level clustering and weighting. 

Construction of the weights to account for design effects and survey nonresponse is discussed in 

Schochet (2009). Tables and figures are presented at the end of each subsection. Appendix A 

displays estimated standard errors and item response rates for selected measures of service receipt. 

Subgroup analyses are conducted to help us understand variation in service receipt. The 

subgroups examined are based on the following types of worker characteristics. 

• Demographic characteristics: gender, race and ethnicity, age, education, marital status, 

self-reported health status, whether English is spoken at home, and USDOL Region 

• Job market characteristics: union membership, employer size, wage at previous job, 

expectation of recall to employer 

• Program experiences: receipt of Rapid Response services, receipt of an eligibility letter 

from the state, attendance at a TAA orientation, knowledge that TAA provides 

subsidized training 

In general, the subgroups analyzed were selected because they are likely to relate to service 

receipt. For instance, older workers may be less interested in training for a new occupation, while 

the type of training chosen may depend on a worker’s level of education. Regional labor market 

differences may create a need for certain types of services. Worker subgroups based on program 

experiences are important because the ways in which workers are notified about TAA benefits may 

be associated with their take-up of these benefits. 

As it is not infeasible to present estimates of all the items in the report for all the subgroups, 

our approach is to present means of selected measures of service receipt for the full set of 

subgroups. Because subgroup characteristics may be correlated, we also compute regression 

adjusted means to isolate important subgroup differences while holding other characteristics 

constant. Adjusted means were estimated using sample weights and logit models of service receipt 

where explanatory variables included the full set of demographic and job market characteristics (see 

Schochet 2009). The unadjusted and adjusted estimates are shown in Appendix B. We highlight 

interesting subgroup findings in more detail by including tables and figures in the body of the report 

that show a broad range of measures for selected subgroups. 

An advantage of using survey data for the analysis is that it reflects workers’ perceptions about 

the services they received, including their knowledge of services available, the reasons they applied 

for services, and whether they found those services to be helpful. However, by the same token, 

readers should recognize that these data do not necessarily reflect actions taken by employers or 

states to provide services. A reported lack of service receipt could be due to workers not taking up 

services offered or to incorrect recall. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

9 

Given the focus on worker knowledge, a distinctive feature of the analysis is the treatment of 

“don’t know” responses to survey questions. For some measures, in particular regarding receipt of a 

notification letter from the state in Table 8, these responses are meaningful, so they are included in a 

separate response category where appropriate. In other places, respondents answering “don’t 

know” to a question are treated in the same way as respondents answering “no.”

It is important to emphasize that comparisons between participants and nonparticipants should 

not be interpreted as impacts of the TAA program. Participation was not randomly assigned but 

determined as a result of individual choice. Differences between these groups instead could partly 

reflect differences between the populations who do and do not choose to participate. Impacts will 

be assessed in a future report comparing the TAA eligible workers with a comparison group. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

10 

 

IV. DESCRIPTION OF TAA ELIGIBLE SAMPLE 

This section describes the demographic, job market, and local area characteristics of displaced 

workers eligible for TAA services. We examine how TAA eligible workers compare to other 

displaced workers, analyze rates of participation in TAA, and compare the characteristics of TAA 

participants and nonparticipants. This descriptive analysis will help us more fully understand the 

workers who are served by the TAA program. The information presented will also guide us in 

defining subgroups that may be of policy interest and will provide a foundation for interpreting 

program impact estimates derived from follow-up interviews and administrative data. 

A. Comparison of TAA Eligible Workers and Other Displaced Workers 

We first compare the characteristics of TAA eligible workers with two other groups of 

displaced workers. The first is a national population of UI claimants in the manufacturing sector. 

The second comparison is to a national sample of UI claimants from all industries. We created both 

national samples using UI claims data from the 26 states included in the TAA study. Our samples 

include all claimants who started their UI benefit year between September 2004 and October 2008, 

closely mirroring the period in which the TAA eligible workers were laid off.3

Three data sources are used for this analysis: UI claims data, local area data, and baseline 

interview data. UI claims data and county-level local area data are available for both the TAA 

eligible worker sample and the other national samples of displaced workers, allowing for direct 

comparisons. These data contain information on workers’ recent employment histories, some 

demographic characteristics, and local labor market and population characteristics. Baseline 

interview data contain more detailed information to enrich our profile of the TAA eligible worker 

sample but are not available for the other national samples. 

UI claims data reveal differences between TAA eligible workers and other UI claimants. 

• About 46 percent of workers eligible for TAA services were female (Table 1). The 

TAA population contained a larger proportion of women than the broader population of 

manufacturing UI claimants, consistent with evidence that manufacturing sectors that 

employ women have been particularly affected by trade (Kletzer 2002). The TAA 

population also had more women than the national population of UI claimants, but the 

difference in the proportion female was smaller. 

• Nearly two-thirds of TAA eligible workers were white (Table 1). Nineteen percent 

of eligible workers were black and 10 percent were Hispanic. The racial composition of 

the TAA eligible population differs somewhat from the national samples of UI 

claimants, including more white and black workers and fewer Hispanic workers. 

• On average, TAA eligible workers were older than other UI claimants (Table 1). 

Whereas 50 percent of the national sample of UI claimants was 40 or younger, only a 

third of TAA eligible workers fell into this age group. Although manufacturing 

3 We do not conduct tests of statistical significance to compare these samples. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

11 

claimants were generally older than the average UI claimant, the TAA eligible workers 

were older still. 

• Most TAA eligible workers had finished high school, but only 25 percent had 

additional education (Table 1). Seventeen percent of eligible workers had not 

completed high school. Compared with a national population of the unemployed, the 

TAA population had less education. Although a slightly larger share of the unemployed 

had not finished high school (19 percent), many more had continued their education 

beyond high school, with 27 percent completing some college and 20 percent receiving a 

bachelor’s degree or higher. 

• While all TAA eligible workers were in the manufacturing sector, manufacturing 

workers accounted for only 18 percent of the national sample of UI claimants 

(Table 1). As discussed above, this is the population that the TAA program served 

prior to ARRA. 

• TAA eligible workers had higher average wages than other UI claimants (Table 

1). The wages of TAA eligible workers also exceeded the average earnings of UI 

claimants from manufacturing industries. One source of the difference in average wages 

is that TAA eligible workers were much less likely to be at the bottom of the wage 

distribution. Although 32 percent of UI claimants lost a job where they earned less than 

$15,000, only 12 percent of the TAA eligible workers fell into this category. 

• TAA eligible workers had fewer spells of recent unemployment (Table 1). More 

than 60 percent of the TAA eligible workers had only one record in the UI claims data 

states provided, generally starting in the first quarter of 2004 (see Schochet 2009). They 

were also half as likely to have had three or more claims. 

The baseline survey provides additional information about the pre-layoff labor market 

experiences of TAA eligible workers. The baseline survey includes questions on employment in the 

three years before the UI claim and information on the trade-related job separation. 

• TAA eligible workers had full-time positions on average (Table 2). They reported 

working an average of 44 hours per week. 

• Most TAA eligible workers reported generous employment benefits and one-third 

belonged to a union (Table 2). Almost all workers had jobs that offered health 

insurance, paid vacation, and paid holidays. Eighty percent of the eligible workers 

previously had access to an employer-provided retirement pension benefit. 

• Workers displaced by trade had long job tenure (Table 2). On average, workers had 

been with the company from which they were displaced for 12.6 years. In the last three 

years, workers had held 1.3 jobs. 

• The majority of eligible workers lost their position when their plant closed or moved 

(Table 2). Seventy-one percent of workers reported that they were laid off due to a 

closure or relocation. Another 26 percent were laid off when their position was 

eliminated or there was a shortage of work. The remaining four percent reported 

reasons for job loss that are not consistent with eligibility for the TAA program 

including quitting, retiring, and being fired. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

12 

• Seventeen percent of workers eligible for TAA services expected to be recalled to their 

prior jobs (Table 2). The relatively small share of workers who expected to be recalled is 

consistent with the program’s focus on workers displaced by trade. Temporary layoffs 

are common in manufacturing, with some estimates as high as 50 percent of layoffs 

(Katz and Meyer 1990), but workers eligible for TAA experienced a more permanent 

layoff. 

Although it is important to understand the demographic characteristics and labor market 

experiences of TAA eligible workers, it is also useful to compare the local labor market conditions 

these workers face with the average labor market conditions of a national sample of UI claimants. A 

comparison of TAA eligible workers with other UI claimants highlights the fact that workers eligible 

for TAA services live in different areas and likely face very different labor market conditions as they 

try to become reemployed. 

• TAA eligible workers lived in areas with lower average earnings (Table 3). 

Although TAA eligible workers had higher wages, on average, than other UI claimants, 

they lived in lower wage areas. This suggests that it may be particularly difficult for these 

workers to find new jobs at their previous wage levels without additional training. Local 

poverty rates were similar, however. 

• Like other manufacturing workers, TAA eligible workers came from areas with 

lower population growth (Table 3). This difference in population growth could also 

reflect differences in job growth. 

• Manufacturing workers and TAA eligible workers, in particular, were much less 

concentrated in metropolitan areas (Table 3). Whereas 54 percent of UI claimants 

lived in a metropolitan area of at least one million people, less than a third of TAA 

eligible workers resided in these large metropolitan areas. TAA eligible workers were 

twice as likely to live in small urban areas or rural areas that are adjacent to metropolitan 

areas. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

13 

Table 1. Characteristics of TAA Eligible Workers and National Samples (Percentages Unless Noted) 

Mean of Sample 

TAA Eligible 

Workers 

Unemployed 

Manufacturing 

Workers 

Unemployed 

Workers 

Demographic Characteristics 

Female 45.5 37.0 41.5 

Race/Ethnicity 

White Non-Hispanic 64.9 59.7 57.2 

Black Non-Hispanic 18.9 15.0 15.8 

Hispanic 10.1 13.8 16.3 

Other Race 6.0 11.2 10.7 

Age (Years) 

< = 40 33.0 42.3 49.8 

41 – 50 31.5 30.0 26.7 

51 – 60 27.2 22.1 17.6 

61 + 8.2 6.2 5.9 

Mean age 45.6 42.7 40.7 

Education 

Less than High School 16.8 a 19.3 b

High School Diploma or GED 58.0 34.3 

Associate’s Degree or Some College 17.3 26.5 

Bachelor’s Degree or Above 7.9 19.9 

Professional Background Related to Trade-Affected Employment 

Manufacturing Industry 100 100 18.0 

Base Period Wage for UI Claim 

< $ 15,000 11.9 20.7 31.9 

$ 15,000 –$ 19,999 11.8 12.3 12.8 

$ 20,000 –$ 29,999 26.7 25.8 21.2 

$ 30,000 –$ 39,999 19.1 17.1 13.9 

$ 40,000 –$ 59,999 20.7 14.7 12.6 

$ 60,000 + 9.7 9.4 7.7 

Mean Wage ($) 34,254 31,553 28,039 

Sample Size 2,860 2,865,519 17,534,256 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009, state UI claims data, and Labor 

Force Statistics from the 2005 Current Population Survey. 

Notes: Data for TAA Eligible Workers pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. 

Data for Unemployed Manufacturing Workers pertain to all manufacturing workers in state UI 

claims data files. Data for Unemployed Workers pertain to workers in the state UI claims data 

files. Unless noted, all data are from the state UI claims data files. Blank entries signify data 

were not available. 

a Data from the TAA Baseline Survey. 

b Data from the 2005 Current Population Survey. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; UI = Unemployment Insurance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

14 

Table 2. Characteristics of Job Associated with Trade-Related Separation Among TAA 

Eligible Workers (Percentages Unless Noted) 

Mean of Sample 

TAA Eligible Workers 

Number of Hours Worked Per Week 44.3 

Employer Size (Number of Employees) 530.0 

Union Member 32.7 

Employment Benefits 

Paid holidays 95.4 

Health insurance 92.7 

Paid vacation 91.9 

Retirement benefit 79.8 

Paid sick leave 52.9 

Job Tenure (Years) 12.6 

Number of Jobs In Prior 3 Years 1.3 

Reason Stopped Working 

Laid Off 95.1 

Plant closed or moved 70.8 

Job eliminated or lack of work 25.8 

Quit 1.8 

Retired 1.2 

Fired 0.8 

Other 1.1 

Expected to Be Recalled to Employer 16.7 

Sample Size 2,860 

Source: MPR TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Notes: Data for TAA Eligible Workers pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

15 

Table 3. Characteristics of TAA Eligible Workers and National Samples (Percentages 

Unless Noted) 

Mean of Sample 

TAA Eligible 

Workers 

Unemployed 

Manufacturing 

Workers 

Unemployed 

Workers 

Local Area Characteristics 

Average Earnings per Job in 2005a ($) 38,375 40,610 43,700 

Percentage of Workers in Manufacturinga 13.6 12.9 9.7 

Average Population Growth Rate Between 

2000 and 2005b

4.1 4.0 4.9 

Average Poverty Rate in 2004b

13.0 13.0 12.9 

Average Unemployment Rate in Year of 

Job Loss c

5.3 5.6 5.4 

Urban-Rural Categorization d

Metropolitan (Metro) area of at least 1 

million 31.9 39.5 54.4 

Metro area of less than 1 million 33.7 32.6 28.9 

Small area adjacent to metro area 26.1 21.6 12.6 

Small area not adjacent to metro area 8.3 6.4 4.2 

Sample Size 2,860 2,865,519 17,534,256 

Source: State UI claims data files and other sources noted below. 

Notes: Data for TAA Eligible Workers pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. 

Data for Unemployed Manufacturing Workers pertain to all manufacturing workers in state UI 

claims data files. Data for Unemployed Workers pertain to all workers in state UI claims data 

files. Local area characteristics were measured at the county level and matched to workers 

using the county of their zip code or the majority county if a zip code crossed county 

boundaries. 

a Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2005. 

b Bureau of the Census. 

c Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003-2006. 

d Economic Research Service, 2003. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; UI = Unemployment Insurance.
 Mathematica Policy Research

16 

B. Participation in TAA and TRA 

We defined TAA participation based on the receipt of any core TAA services: TRA, TAAfunded training, HCTC, or ATAA. One important caveat is that workers in our sample may still be 

eligible to take up certain TAA services, so the eventual participation rate may be higher. We report 

participation rates for the overall population and relevant subgroups defined by demographic and 

job market characteristics. Participation rates for additional subgroups including TAA program 

experiences are reported in Appendix B. 

• Among TAA eligible workers, the overall TAA participation rate was 50 percent 

(Table 4). Participation rates among eligible workers varied substantially across states 

from a 25th percentile of 41 percent to a 75th percentile of 66 percent. We explored 

possible associations between state participation rates and state-level characteristics that 

might affect the participation of eligible workers. In particular, we examined state 

characteristics that might have affected information that eligible workers received about 

the program as well as worker demand for TAA services. In states that have more 

experience with the TAA program, the notification process might be stronger or OneStop staff might be more experienced in describing TAA services. In states with better 

economic conditions, participation rates might be lower because it was easier to find a 

job. We found few significant associations between these state-level characteristics and 

state participation rates, although participation was higher in states where more 

respondents reported receiving Rapid Response services. In future work, we will 

consider other explanations for this variation including the completeness of state-level 

certified worker lists. 

• Among TAA participants, 98 percent received TRA (Table 4). This rate varied little 

across states. 

• Females had a higher TAA participation rate than males (Table 5). Whereas 57 

percent of eligible females participated, the participation rate for eligible males was 45 

percent. 

• College graduates participated in TAA at a lower rate than eligible workers with 

lower levels of completed education (Table 5). Only 36 percent of eligible college 

graduates participated whereas the participation rate for all other education groups 

exceeded 49 percent. 

• Eligible workers who lost their job because their company closed or their plant 

moved had higher rates of TAA participation than eligible workers who lost their 

job for other reasons (Table B.1). The Rapid Response services that follow company 

closures or plant movements may have increased the participation rate of these eligible 

workers.

• Eligible workers who expected to be recalled by the employer had a lower 

participation rate (Table B.1). If workers expected their job loss to be temporary, 

they may have been less interested in the job training offered through TAA. 

Because demographic and employment subgroup characteristics may be correlated, we use 

regression adjustment to isolate important subgroup differences holding other characteristics 

constant. Although the adjustment affected the estimated rates of participation in TAA discussed 
 Mathematica Policy Research

17 

above, it did not change these findings in a qualitative way. However, regression adjustment did 

yield some additional interesting findings. 

• Worker race/ethnicity was not a significant predictor of TAA participation after 

controlling for other factors (Table B.2). Unadjusted participation rates differed by 

race/ethnicity, but these differences were driven by differences in other characteristics 

between race and ethnicity groups. 

• TAA participation rates increased with age (Table B.2). Participation rates were the 

highest for eligible workers who were 61 and older (68 percent). Unadjusted 

participation rates did not differ across age subgroups, implying that differences in rates 

related to the demographic and job market characteristics of these subgroups masked 

differences based solely on age. 

• Job characteristics were important determinants of TAA participation (Table 

B.2). Workers in the middle of the wage distribution were more likely to participate. 

Eligible workers who had health insurance in their prior job were also more likely to 

participate. 

• The likelihood of participating in TAA varied across regions (Table B.2). Eligible 

workers in Region 4 (covering the West and Southwest) and Region 6 (covering the West 

Coast) were less likely to participate than other eligible workers. 

Table 4. TAA and TRA Participation Rates 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA Eligible 

Workers 

TAA 

Participants 

Participated in TAAa 50.3 100.0 

Distribution of TAA Participation Across States 

25th percentile 40.7 100.0 

Median 50.9 100.0 

75th percentile 66.0 100.0 

Received TRA 49.1 97.7 

Distribution of TRA Receipt Across States 

25th percentile 40.7 96.7 

Median 49.9 98.6 

75th percentile 61.5 100.0 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Notes: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. Sample size of TAA eligible 

workers is 2,860. Sample size of TAA participants is 2,228. 

a

Received TRA, TAA-funded training, ATAA, or HCTC. 

ATAA = Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; HCTC = Health Coverage Tax Credit; TAA = Trade 

Adjustment Assistance; TRA = Trade Readjustment Assistance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

18 

Table 5. TAA and TRA Participation Rates by Subgroup 

Percentage of Sample 

Participated in 

TAAa Received TRA 

TAA Eligible Workers 50.3 49.1 

Female 56.6††† 55.8† 

Male 45.0 43.5 

Race/Ethnicity 

White Non-Hispanic 50.7† 49.3† 

Black Non-Hispanic 54.6 53.3 

Hispanic 41.3 41.3 

Other Race 49.8 49.2 

Age (Years) 

< = 40 46.4 45.6 

41 – 50 50.3 49.1 

51 – 60 51.2 50.0 

61 + 56.2 54.5 

Education 

Less than high school 49.5††† 48.6†††

High school diploma or GED 52.9 51.5 

Associate’s degree or some college 49.4 48.8 

Bachelor’s degree or above 36.0 34.4 

Married 50.5 49.1 

Not Married 50.2 49.4 

Self-Rated Health Status Is Poor 49.9 47.1 

Self-Rated Health Status Is Not Poor 50.3 49.1 

Speaks Language Other Than English at Home 45.1 44.7 

Speaks English at Home 51.1 49.8 

Union Member 47.8 46.5 

Not a Union Member 51.6 50.4 

Covered by Health Insurance During Year Prior to Job Loss 52.5††† 51.2†††

Not Covered by Health Insurance During Year Prior to Jobs 

Loss 

34.7 34.2 

Trade-Affected Employer Size (Number of workers) 

< 25 54.0 52.9† 

25 –100 54.2 53.7 

100 –500 49.7 48.2 

500 + 45.9 44.6 

Hourly Earnings at Trade-Affected Employer 

 < = $6.60 56.6†† 56.6†† 

$6.61 - $9.90 49.8 49.2 

$9.91 - $12.90 56.0 55.0 

$12.91 - $15.90 52.5 51.5 

$15.91 - $19.90 48.6 46.9 

> $19.90 40.5 39.0 

Expected to Be Recalled to Employer 34.0††† 33.0†††

Did Not Expect to Be Recalled 55.2 54.0 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Table 5 (continued)

Percentage of Sample 

Received TRA 

Participated in 

TAAa

USDOL Region 

1 55.7††† 54.6†††

2 49.3 48.5 

3 59.7 58.0 

4 37.5 37.4 

5 46.3 45.1 

6 35.7 35.0 

Sample Size 2,860 2,860 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Notes: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. Sample size of TAA eligible 

workers is 2,860. 

a

Received TRA, TAA-funded training, ATAA, or HCTC. 

†/††/†††Differences across all subgroup levels are statistically significant at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level. 

ATAA=Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; HCTC = Health Coverage Tax Credit; TAA = Trade 

Adjustment Assistance; TRA = Trade Readjustment Allowance; UI = Unemployment Insurance; USDOL = 

United States Department of Labor. 

C. Comparison of TAA Participants and Nonparticipants 

In the previous section, we examined the participation rates of various subgroups of TAA 

eligible workers. An alternative way to describe the sample is to compare the demographic, job, and 

local area characteristics of participants and nonparticipants. One advantage of this approach is that 

it allows for a comparison of the mean characteristics of the two groups. Presenting the 

characteristics of the participants also provides clear information about the individuals served by the 

TAA program. 

• The majority of TAA participants were female (52 percent), whereas only 40 

percent of nonparticipants were female (Table 6). While it may be surprising that 

the majority of participants in a program serving trade-affected manufacturing workers 

were female, compared to all unemployed manufacturing workers, the TAA eligible 

population is disproportionately female, and eligible females participated at a higher rate. 

• TAA participants were less likely to be college graduates (Table 6). While there 

was no difference between participants and nonparticipants in the percentage of workers 

who attended some college, TAA participants were more likely than nonparticipants to 

report that a high school diploma or GED was their highest level of education (61 

percent versus 55 percent) and less likely to report a bachelor’s degree (6 percent versus 

10 percent).

• TAA participants had greater job attachment (Table 6). Prior to being laid off, 

TAA participants had longer job tenure at that employer. They also reported fewer jobs 

in the past three years. This difference could reflect more specialized skills and a greater 

need for training in a new field. 

19 
 Mathematica Policy Research

20 

• On average, TAA participants had lower total earnings in the year prior to their 

job loss (Table 6). Although TAA participants had lower average earnings, they were 

more likely to be in the middle wage quintile at the trade-affected job. While fewer TAA 

participants were in the top wage quintiles, there was no difference in the bottom wage 

quintile. 

• TAA participants were more likely to have had health insurance in their prior job 

(Table 6). There was no difference in the unionization rates of participants and 

nonparticipants. 

• TAA nonparticipants were twice as likely to report that they expected to be 

recalled to their former position (Table 6). This is consistent with the TAA 

program’s focus on workers affected by a permanent job loss. 

• TAA participants were more likely to live in certain regions (Table 6). They were 

more likely to live in Region 3 (covering the Southeast) and somewhat less likely to live 

in Region 4 (covering the West and Southwest) or Region 6 (covering the West Coast). 
 Mathematica Policy Research

21 

Table 6. Characteristics of TAA Participants and Nonparticipants (Percentages Unless Noted) 

Mean of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants

Demographic Characteristics 

Female 51.6*** 40.1 

Race/Ethnicity 

White Non-Hispanic 65.3 64.6 

Black Non-Hispanic 20.5 17.4 

Hispanic 8.3** 12.0 

Other Race 6.0 6.1 

Age (Years) 

< = 40 24.9 29.1 

41 – 50 30.1 30.0 

51 – 60 30.7 29.6 

61 + 14.4* 11.3 

Mean Age 48.3** 47.0 

Education 

Less than High School 16.6 17.1 

High School Diploma or GED 60.9** 55.1 

Associate’s Degree or Some College 17.0 17.6 

Bachelor’s Degree or Above 5.6*** 10.2 

Married 59.9 59.6 

Self-Rated Health Status is Poor 3.3 3.3 

Does Not Speak English at Home 11.9 14.7 

Professional Background Related to Trade-Affected Employment 

Union 31.1 34.4 

Covered by Health Insurance During Year Prior to Job Loss 91.7*** 84.2 

Employer Size (Number of Workers) 463.5** 597.4 

Job Tenure (Years) 13.1* 12.0 

Number of Hours Worked Per Week 44.5 44.0 

Hourly Earnings 

 < = $6.60 6.1 4.8 

$6.61 - $9.90 19.3 20.2 

$9.91 - $12.90 28.7* 23.4 

$12.91 - $15.90 22.2 20.8 

$15.91 - $19.90 13.6 15.0 

> $19.90 10.3** 15.7 

Reason Stopped Working 

Laid off 98.2*** 91.9 

Quit 0.2*** 3.4 

Retired 0.6* 1.8 

Fired 0.3 1.3 

Other 0.7 1.5 

Expected to Be Recalled to Employer 11.0*** 22.8 

Actually Recalled to Employer 8.1*** 17.6 

Number of Jobs In Prior 3 Years 1.3*** 1.4 

Total Earnings In Year Prior to Job Loss ($) 28,250** 31,297 
 Mathematica Policy Research

22 

Table 6 (continued)

Mean of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants

Local Area Characteristics 

Average Unemployment Rate in Year of Job Lossa 5.4** 5.2 

Percentage of Workers in Manufacturing b 13.9 13.3 

USDOL Region 

1 8.5 6.8 

2 14.1 14.7 

3 40.5*** 27.6 

4 7.5* 12.7 

5 23.8 28.0 

6 5.7*** 10.3 

Sample Size 2,226 632 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Notes: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. Local area characteristics 

were measured at the county level and matched to workers using the county of their zip code 

or the majority county if a zip code crossed county boundaries. 

a

 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003-2006. 

b

 Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2005. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; USDOL = United States Department of Labor.
 Mathematica Policy Research

23 

 

V. LEARNING ABOUT TAA 

The 2002 Trade Act aims to promote early service receipt and rapid reemployment among TAA 

eligible workers. As part of this effort, it requires state outreach to these workers in two specific 

ways (among others): by providing Rapid Response services after a petition has been filed and 

sending letters to notify workers of their potential eligibility after a petition has been certified. 

Although not required by TAA legislation, states typically provide TAA program orientations 

following certification as well. 

Rapid Response activities represent the first response among workforce staff in their efforts to 

promote trade-affected workers’ rapid and successful reemployment following notice of an 

impending dislocation. Rapid Response services, offered by state and/or local staff, typically include 

providing information to workers regarding available employment and training services and 

facilitating access to those services. For large layoffs, services may be made available at the worksite. 

Prior to 2002, Rapid Response services were required only for layoffs and plant closings, involving 

50 or more employees; the 2002 amendments made these services a requirement for all certified 

dislocations regardless of size.4

 D’Amico et al. (2007) found that while Rapid Response services in a 

majority of states include information about TAA, this information tended to be cursory until the 

firm’s petition was certified. 

In addition, states generally conduct post-certification worker orientations to the TAA program, 

again often at the work site. These early intervention services inform workers expediently of their 

eligibility to apply for TAA benefits and services and introduce them to the array of services 

available at One-Stop Career Centers, regardless of whether their petition is certified. In some cases 

states also have workers fill out TAA and TRA applications at the orientation, thus speeding the 

workers’ connection to the program and ideally to reemployment (D’Amico et al. 2007). 

After a petition has been filed and a worker group has been certified, states identify potentially 

eligible workers from lists provided by firms and notify them of their potential eligibility to receive 

TAA benefits and services. States are required to notify each potentially eligible worker in writing 

and to place general notices of the certification and TAA program benefits and services in 

newspapers. 

This section discusses notification about and knowledge of TAA benefits and services among 

eligible workers. We first examine the receipt of Rapid Response services; how workers learned 

about TAA, including receipt of a letter from the state; and attendance at orientations. Next we 

examine eligible workers’ knowledge of specific services. 

A. Notification about TAA Eligibility and Services 

• A majority of both TAA participants (83 percent) and nonparticipants (66 

percent) received Rapid Response services following their job loss (Table 7). 

Participants were more likely to report receiving these services, consistent with the TAA 

program’s emphasis on Rapid Response. 

4 Layoffs must also satisfy the condition that at least one-third of the workforce at the site is affected. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

24 

• For both TAA participants and nonparticipants, Rapid Response services were 

most commonly provided by a UI staff member (55 and 48 percent, respectively) 

(Table 7). There were some differences between the groups in the delivery of Rapid 

Response, however. Participants were more likely than nonparticipants to have been 

visited by One-Stop Career Center staff (28 percent versus 19 percent) or TAA staff (27 

percent compared to 17 percent). The likelihood of talking to an employer or state staff 

relative to other sources was slightly greater among nonparticipants, although rates were 

not significantly different from those of participants. 

• Nearly all TAA participants had learned about TAA at the time of the survey 

(Table 7). The indicator for whether workers learned about TAA was constructed 

based on responses to a number of survey questions asking about notification and 

knowledge of specific TAA benefits. Interestingly, 81 percent of nonparticipants had 

also learned about TAA. 

• TAA participants and nonparticipants learned about TAA in a variety of ways 

(Table 7). The most common way that both participants and nonparticipants learned 

about TAA was by letter (82 percent of participants and 73 percent of nonparticipants). 

Other common ways that workers found out were from the employment or 

unemployment office or One-Stop Career Center (57 percent and 47 percent) and their 

former employer (38 percent and 32 percent). Less common sources included coworkers, friends, and media. 

• Most TAA participants attended an orientation (79 percent), whereas fewer 

nonparticipants did (45 percent) (Table 7). Most meetings were held at the OneStop Career Center and most of the rest at the former employer. Among attendees, 

participants were more likely than nonparticipants to attend the orientation at the OneStop. 

• Most TAA participants and nonparticipants reported receiving a letter from the 

state (80 percent and 57 percent) (Table 8). Participants were more likely to report 

receiving a letter; thus, this could be an important reason for participation. However, 

substantial proportions of each group did not know whether they had received such a 

letter (10 percent and 12 percent, respectively). 

• The majority of TAA participants and nonparticipants received their letter after 

they left their jobs (Table 8). The percentage, computed by summing those who 

received their letters at different periods following the separation, is 67 percent among 

both participants and nonparticipants. Fewer than 10 percent of either group received 

the letter more than six months afterwards. This is roughly consistent with the 

differences between the UI claim dates and certification dates observed in our sample: 54 

percent of all TAA eligible workers’ firms were certified following the workers’ job 

separation and 14 percent of all TAA eligible workers’ firms were certified more than six 

months afterwards. Nearly eight percent of participants could not recall when they 

received the letter, compared with a smaller proportion of nonparticipants (four 

percent). 

• The likelihood of notification about TAA varied across types of layoffs among 

TAA participants (Tables B.3-B.4). Workers laid off due to a company closure or a 

plant move (compared with the elimination of shifts or a lack of work) were more likely 

to receive Rapid Response services and a letter from the state. Rapid Response services 
 Mathematica Policy Research

25 

were also more common among workers at larger firms and among those who did not 

expect recall to their employers. 

• Among TAA participants, there were few differences in notification between 

demographic and job market subgroups (Tables B.3-B.4). Participants who were 

more likely to report receiving Rapid Response services or a letter included those of nonHispanic ethnicity and those with a high school diploma, GED, Associate’s degree, or 

some college. There were no differences across gender, age, or wage subgroups; 

differences in unadjusted means by whether English was spoken at home disappear with 

regression adjustment, indicating that the unadjusted differences were driven by other 

characteristics of these language subgroups. Among participants, there were no 

differences in attendance at a TAA orientation by gender, education, or language 

subgroups, but non-Hispanic, younger, higher-wage workers were more likely to attend. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

26 

Table 7. Early Experiences with TAA and the One-Stop System: Rapid Response Service Receipt and 

Notification About TAA 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA 

Participants 

TAA 

Nonparticipants 

Received Rapid Response Services Following Job Loss 83.1*** 65.6 

Who Talked to You (Among Those Receiving Rapid Response; All 

that Apply) 

Unemployment Insurance staff 54.8** 47.6 

One-Stop Career Center or Rapid Response staff 28.1*** 19.3 

TAA staff 27.4*** 17.1 

Your employer 25.3 28.8 

State employment services staff 15.7 16.3 

Union representatives 9.5 9.1 

Other 5.5 4.8 

Learned about TAA At Time of Survey 98.8*** 81.3 

How Learned About TAA (Among Those Learning about TAA; All 

that Apply) 

Letter from union, employer, state, or other 81.5*** 73.2 

Employment/job service/unemployment office or One-Stop 

Career Center 57.2*** 47.4 

Meeting at former employer 38.1* 32.4 

Union representative 7.5 9.0 

Co-workers 6.9 7.2 

Friends (not co-workers) 2.9* 1.8 

TAA representative 2.3*** 0.8 

Newspaper/radio/TV/internet 1.7 2.2 

Notice posted at work 1.5 3.2 

Other government representative 0.6 1.3 

School 0.5*** 0.0 

Other 1.4** 3.3 

Attended TAA orientation or met with TAA representative 79.1*** 45.2 

Where Meeting Took Place (Among Those Attending Orientation) 

State unemployment or employment office or One-Stop Career 

Center 71.5*** 56.6 

Former employer 18.9 23.2 

College/school 3.9 4.4 

Government building/community center 3.8 5.9 

Union office 2.1*** 0.6 

By telephone 0.7 2.2 

Church 0.4** 0.0 

Other 2.1 2.6 

Don’t know 1.4* 4.6 

Sample Size 2,228 632 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Notes: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; UI = Unemployment Insurance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

27 

Table 8. Receipt of TAA Eligibility Notification Letter from State 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants 

Received a Letter from the State 

Yes 79.9*** 57.0 

No 9.8*** 31.2 

Don’t know 10.4 11.8 

When Received Letter from the State (Among 

Those Receiving a Letter) 

Before left job 25.0 29.2 

Within one month after leaving 29.6 27.0 

Between 1 and 6 months after leaving 30.0 32.4 

Six or more months after leaving 7.6 7.6 

Don’t know 7.8*** 3.9 

Sample Size 2,226 627 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

B. Knowledge of TAA Benefits 

• Substantial fractions of both TAA participants and nonparticipants were aware of 

some of the benefits available to them under TAA (Table 9). Participants were 

more likely to know about TRA and training provisions than about most other TAA 

benefits: all participants knew about TRA, 85 percent knew about training requirements, 

and 90 percent knew about training subsidies, whereas 53 to 65 percent knew about 

HCTC, ATAA, job search and relocation allowances, and supplemental assistance. 

Among nonparticipants, the proportion who knew about benefits ranged from 60 

percent who knew TAA offered subsidized training to 26 percent who knew about 

HCTC. 

• TAA participants were more likely to know about each type of TAA benefit than 

nonparticipants (Table 9). Thus, knowledge appears to be associated with 

participation. 

• Among TAA participants, those who were notified about TAA were more likely to 

know about each type of benefit (Figures 1-2). TAA participants who received Rapid 

Response services or attended an orientation were more likely to know about benefits. 

This finding suggests a specific reason for the link between notification and participation 

found earlier: notification is associated with greater knowledge of services available, 

which is related to participation. 

• Among TAA participants, one key measure—knowledge that TAA provides 

subsidized training—varied slightly among demographic and job market 
 Mathematica Policy Research

28 

subgroups (Tables B.3-B.4). Participants who were somewhat more likely to know 

about subsidized training after regression adjustment included non-Hispanic workers, 

younger workers, workers with at least a high school diploma, workers who do not 

expect recall to their employer, and workers with higher wages. Knowledge about 

subsidized training did not vary by gender or region. 

Table 9. Knowledge of Available TAA Benefits 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants 

TRA 100.0*** 47.1 

TRA Training Requirements 85.0*** 41.5 

Subsidized Training 90.1*** 59.8 

ATAA 57.2*** 38.5 

HCTC 58.1*** 26.1 

Job Search Allowances 53.6*** 32.6 

Supplemental Assistance 65.1*** 37.9 

Relocation Allowances 53.3*** 33.3 

Sample Size 2,228 628 

Source: MPR TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Notes: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

ATAA = Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; HCTC = Health Coverage Tax Credit; TAA = Trade 

Adjustment Assistance; TRA = Trade Readjustment Allowance.
 Mathematica Policy Research

Figure 1. Knowledge of Available Benefits among TAA Participant Rapid Response 

Subgroups 

*/**/*** Differences between subgroups are significantly different from zero at the 0.01/0.05/0.10 level, 

two-tailed test. Sample sizes are 1,849 and 379, respectively. 

29 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Figure 2. Knowledge of Available Benefits Among TAA Participant Orientation Subgroups 

*/**/*** Differences between subgroups are significantly different from zero at the 0.01/0.05/0.10 level, 

two-tailed test. Sample sizes are 1,753 and 460, respectively. 

30 
 Mathematica Policy Research

31 

VI. APPLYING FOR TAA 

After firms are certified for TAA, workers need to complete an application to receive TRA 

benefits and other TAA reemployment services. This section presents findings on the reasons that 

eligible workers applied or did not apply for TAA services. Survey respondents selected all the 

reasons that applied, so numbers do not sum to 100. 

A. Reasons for Application 

• Among TAA participants, the most common reason for applying for TAA was an 

interest in training (Table 10). Sixty-five percent of TAA participants reported 

interest in TAA funding for training and education. The second most common reason 

for application was an interest in receiving TRA benefits (26 percent). Much less 

common reasons included interest in other benefits such as HCTC, ATAA, or job search 

or relocation allowances, or in finding a better job. 

• Among TAA participants, interest in training declined with age, but training 

remained of interest for all age groups (Figure 3). For eligible workers younger than 

40, more than 75 percent reported training as a motivation for applying for TAA 

services, whereas fewer than 20 percent cited TRA benefits. Among workers 60 and 

older, the responses were more balanced. The most common reason was TRA benefits 

(38 percent), but 36 percent still listed training as a reason for application. 

• TAA participants with the lowest and highest levels of education were least 

interested in training (Figure 4). For workers who did not finish high school, 54 

percent reported an interest in training. A similar share of college graduates cited an 

interest in training (59 percent). 

Table 10. All Reasons Why Applied for TAA 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA Participants 

Interested in Training/Schooling 65.2 

Interested in TRA Benefits 25.5 

Interested in Job Search or Relocation Allowances 8.1 

Seemed Like a Good Idea/Recommended/No Choice 1.6 

Interested in HCTC 1.5 

Interested in ATAA 1.1 

Interested in Better Job 0.8 

Unemployment Benefits Ended 0.4 

Interested in Learning English 0.1 

Other 1.0 

Don’t Know 12.4 

Sample Size 2,228 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible and applied for TAA. 

ATAA = Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; HCTC = Health Coverage Tax Credit; TAA = Trade 

Adjustment Assistance; TRA = Trade Readjustment Allowance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Figure 3. All Reasons Why Applied for TAA Among TAA Participant Age Subgroups 

*/**/*** Differences between all four subgroups are jointly significantly different from zero at the 

0.01/0.05/0.10 level, two-tailed test. Sample sizes are 520, 668, 700, and 340, respectively. 

Figure 4. All Reasons Why Applied for TAA Among TAA Participant Education Subgroups 

*/**/*** Differences between all four subgroups are jointly significantly different from zero at the 

0.01/0.05/0.10 level, two-tailed test. Sample sizes are 358, 1,304, 401, and 139, respectively. 

32 
 Mathematica Policy Research

33 

B. Reasons for Not Applying 

• The most commonly cited reason that TAA nonparticipants did not apply for 

TAA services was that they found another job (Table 11). Almost 40 percent of 

nonparticipants reported that they did not apply because they had started working (36 

percent) or were recalled to their jobs (3 percent). 

• Lack of information about TAA was another common reason for not applying 

(Table 11). Some eligible workers reported that they did not know about TAA (14 

percent), did not know how to apply (12 percent), thought the rules were too 

complicated (3 percent), or did not think they would be eligible (10 percent). 

• A small share of TAA nonparticipants did not apply because they were not 

interested in training (10 percent) (Table 11). Other rare reasons included workers 

feeling they would not benefit, that they were too old or were retired, or that their health 

was too poor. 

• Among TAA nonparticipants, some reasons for not applying for TAA services 

differed by age (Figure 5). Only 12 percent of workers 60 and older did not apply 

because they found a job, unlike younger workers who were far more likely to cite this 

reason for not applying (39 percent). For workers over age 60, the four most common 

reasons for not applying were not knowing how to apply (20 percent), thinking they were 

too old (20 percent), thinking they were not eligible (19 percent), and not knowing about 

TAA (16 percent). 

• TAA nonparticipants who speak a language other than English at home were 

twice as likely to report not applying because they were unaware of TAA than 

English speakers (Figure 6). They also were nine times as likely to cite complicated 

program rules as a reason they did not apply (10 percent). Conversely, eligible workers 

who speak another language were less likely than English speakers to report not applying 

because they found a job (25 percent versus 39 percent) or were not interested in 

training (5 percent versus 12 percent). 
 Mathematica Policy Research

34 

Table 11. All Reasons Why Did Not Apply for TAA 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA Nonparticipants 

Got a Job 36.1 

Didn’t Know About TAA 13.7 

Didn’t Know How to Apply for TAA Services 11.5 

Wasn’t Interested in Training 10.4 

Didn’t Think Would Be Eligible 9.8 

Didn’t Think I Would Benefit 6.0 

Recalled to Work by Former Employer 3.3 

Too Old/Retirement 3.1 

Rules Too Complicated 2.7 

Health 2.1 

Expected To Be Recalled by Former Employer 1.9 

Other 5.2 

Don’t Know 1.8 

Sample Size 334 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible but did not apply for TAA. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Figure 5. All Reasons Why Did Not Apply for TAA Among TAA Nonparticipant Age 

Subgroups 

*/**/*** Differences between subgroups are significantly different from zero at the 0.01/0.05/0.10 level, 

two-tailed test. Sample sizes are 287 and 47, respectively. 

35 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Figure 6. All Reasons Why Did Not Apply for TAA Among TAA Nonparticipant Language 

Subgroups 

*/**/*** Differences between subgroups are significantly different from zero at the 0.01/0.05/0.10 level, 

two-tailed test. Sample sizes are 60 and 273, respectively. 

36 
 Mathematica Policy Research

37 

VII. RECEIPT OF REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES 

This section describes the receipt of reemployment services by TAA participants and 

nonparticipants. The discussion covers WIA-related reemployment services as well as key TAA 

services: HCTC, ATAA, and training. It does not cover receipt of TRA as this was discussed earlier. 

A. Receipt of WIA-Related Services 

The 2002 amendments to the TAA program required that core and intensive WIA services be 

made accessible to trade-affected workers. These provisions reflected the amendments’ focus on 

more in-depth upfront services. The amendments encouraged use of One-Stop Career Centers as 

the main point of participant intake and delivery of benefits and services. They also encouraged coenrollment of trade-certified workers with other programs providing employment and supportive 

services, particularly WIA services. 

The amendments state that as soon as a certification is filed, workers covered by the 

certification must have WIA core and intensive services made available to them. After certification, 

TAA customers must have access to counseling, testing and assessment, placement services, and 

support services (which include “transportation, child care, and health care assistance provided for 

under any Federal law”). The amendments note that early intervention services beneficial to tradeimpacted workers may include orientation; initial assessment of skill levels, aptitudes, and abilities; 

provision of labor market information; job search assistance; and financial management workshops. 

A report on the initial implementation of the 2002 TAA provisions found that the coordination 

of TAA with state and local One-Stop systems was an important determinant of the ability of states 

to provide core and intensive WIA services to TAA eligible workers. However, integration of the 

TAA program with other One-Stop partner employment and training programs, including WIA, 

varied greatly across states and local areas. Nearly all TAA eligible workers were co-enrolled with 

the Employment Service program, but far fewer were co-enrolled with WIA (D’Amico et al. 2007). 

To learn about the receipt of reemployment services provided by WIA and other employment 

programs (hereafter “WIA-related services”) by TAA eligible workers, the baseline survey asks 

workers about specific services received at “a local unemployment office, One-Stop Career Center 

or other organization.” First it asks about seven types of WIA-related services, hereafter called the 

“key services”: assistance searching for work, referrals to jobs or employers, help with resumes, 

information on how to change careers, tests to see what jobs the worker is qualified or suited for, 

labor market information about what occupations are in demand in the area, and information on 

education or job training programs. Second, it asks whether workers received counseling to 

determine whether training was appropriate or to select a training program. Third, it asks whether 

workers received job search and relocation allowances or supplemental assistance payments and the 

amounts received. In addition to reporting on the prevalence of each type of service, we also 

examine the receipt of two sets of combined WIA-related services: all seven key services together 

and all seven key services plus counseling either to determine whether training is appropriate or to 

select a program. 

This section presents findings on the receipt of WIA-related reemployment services among 

TAA eligible workers. It includes an examination of where services were received and how helpful 

workers found these services in finding a job or training program. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

38 

It is important to note that the services reported were not necessarily funded by WIA. We call 

these services “WIA-related services” to emphasize this point. Not all services may have been 

received at the One-Stop Career Center, and moreover, WIA is just one of the several funding 

sources that support these centers. Thus, findings should not be used to draw conclusions about the 

use of WIA services specifically or the co-enrollment of TAA participants in WIA. 

• Nearly all TAA participants received some WIA-related reemployment services 

(94 percent), compared with 73 percent of nonparticipants (Table 12). Rates of 

receipt among all TAA participants across states varied little. 

• A substantial proportion of TAA eligible workers received all seven key services 

the survey asked about (Table 12). Seven percent of participants received all seven 

services and no counseling, while 19 percent received all seven services and counseling. 

Among nonparticipants, these rates are 4 and 6 percent, respectively. The most 

common individual services reported among both participants and nonparticipants were 

information on education or job training programs (81 percent and 52 percent, 

respectively); assistance in searching for work (69 percent and 47 percent, respectively); 

labor market information (66 percent and 40 percent, respectively); and information on 

changing careers (64 percent and 40 percent, respectively). Few in either group received 

job search or relocation allowances. 

• TAA participants were more likely than nonparticipants to have received each 

type of service except job search and relocation allowances (Table 12). They were 

more likely to have received counseling to help determine if training was appropriate (37 

percent versus 13 percent) or to select a training program (33 percent versus 10 percent); 

those who did receive counseling met with their counselors more often (four times 

versus three times). They were also more likely than nonparticipants to have received 

supplemental assistance (payment for travel and living expenses while attending a 

training program in another area; 17 percent versus one percent), and those who did 

received a larger amount ($781 versus $242), reflecting their greater participation in 

training, as described below. 

• For both TAA participants and nonparticipants, the majority of WIA-related 

reemployment services were received at the state unemployment/employment 

office or One-Stop Career Center (Table 13). Percentages receiving most services at 

this location were 84 percent and 71 percent, respectively. 

• Other locations of service receipt differed somewhat for TAA participants and 

nonparticipants (Table 13). Participants were more likely to receive the majority of 

services at a school, training provider, college, or university (seven percent versus two 

percent). Nonparticipants were more likely to receive services at their place of work (14 

percent versus 4 percent) or over the internet (5 percent versus 1 percent). 

• Most TAA participants found the services they received to be “very helpful” or 

“moderately helpful” in finding a job (66 percent) or identifying a suitable 

education or training program (70 percent) (Table 14). Six percent of participants 

were still in training and could not assess the helpfulness of the services in finding a job 

(not shown). Nonparticipants were less likely to report that these services were helpful 

in finding a job or training program (50 percent and 47 percent, respectively). The 

difference between participants and nonparticipants in the reported helpfulness of 

services is larger for finding a training program than for finding a job. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

39 

• Among TAA participants, race and age subgroups exhibited some differences in 

WIA-related reemployment service receipt (Tables B.1-B.2). White non-Hispanic 

workers and younger workers generally received fewer WIA-related reemployment 

services. Differences in unadjusted means by language subgroups do not persist after 

regression adjustment to account for differences in demographic and job market 

characteristics between these groups. After regression adjustment, the receipt of any 

services did not differ by level of education, union status, or region. 

• TAA participants who were notified about TAA generally received more WIArelated reemployment services than those who were not notified (Tables B.1-B.2). 

Participants who received Rapid Response services or a letter from the state, attended an 

orientation, or knew that TAA offered subsidized training were more likely to receive 

any reemployment services. This result holds for both unadjusted and adjusted 

estimates. 

• Among TAA participants, the reported helpfulness of services varied by the type 

of services received, the location of service receipt, and knowledge about TAA 

(Figure 7). Participants who received all seven key services and counseling were more 

likely to find the services they received helpful than those who received only some of the 

services. Participants who received services from the One-Stop Career Center were 

more likely to find them helpful than those who received services from other locations. 

Participants who knew about TAA subsidized training were also more likely to find 

services helpful than those who did not. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

40 

Table 12. Receipt of WIA-Related Reemployment Services (Percentages Unless Noted) 

Mean of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants 

Received Any Reemployment Services 93.9*** 72.7 

Distribution of Receipt of Any Services Across States: 

25th percentile 92.3 70.5 

Median 95.2 78.3 

75th percentile 97.7 87.2 

Receipt of Seven Key Services 

Information on education or job training programs 80.9*** 51.8 

Assistance searching for work 69.3*** 46.8 

Labor market information about what occupations are 

in demand in area 65.8*** 40.1 

Information on how to change careers 64.3*** 39.7 

Help with resume 59.6*** 36.8 

Tests to see what jobs qualified/suited for 56.1*** 28.9 

Referrals to jobs or employers 54.5*** 34.8 

Receipt of Other Services 

Counseling on whether training is appropriate 36.6*** 13.2 

Counseling to select a training program 33.1*** 10.0 

Job search allowances 1.7 0.9 

Supplemental assistance 17.1*** 1.0 

Relocation allowances 0.5 0.2 

Number of Meetings with Counselor (Among Those 

Receiving Counseling) 4.2*** 3.1 

Received All Seven Key Services and No Counseling 6.8** 4.1 

Received All Seven Key Services and Any Counseling 18.7*** 6.0 

Amount Received ($) 

Job search allowances 644 393 

Supplemental assistance 781*** 242 

Relocation allowances 2,455* 4,000 

Sample Size 2,228 632 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

41 

Table 13. Location Where Majority of WIA-Related Reemployment Services Were Received 

(Among Those Receiving Services) 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants 

State Unemployment or Employment Office or OneStop Career Center 83.7*** 70.8 

School, Training Provider, College, or University 7.1*** 2.4 

Employer 3.9*** 13.7 

Another Government Agency 1.8 3.0 

Internet 1.2*** 5.4 

Placement Agency 0.6 1.9 

Other 1.1 1.9 

Don’t Know 0.5 0.8 

Sample Size 2,099 486 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA and received any WIA related 

services. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

Table 14. Helpfulness of WIA-Related Reemployment Services (Among Those Receiving 

Services) 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants 

Services Received Were Helpful in Finding a Job 66.1*** 50.1 

Services Received Were Helpful in Finding Suitable 

Education or Employment Program 70.4*** 47.4 

Sample Size 2,065 484 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA and received any WIA-related 

reemployment services. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Figure 7. Helpfulness of WIA Services among TAA Participant Subgroups 

*/**/*** Differences between subgroups are significantly different from zero at the 0.01/0.05/0.10 level, 

two-tailed test. Sample sizes for the six groups are 459, 1,525, 1,685, 298, 1,825, and 159, respectively. 

B. Receipt of HCTC Benefits 

This section presents findings on knowledge about, application for, and receipt of HCTC 

benefits among TAA eligible workers. HCTC covers 65 percent of the cost of health coverage for 

TAA workers and their families as long as they maintain eligibility for TRA or ATAA each month. 

A report on the initial implementation of the 2002 TAA provisions found that rates of take-up 

of HCTC were low. State officials believed that this resulted in part from the new program’s lack of 

public visibility, confusion about how the program worked, a lack of affordability of health 

insurance plans, gaps between the end of coverage through the former employer and participation in 

the new plan that qualified for HCTC, and, in many states, the lack of a qualified health plan. 

Moreover, they felt that the burden of implementing the complex program created administrative 

challenges (D’Amico et al. 2007). The analysis in this report complements the initial 

implementation report by examining experiences with the HCTC program reported by TAA eligible 

workers. 

• Almost 60 percent of all TAA participants knew about HCTC benefits at the time 

of the survey (Table 15). Fewer TAA nonparticipants were knowledgeable about 

HCTC at the time of the survey; 26 percent reported knowledge of these benefits. 

• Among TAA participants who knew about HCTC, 28 percent applied for HCTC 

(Table 15). The application rate was lower among nonparticipants who knew about the 

benefits (8 percent). 

• The most commonly reported reasons for not applying for HCTC among TAA 

participants were that the program was too expensive or that the respondent 

42 
 Mathematica Policy Research

43 

already had health coverage (Table 15). Among participants who did not apply for 

HCTC, 36 percent cited cost as the main reason, compared to 14 percent of 

nonparticipants. Respondents also reported already having health coverage through 

Medicare, Medicaid or S-CHIP, their former employer, their spouse’s employer, or other 

sources. Taking all these sources together (not shown), this represents 31 percent of 

participants and 43 percent of nonparticipants. For those with coverage, it was usually 

provided through their spouse’s employer. Few cited problems related to the program 

itself, like complicated rules or excessive paperwork, as the main reason they did not 

apply. 

• Over 80 percent of TAA participants who applied for HCTC received the benefit 

(Table 15). This represents 14 percent of all TAA participants and 7 percent of all TAA 

eligible workers (not shown). Across states, rates of HCTC receipt among applicants 

ranged from a 25th percentile of 75 percent to a 75th percentile of 93 percent. 

• HCTC recipients received on average $1,150, compared with the $1,610 they 

spend out of pocket in the past 12 months (Table 15). These findings suggest that 

HCTC covered 22 percent of recipients’ medical care costs. This rough estimate was 

constructed by assuming that reported out-of-pocket spending was typical of total 

medical care expenditures between the date that HCTC recipients became eligible for 

TAA and the date of the interview (25.8 months on average), and that recipients covered 

the other 35 percent of the costs of health insurance premiums ($620 on average). 

• HCTC recipients received other TAA and WIA-related services as well (Table 15). 

Sixty-five percent received training and 58 percent received ATAA, higher proportions 

than among all TAA participants. The most commonly accessed WIA-related 

reemployment services among this population were information on training and 

education programs and job search assistance, as was true for all TAA participants. 

• Among TAA participants, those who received HCTC differed somewhat in terms 

of demographic, job market, and local area characteristics from nonrecipients 

who knew about the benefit (Table 16). Recipients were more likely to be older white 

females who did not belong to a union and were more likely to have been covered by 

health insurance prior to their job loss. They had longer job tenure at the job from 

which they were separated and, in the three years prior to the dislocation, fewer jobs and 

higher earnings. They were more likely to live in Region 3 (covering the Southeast) and 

less likely to live in Region 4 (covering the West and Southwest) or Region 5 (covering 

the Midwest). 

• Among TAA participants, receipt of HCTC generally increased with age (Tables 

B.1-B.2). The differences between age subgroups persist after controlling for other 

worker differences. Other subgroups of participants with knowledge about HCTC who 

were more likely to receive the benefit after regression adjustment included non-union 

workers, those with higher pre-layoff wages, and those living in Region 1 (covering the 

Northeast). Black non-Hispanic participants were much less likely to receive HCTC. 

There were no differences by level of education, language spoken, or self-reported health 

status. 

• TAA participants who were notified about TAA were more likely to know about 

HCTC benefits than those who were not notified (Figure 8). Those who received 

Rapid Response services or attended an orientation were more likely to know about 
 Mathematica Policy Research

44 

HCTC benefits than those who did not. However, these workers were no more likely to 

receive HCTC. Knowledge about HCTC also varied among some demographic 

subgroups. Participants who were under age 40, high school dropouts, or spoke a 

language other than English at home were less likely to know about HCTC benefits. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

45 

Table 15. Application for and Receipt of HCTC (Percentages Unless Noted) 

Mean of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants 

Knew About HCTC Benefits 58.1*** 26.1 

Applied for HCTC (Among Those with Knowledge of Benefit) 28.3*** 8.0 

Main Reason Did Not Apply for HCTC (Among HCTC 

Nonapplicants) 

Not eligible 6.8 7.2 

Desired health plan was not qualified 1.2 0.5 

Already had health plan through Medicare 2.1 2.0 

Already had health plan through Medicaid or S-CHIP 1.3*** 0.0 

Already had health plan through former employer 5.3*** 16.2 

Already had health plan through spouse’s employer 20.9 21.2 

Had other coverage 1.3 3.3 

Too expensive 36.2*** 14.3 

Program rules too complicated 3.0 3.1 

Worried would not get reimbursed 0.1 0.0 

Didn’t think tax credits would last long enough 0.3 0.0 

Paperwork 0.5 2.2 

Didn’t know about it 3.1 3.5 

Didn’t think would qualify 1.3 1.2 

No specific reason 7.1 9.8 

Other 3.4 5.8 

Don’t know 6.1 9.9 

Received HCTC (Among HCTC Applicants) 83.0*** 0.0 

Distribution of HCTC Receipt (Among HCTC Applicants) Across 

States: 

25th percentile 74.7 0.0 

Median 81.1 0.0 

75th percentile 93.2 0.0 

Amount Received ($, Among HCTC Recipients) 1,151 0.0 

Amount Spent Out of Pocket On Health Care in Past 12 Months 

($, Among HCTC Recipients) 1,609 0.0 

Other Services Received (Among HCTC Recipients) 

Training during 12 months following the determination of TAA 

eligibility 64.7 0.0 

ATAAa 57.9 0.0 

Information on education or job training programs 81.4 0.0 

Assistance searching for work 68.5 0.0 

Labor market information about what occupations are in 

demand in area 66.0 0.0 

Information on how to change careers 63.8 0.0 

Help with resume 57.8 0.0 

Tests to see what jobs qualified/suited for 54.0 0.0 

Referrals to jobs or employers 53.7 0.0 

Counseling on whether training is appropriate 37.9 0.0 

Counseling to select a training program 33.5 0.0 

Job search allowances 2.1 0.0 

Supplemental assistance 23.6 0.0 

Relocation allowances 0.3 0.0 

Sample Size 2,221 627 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. 

a Among those ages 50 and older. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 

level, two-tailed test. 

HCTC = Health Coverage Tax Credit; TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

46 

Table 16. Characteristics of HCTC Recipients and Nonrecipients (Percentages Unless Noted) 

Mean of Sample 

HCTC Recipients 

TAA Eligible Workers 

Who Knew About HCTC 

(Both TAA Participants 

and Nonparticipants) 

Demographic Characteristics 

Female 56.0** 46.4 

Race/Ethnicity 

White Non-Hispanic 83.0*** 67.9 

Black Non-Hispanic 10.4*** 22.2 

Hispanic 2.2* 4.1 

Other Race 4.4 5.8 

Age (Years) 

< = 40 9.9*** 26.8 

41 – 50 24.3* 30.4 

51 – 60 42.3*** 31.8 

61 + 23.5*** 10.9 

Mean age 53.3*** 47.6 

Education 

Less than High School 13.4 13.9 

High School Diploma or GED 58.9 59.7 

Associate’s Degree or Some College 19.2 18.6 

Bachelor’s Degree or Above 8.6 7.7 

Married 61.6 64.0 

Self-Rated Health Status Is Poor 4.4 2.5 

Does Not Speak English at Home 5.9 7.5 

Professional Background Related to Trade-Affected Employment 

Union 22.2** 29.4 

Covered by Health Insurance During Year Prior to Job Loss 99.7*** 93.5 

Employer Size (Number of Employees) 525.4 452.7 

Job Tenure (Years) 16.2*** 13.0 

Number of Hours Worked Per Week 44.4 43.9 

Hourly Earnings 

 < = $6.60 5.9 4.8 

$6.61 - $9.90 10.3*** 18.1 

$9.91 - $12.90 32.8* 24.8 

$12.91 - $15.90 23.6 22.9 

$15.91 - $19.90 13.4 15.9 

$19.91 + 14.0 13.5 

Reason Stopped Working 

Laid off 98.2 98.1 

Quit 0.3 1.1 

Retired 1.0 0.2 

Fired 0.0 0.2 

Other 0.4 0.4 

Expected to Be Recalled to Employer 10.8 12.3 

Actually Recalled to Employer 9.4 12.2 

Number of Jobs in Prior 3 Years 1.1*** 1.3 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Table 16 (continued)

Mean of Sample 

TAA Eligible Workers 

Who Knew About HCTC 

(Both TAA Participants 

HCTC Recipients and Nonparticipants) 

Total Earnings in Year Prior to Job Loss ($) 32,922* 29,964 

Local Area Characteristics 

Average Unemployment Rate in Year of Job Lossa 5.2* 5.3 

Percentage of Workers in Manufacturingb 14.7 14.5 

USDOL Region 

1 9.7 6.6 

2 18.5 14.7 

3 47.0* 40.0 

4 5.1* 11.2 

5 14.3*** 23.2 

6 5.4 4.5 

Sample Size 297 1,145 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all TAA eligible workers who knew about HCTC. Local area characteristics 

were measured at the county level and matched to workers using the county of their zip code 

or the majority county if a zip code crossed county boundaries. 

a

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003-2006 

b

Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2005. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

HCTC = Health Coverage Tax Credit; TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; USDOL = United States 

Department of Labor. 

47 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Figure 8. Knowledge of HCTC among TAA Participant Subgroups 

English 

Language Ability

Rapid Response TAA Orientation Age Education 

*/**/*** Differences between subgroups are significantly different from zero at the 0.01/0.05/0.10 level, 

two-tailed test. Sample sizes are 1,845, 376, 1,751, 455, 351, 1,869, 519, 1,702, 358, 1844, 

respectively. 

C. Receipt of ATAA Benefits 

This section presents results on knowledge about, application for, and receipt of ATAA 

benefits among TAA eligible workers age 50 and over. ATAA pays a wage supplement to eligible 

workers age 50 and above who find qualified employment at an annual salary of no more than 

$50,000. The actual selection of ATAA does not occur until a worker finds employment; application 

must be made within two years after the first day of work. Workers seeking qualified employment 

should maintain eligibility for TRA, including waivers from training. ATAA participants may not 

receive TAA training benefits, TRA, or job search allowances. 

A report on the initial implementation of the 2002 TAA provisions found low rates of take-up 

for ATAA. In addition to administrative problems associated with the introduction of the program, 

reasons for low receipt rates reported by state officials included workers’ lack of knowledge about 

the program, difficulties in choosing between ATAA and TRA, and problems meeting eligibility 

requirements (D’Amico et al. 2007). The analysis in this report complements this earlier study by 

examining ATAA knowledge and service receipt, as well as reasons for not applying for ATAA, as 

reported by TAA eligible workers. 

• Nearly 60 percent of TAA participants age 50 and over were informed about 

ATAA (Table 17). In contrast, about 39 percent of nonparticipants knew about ATAA. 

Among these workers, 13 percent of participants and 14 percent of nonparticipants 

applied for ATAA. 

• Among TAA participants age 50 and over who knew about ATAA, the most 

common reason given for not applying was that the worker could not find a job 

(31 percent) (Table 17). However, it is not clear whether respondents chose this 

reason because they could not find any employment or because they could not find 

48 
 Mathematica Policy Research

49 

qualified employment below the salary ceiling. Other common reasons included wanting 

to enroll in training (29 percent) and being ineligible (16 percent), although the survey 

did not ask workers the reasons for ineligibility. Less common reasons included having 

found a job (which could reflect that the job paid too much to qualify for ATAA or that 

the worker was not interested in ATAA), retirement, or that the program did not pay 

enough to be worthwhile. Reasons for not applying differed somewhat among TAA 

nonparticipants; the most prevalent reasons included ineligibility (30 percent), finding a 

job (27 percent), missing the application deadline (26 percent), and retirement (25 

percent). No nonparticipants chose not to apply because they wanted training. 

• Among TAA participants age 50 and over, some reasons for not applying for 

ATAA indicate problems accessing program services (Table 17). Ten percent of 

participants who knew about ATAA did not understand the program and 11 percent 

missed the application deadline. These percentages were 19 percent and 26 percent 

among nonparticipants, respectively. 

• Fifty-four percent of ATAA applicants received the benefit, receiving $8,480 on 

average (Table 17). This represents about four percent of TAA participants age 50 and 

over. 

• Patterns of WIA-related reemployment service usage among ATAA recipients 

were roughly similar to those of TAA participants (Table 17). As for all TAA 

participants, the most prevalent types of services received were information on training 

and education programs and job search assistance. 

• Twenty percent of ATAA recipients also received HCTC (Table 17). This is a 

higher rate than among all TAA participants (14 percent). 

• Knowledge of ATAA was greater among TAA participants who were notified 

about TAA and spoke English at home than among those who were not notified 

and non-English speakers (Figure 9). TAA participants who received Rapid 

Response services or a letter from the state or attended an orientation were more likely 

to know about ATAA. Those speaking a language other than English at home were less 

likely to report knowledge about ATAA. 

• TAA participants attending an orientation were more likely to receive ATAA than 

those who did not (Tables B.1-B.2). However, there are few differences in ATAA 

receipt among TAA participant subgroups defined by demographic or job market 

characteristics. Black non-Hispanic workers, those under age 60, those with less than a 

Bachelor’s degree, and those with higher wages, and those in Region 1 (covering the 

Northeast) were more likely to receive ATAA. Receipt did not differ by gender, 

language, union status, or type of job loss. These findings are robust to regression 

adjustment. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

50 

Table 17. Application for and Receipt of ATAA (Percentages Unless Noted) 

Mean of Sample 

TAA Participants 

TAA 

Nonparticipants 

Knew About ATAA Benefits 57.2*** 38.5 

Applied for ATAA (Among Those with Knowledge of 

Benefit) 13.2 14.2 

All Reasons Did Not Apply for ATAA (Among ATAA 

Nonapplicants 

Could not find a job 31.2** 15.5 

Wanted training 28.6*** 0.0 

Not eligible 15.7** 30.4 

Missed deadline 11.2** 26.3 

Did not understand program 10.2 19.1 

Found a job 10.0** 27.2 

Retired 9.4** 25.1 

Not enough money to be worthwhile 6.9* 16.4 

Other 8.7 14.8 

Don’t know 4.4*** 3.2 

Received ATAA (Among ATAA Applicants) 53.9*** 0.0 

Distribution of ATAA Receipt (Among ATAA 

Applicants) Across States: 

25th percentile 0.0 0.0 

Median 36.0 0.0 

75th percentile 69.8 0.0 

Amount Received ($, Among ATAA Recipients) 8,479 0.0 

Other Services Received (Among ATAA Recipients) 

HCTC 20.0 0.0 

Information on education or job training programs 77.1 0.0 

Assistance searching for work 77.4 0.0 

Labor market information about what occupations 

are in demand in area 67.3 0.0 

Information on how to change careers 60.5 0.0 

Help with resume 55.9 0.0 

Tests to see what jobs qualified/suited for 45.6 0.0 

Referrals to jobs or employers 57.9 0.0 

Counseling on whether training is appropriate 30.5 0.0 

Counseling to select a training program 20.9 0.0 

Job search allowances 0.0 0.0 

Supplemental assistance 3.0 0.0 

Relocation allowances 0.0 0.0 

Sample Size 1,138 312 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA and were ages 50 and older. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

ATAA = Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; HCTC = Health Coverage Tax Credit; TAA =Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Figure 9. Knowledge of ATAA among TAA Participant Subgroups 

Letter from State English 

Language Ability

Rapid Response TAA Orientation

*/**/*** Differences between subgroups are significantly different from zero at the 0.01/0.05/0.10 level, 

two-tailed test. Sample sizes are 1,130, 294, 999, 389, 1,073, 347, 214, and 1,206, respectively. 

D. Receipt of Training 

TAA eligible workers considering training work with a One-Stop Career Center counselor to 

determine whether training is appropriate and which program to enter. The goal of training from 

the perspective of the TAA program is to ensure that trade-affected workers develop “marketable 

skills” that will enable them to find a job. However, the 2002 amendments emphasized that the 

long-term training that has been the historical focus of the program may not be the best route to 

suitable and rapid reemployment for all workers. 

TRA payments are intended to support workers who enroll in training to facilitate their 

successful completion of the program. Workers who are judged to have marketable skills may still 

receive TRA and HCTC if they obtain a waiver from training. Other conditions for waivers include 

a lack of available training programs or enrollment. 

Although this report does not compare workers’ experiences with TAA before and after the 

2002 amendments, it is interesting to note state officials’ perspectives on the effect of the changes. 

An initial implementation study of the 2002 TAA provisions in twelve states found that most state 

officials had expected the extension of TRA benefits and allowable breaks in training to improve 

training completion rates. However, they felt that the speed at which TAA eligible workers entered 

training was not increased by the imposition of the 8/16 deadlines for enrollment. Most states 

granted waivers to TAA eligible workers in order to ensure their eligibility for HCTC, removing the 

incentive of the deadlines, so workers did not appear to enter training more quickly than before the 

2002 amendments. 

This section describes the receipt of training among TAA eligible workers. We first present 

results on enrollment in training following the job separation, the duration of programs in terms of 

number of weeks and hours per week, and program completion. Next we discuss characteristics of 

51 
 Mathematica Policy Research

52 

training programs attended, including types of training, locations where training was delivered, and 

training costs. We then compare profiles of those who do and do not enroll in training in terms of 

TAA and WIA-related service receipt as well as demographic, job market, and local area 

characteristics. Finally, we present reasons given by TAA eligible workers for not enrolling in 

training. 

Findings on training program completion and duration (Table 18) are restricted to the 12 

months following the determination of TAA eligibility. The eligibility date is defined as the later of 

the first UI claim date and the petition certification date because some workers become eligible for 

TAA before the job separation and some afterward depending on when the petition determination is 

made. This restriction enables us to compare TAA eligible workers who have all received the same 

exposure to the TAA program. The median time between the determination of TAA eligibility and 

the baseline survey interview is 27 months. The full 12 month period was observed for 98.7 percent 

of the sample; 1.3 percent were surveyed before 12 months of eligibility. Weeks of training and 

hours per week are based on all programs attended during the 12 month period. 

In analyses of training program characteristics (Tables 19-20 and 24), we focus on trainees’ 

main program following their UI claim date, defined as the program with the longest duration. As 

part of these analyses we compare TAA participants whose main programs were funded by TAA 

with TAA participants whose main programs were funded by other sources. 

To obtain a longer follow-up period, analyses of training program characteristics, the profiles of 

TAA eligible workers who did and did not enroll in training, and reasons for not enrolling in training 

(Tables 19–24) do not restrict the training program to fall within 12 months of the determination of 

TAA eligibility but are instead based on any training workers enrolled in following the UI claim date. 

Thus the analysis covers a period of 27.5 months on average (nearly two and a half years). Findings 

are very similar when we restrict the sample to the 12 month period after their firm’s certification. 

Training Enrollment and Completion 

• Most TAA participants (60 percent) enrolled in training during the 12 months 

following the determination of TAA eligibility, consistent with their reasons for 

applying for TAA, whereas fewer nonparticipants enrolled (14 percent) (Table 18). 

The majority of those from both groups who enrolled in any training attended only one 

program (83 and 80 percent, respectively). Among TAA participants, rates of training 

enrollment by state varied from a 25th percentile of 52 percent to a 75th percentile of 72 

percent, with a median of 61 percent. 

• Among those enrolled in training during the 12 months following the 

determination of TAA eligibility, TAA participants spent more weeks and longer 

hours per week in training than TAA nonparticipants (Table 18). The length of 

time for which enrolled participants attended training was 30 weeks on average, 

compared with 19 weeks among enrolled nonparticipants. TAA participants spent 24 

hours per week in training on average, compared with 21 hours per week among 

nonparticipants. These findings suggest that differences in training enrollment 

understate true differences in the amount of training received. 

• The likelihood of training completion did not differ between TAA participants 

and nonparticipants, but participants were more likely than nonparticipants to be 

still enrolled in a training program at the time of the survey (Table 18). Roughly 
 Mathematica Policy Research

53 

80 percent of trainees (among both TAA participants and nonparticipants) reported 

completing a training program. Among TAA participants, 28 percent of trainees 

reported that they were still enrolled in a program, compared with 8 percent of trainees 

among nonparticipants. This suggests that these results may understate ultimate 

differences in training completion in the longer term. 

Characteristics of Training Programs 

• The most common type of training among TAA participants (whether funded by 

TAA or not) and nonparticipants was for a skill or occupation (Table 19). The 

percents were 78 percent, 59 percent, and 54 percent, respectively. TAA nonparticipants 

were less likely than participants to enroll in this type of training; they were also less 

likely to enroll in two-year community college programs and more likely to report an 

unspecified course. 

• Among TAA participants, types of training varied depending on whether the 

main program was funded by TAA (Table 19). TAA-funded training was more 

common for a skill or occupation (78 percent versus 59 percent) or two-year community 

college program (10 percent versus 3 percent). Training not funded by TAA was more 

likely to be for a GED (13 percent versus 5 percent), ESL (7 percent versus 2 percent), 

or non-credit adult education (7 percent versus 2 percent). 

• Among both TAA participants and nonparticipants, most trainees received their 

training at a two-year college (Table 19). Fifty-seven percent of TAA participants 

whose main program was funded by TAA attended training at this location, as did 39 

percent of TAA participants with a main program funded by other sources and 33 

percent of TAA nonparticipants. 

• Locations of training differed among TAA participants depending on whether the 

training was funded by TAA (Table 19). Those whose main programs were funded 

by TAA were more likely than those whose main programs were not funded by TAA to 

go to two-year colleges (57 versus 39 percent) or vocational training centers (21 versus 

14 percent), whereas those with main programs funded through other sources were more 

likely to go to an adult high school or night school (12 versus 5 percent), One-Stop 

Career Center (9 versus one percent), or private companies (8 versus 5 percent). 

• Compared to other programs, TAA-funded programs tended to be more 

expensive but TAA-funded trainees paid slightly less out of pocket than other 

trainees (Table 20). Among TAA participant trainees, the total cost of all programs 

ranged from an average of $9,000 for TAA-funded programs to $6,500 for programs 

funded through other sources. For those whose main programs were funded by TAA, 

the participant paid less than one percent of the costs of the main training program while 

TAA paid 88 percent (with other sources covering the remaining 11 percent). Among 

TAA participants whose main programs were not funded by TAA, the participant paid 

nearly 3 percent of the cost of the main program while sources other than TAA paid the 

rest. TAA nonparticipants enrolled in less expensive training programs ($4,100 on 

average) and paid a larger proportion of the cost of their main programs themselves (38 

percent). 
 Mathematica Policy Research

54 

Profiles of Trainees and Non-Trainees 

• Among TAA participants, trainees were more likely than non-trainees to have 

received most types of WIA-related services and HCTC (Table 21). Among 

nonparticipants, trainees generally receive WIA-related services at no greater rates than 

non-trainees, except for job referrals (43 percent versus 33 percent). 

• TAA participants who enrolled in any training following the job separation were 

somewhat different from those who did not enroll in training (Table 22). Those 

enrolled in training were somewhat more likely to be female, were younger, were more 

likely to belong to a union, were less likely to speak English at home, had shorter job 

tenure, worked longer hours per week, were less likely to expect recall, had slightly more 

jobs in the prior three years, and had higher earnings in the year prior to the job loss. 

They were slightly less likely to be in Region 3 (covering the Southeast) or Region 5 

(covering the Midwest). 

• The most common reason that TAA participants gave for not enrolling in training 

was that they were not interested (45 percent), though a sizeable proportion said 

that they got a job (20 percent) (Table 23). In contrast, TAA nonparticipants were 

most likely to explain that they got a job (42 percent), though many also reported they 

were not interested in training (29 percent). These differences between TAA 

participants and nonparticipants are statistically significant. 

• A small proportion of TAA eligible workers cited barriers to enrollment as a 

reason for not enrolling (Table 23). TAA participants and nonparticipants both cited 

cost as a reason for not enrolling (7 percent and 8 percent, respectively). Some workers 

in both groups said that suitable training was not available (13 percent and 11 percent, 

respectively) or thought they were not eligible for either training or TAA (5 percent and 

7 percent in total, respectively, not shown). 

Subgroup Findings 

• Among TAA participants, training enrollment varied by gender, age, language, 

wage, notification, and expectation of recall (Tables B.5-B.6). After regression 

adjustment, females, those not speaking English at home, and those earning higher 

wages were more likely to enroll in training. Training enrollment rates declined with age. 

Those who were notified about TAA through Rapid Response or an orientation or who 

knew about TAA subsidized training were more likely to enroll, whereas those who 

expected recall to their employers were less likely to enroll. Training enrollment did not 

differ between race and ethnicity subgroups or by union status after regression 

adjustment. 

• Among TAA participants, females and those speaking a language other than 

English at home were less likely to train for a skill or occupation (Tables B.5-

B.6). After regression adjustment, rates of training for a skill or occupation did not 

differ by race and ethnicity, age, education, or wage subgroups. 

• Although rates of training enrollment among TAA participants did not vary by 

level of education, types and locations of training did differ among education 

subgroups (Table 24). Among TAA participant trainees whose main program was 

funded by TAA, high school dropouts were more likely than those with more education 
 Mathematica Policy Research

55 

to be enrolled in a GED program (43 percent) or ESL program (5 percent) and less 

likely to train for a skill or occupation (41 percent). They were also more likely to attend 

training at an adult high school or night school (24 percent). In contrast, those with a 

high school diploma or GED or an associate’s degree or some college were more likely 

to enroll in two-year community college programs (11 percent of both groups) and 

attend training at a 2-year college (61 and 53 percent, respectively) or vocational training 

center (22 and 20 percent, respectively). Those with a Bachelor’s degree or above were 

more likely to attend training at a vocational training center (26 percent) and slightly 

more likely to go to a community based organization (2 percent) or private company (1 

percent). 

• Among TAA participants, reasons for not enrolling in training differed by age, 

language spoken, and expectation of recall (Figures 10-12). TAA participants over 

age 60 were more likely to be uninterested in training and less likely to not enroll in 

training for financial reasons or because they found a job. Those speaking a language 

other than English at home were less likely to have a lack of interest and more likely to 

cite language problems as a reason for not enrolling in training. Those who expected 

recall were less likely to be uninterested in training and more likely to have found a job. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

56 

Table 18. Receipt of Training Within 12 Months Following the Determination of TAA Eligibility 

(Percentages Unless Noted) 

Mean of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants 

Received Any Training After Layoff 59.8*** 14.0 

Distribution of Receipt of Training Across States: 

25th percentile 51.5 7.2 

Median 60.9 14.2 

75th percentile 71.9 18.8 

Number of Programs Enrolled in Since Layoff (Among 

Trainees) 

One 83.1 79.9 

Two 11.3 13.7 

Three or more 3.6 3.4 

Duration of All Training Programs (Among Trainees) 

Weeks of training 30.2*** 18.9 

Distribution of weeks of training 

25th percentile 25.1 13.5 

Median 30.0 18.5 

75th percentile 33.6 24.5 

Hours of training per week 23.9 20.7 

Completed Any Program After Layoff (Among 

Trainees) 80.0 78.4 

Still in Any Training (Among Trainees) 28.2*** 8.0 

Sample Size 2,198 626 

 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. Training programs include 

any in which the respondent was enrolled during the 12 months following the determination 

of TAA eligibility. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

57 

Table 19. Characteristics of Training Received (Among Trainees) 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA Participants 

TAA 

Nonparticipants 

Main Program 

Funded by TAA 

Main Program 

Funded by 

Other Source Main Program 

Received Any Training After Layoff in: 

Skill/occupation 78.4*** 59.2 53.6*** 

Two-year program at community college 9.7*** 3.1 0.6*** 

GED classes 5.2*** 12.7 17.2 

Non-credit adult education 2.0*** 7.3 8.8 

ESL 1.5** 6.8 7.2 

Computer classes 0.9 0.9 0.6 

Unspecified course/session 0.7** 5.1 6.0* 

Graduate or professional program 0.4 1.0 1.5 

Regular high school 0.4* 1.6 1.8 

Four-year program at college or university 0.3 1.4 1.5 

Don’t know 0.5 1.0 1.4 

Where Received Any Training After Layoff 

Community college/two-year college 56.9*** 38.8 32.9*** 

Vocational training center 20.6** 13.6 19.9 

Four-year college or university 6.0 4.6 2.9 

Adult ed/community school/adult HS/night 

school 5.0** 12.1 12.0 

Private company 5.1 8.1 9.0 

Business school 2.9** 1.2 0.5*** 

State unemployment or employment office or 

One-Stop Career Center 1.4*** 9.4 5.5 

Community-based organization or other nonprofit private agency 0.5* 2.7 3.1 

Company 0.3** 4.4 5.3* 

Government agency/military 0.2* 1.3 1.1 

Online 0.2 0.3 1.6 

Other 0.7 2.3 4.2 

Don’t Know 0.1 1.3 2.4 

Sample Size 1,034 421 114 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA and were enrolled in any 

training after the UI claim date. Main program is the program of longest duration in which 

respondent was enrolled after the UI claim date. Programs are not necessarily new programs 

enrolled in after layoff. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants whose main program was funded by TAA and by other 

sources, or between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants, is significantly different from zero at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

ESL = English as Second Language; GED = General Equivalency Diploma; HS = high school; TAA = Trade 

Adjustment Assistance; UI = Unemployment Insurance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

58 

Table 20. Costs of Training Received (Among Trainees) 

Mean of Sample 

TAA Participants 

TAA 

Nonparticipants

Main Program 

Funded by TAA 

Main Program 

Funded by 

 Other Source Main Program 

Cost of All Programs ($) 9,016 6,472** 4,099** 

Distribution of Cost of All Programs ($) 

25th percentile 3,000 80 60 

Median 6,500 3,000 500 

75th percentile 11,500 7,200 4,000 

Percentage of Cost Of Main Programs Paid by: 

Self 0.7 2.7* 38.3*** 

TAA Program 88.3 0.0*** 0.0*** 

Other sources 11.0 97.3*** 61.7*** 

Sample Size 972 398 98 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA and were enrolled in any 

training after the UI claim date. Main program is the program of longest duration in which 

respondent was enrolled after the UI claim date. Programs are not necessarily new programs 

enrolled in after layoff. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants whose main program was funded by TAA and by other 

sources, or between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants, is significantly different from zero at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; UI = Unemployment Insurance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

59 

Table 21. Other Services Received After Layoff by Trainees and Non-Trainees 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants 

Trainees 

NonTrainees Trainees NonTrainees 

HCTC 23.6*** 22.8 0.0 0.0 

Information on Education or Job Training 

Programs 86.8*** 70.2 57.2 51.1 

Assistance Searching for Work 71.7*** 65.0 52.2 46.0 

Labor Market Information About What 

Occupations Are In Demand In Area 70.4*** 57.3 43.2 39.7 

Information on How to Change Careers 68.0*** 57.6 48.0 38.3 

Help with Resume 63.5*** 52.4 44.1 34.8 

Tests to See What Jobs Qualified/Suited For 62.9*** 43.8 30.8 28.7 

Referrals to Jobs or Employers 55.2*** 53.1 42.9* 33.1 

Counseling on Whether Training Is Appropriate 41.9*** 26.9 17.1 12.5 

Counseling to Select a Training Program 40.6*** 19.4 11.7 9.7 

Job Search Allowances 1.9* 1.2 1.9 0.7 

Supplemental Assistance 25.3*** 2.0 4.2* 0.4 

Relocation Allowances 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.3 

Sample Size 1,490 731 114 515 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA and were enrolled in any 

training after the UI claim date. 

*/**/*** Difference between trainees and non-trainees is significantly different from zero at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; HCTC = Health Coverage tax Credit. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

60 

Table 22. Characteristics of Training Recipients and Samples of Other Workers (Percentages Unless 

Noted) 

Mean of Sample 

TAA Participant 

Trainees 

TAA Participant 

Non-Trainees 

Demographic Characteristics 

Female 53.5*** 48.1 

Race/Ethnicity 

White Non-Hispanic 62.7 70.1 

Black Non-Hispanic 21.2 19.0 

Hispanic 9.4 6.3 

Other Race 6.7 4.6 

Age (Years) 

< = 40 30.1*** 15.4 

41 – 50 33.2 24.4 

51 – 60 29.0 33.6 

61 + 7.6*** 26.6 

Mean age 46.1*** 52.5 

Education 

Less than High School 15.1 19.2 

High School Diploma or GED 62.0 58.8 

Associate’s Degree or Some College 17.3 16.2 

Bachelor’s Degree or Above 5.5* 5.8 

Married 60.4 59.2 

Self-Rated Health Status Is Poor 2.9 3.9 

Does Not Speak English at Home 13.3** 9.4 

Professional Background Related to Trade-Affected Employment 

Union 32.2** 28.8 

Covered by Health Insurance During Year Prior to Job Loss 92.4** 90.6 

Employer Size (Number of Employees) 506.2 384.4 

Job Tenure (Years) 12.3* 14.6 

Number of Hours Worked Per Week 44.9* 43.9 

Hourly Earnings 

 < = $6.60 5.5 7.0 

$6.61 - $9.90 17.6 22.3 

$9.91 - $12.90 27.5** 30.8 

$12.91 - $15.90 24.1 18.7 

$15.91 - $19.90 14.3* 12.4 

$19.91 + 11.0 8.8 

Reason Stopped Working 

Laid off 98.6** 97.5 

Quit 0.2 0.4 

Retired 0.5** 0.6 

Fired 0.1* 0.6 

Other 0.6 0.9 

Expected to Be Recalled to Employer 10.0*** 13.0 

Actually Recalled to Employer 7.4*** 9.6 

Number of Jobs in Prior 3 Years 1.3 1.2 
 Mathematica Policy Research

61 

Table 22 (continued)

Mean of Sample 

TAA Participant 

Non-Trainees 

TAA Participant 

Trainees 

Total Earnings in Year Prior to Job Loss ($) 28,607** 27,545 

Local Area Characteristics 

Average Unemployment Rate in Year of Job Lossa 5.4 5.4 

Percentage of Workers in Manufacturingb 13.7 14.3 

USDOL Region 

1 8.3 8.8 

2 13.9 14.6 

3 38.4*** 44.1 

4 9.7 3.6 

5 22.9** 25.5 

6 6.9 3.4 

Sample Size 1,493 732 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all TAA participants. Local area characteristics were measured at the county 

level and matched to workers using the county of their zip code or the majority county if a zip 

code crossed county boundaries. 

a

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003-2006. 

b

Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2005. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; USDOL = United States Department of Labor. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

62 

Table 23. All Reasons Why Did Not Participate in Training After Layoff 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants 

Not Interested 45.4*** 28.6 

Got a Job 20.3*** 41.8 

Suitable Training Not Available 12.8 10.7 

Financial Reasons 6.6 8.1 

Looking For Job on Own 4.8** 2.4 

Family Issues 4.4 2.6 

Didn’t Think I Was Eligible for Training 4.1 5.7 

Health Issues 3.3 2.6 

Already Had Degree/Skills/Training 3.2* 1.5 

Language Barrier/Literacy Problems 1.5 0.8 

Transportation Problems 1.1 1.1 

Didn’t Think I Was Eligible for TAA/TRA 1.1 1.0 

Expect To Be Called Back 0.5 0.2 

Other 2.1* 0.9 

Sample Size 673 498 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA and did not enroll in any 

training after the UI claim date. 

*/**/*** Difference between TAA participants and TAA nonparticipants is statistically significant at the 

0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; TRA = Trade Readjustment Allowance; UI = Unemployment Insurance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

63 

Table 24. Characteristics of TAA-Funded Training Received Among Recipients of TAAFunded Training Education Subgroups 

Percentage of Sample 

Education Less 

Than High 

School 

High School 

Diploma or GED

Associate’s 

Degree or Some 

College 

Bachelor’s 

Degree or 

Above 

Received Any Training After Layoff in: 

Skill/occupation 40.7 82.8 84.7 87.3††† 

Two-year program at community 

college 2.1 11.1 10.7 5.6††† 

GED classes 43.0 0.4 0.3 0.0††† 

Non-credit adult education 4.2 1.9 0.8 2.4† 

ESL 4.9 0.8 0.7 0.0††† 

Computer classes 2.4 0.7 0.3 1.7 

Unspecified course/session 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 

Graduate or professional program 0.5 0.1 1.5 1.5 

Regular high school 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 

Four-year program at college or 

university 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0† 

Don’t know 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.5 

Where Received Any Training After 

Layoff 

Community college/two-year 

college 43.4 61.4 52.9 43.2††† 

Vocational training center 12.0 21.9 20.4 26.4††† 

Four-year college or university 4.2 3.6 12.2 15.2 

Adult ed/community school/adult 

HS/night school 23.5 3.0 1.5 2.7 

Private company 7.9 4.1 7.2 3.8††† 

Business school 4.8 2.8 2.2 1.1 

State unemployment or 

employment office or One-Stop 

Career Center 2.5 1.4 0.3 4.0 

Community-based organization or 

other nonprofit private agency 0.8 0.2 1.2 1.5†† 

Company 0.0 0.4 0.2 1.0††† 

Government agency/military 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 

Online 0.0 0.2 0.5 3.3 

Other 0.0 0.5 1.4 1.2 

Don’t know 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 

Sample Size 120 643 212 53 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were TAA participants and were enrolled in any 

training after the UI claim date. Program described is the program of longest duration in 

which respondent was enrolled after the UI claim date, if the program was funded by TAA. 

Programs are not necessarily new programs enrolled in after layoff. 

†/††/††† Differences across all subgroup levels are statistically significant at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level. 

ESL = English as Second Language; GED = General Equivalency Diploma; HS = high school; TAA = Trade 

Adjustment Assistance; UI = Unemployment Insurance. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

64 

Figure 10. All Reasons Why Did Not Participate in Training After Layoff Among TAA 

Participants Age Subgroups 

*/**/*** Differences between subgroups are significantly different from zero at the 0.01/0.05/0.10 level, 

two-tailed test. Sample sizes are 477 and 197, respectively. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Figure 11. All Reasons Why Did Not Participate in Training After Layoff among TAA 

Participant Language Subgroups 

*/**/*** Differences between subgroups are significantly different from zero at the 0.01/0.05/0.10 level, 

two-tailed test. Sample sizes are 71 and 602, respectively. 

65 
 Mathematica Policy Research

Figure 12. All Reasons Why Did Not Participate in Training After Layoff among TAA 

Participant Expectation of Recall Subgroups 

*/**/*** Differences between subgroups are significantly different from zero at the 0.01/0.05/0.10 level, 

two-tailed test. Sample sizes are 161 and 938, respectively. 

66 
 Mathematica Policy Research

67 

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

In this section, we synthesize the results found above. We highlight some key findings that 

emerge that can help guide policymakers in assessing and improving the implementation of the TAA 

program. These issues may be of particular interest as the 2009 program amendments are put into 

practice. 

Prior to the TAA eligibility expansion in the 2009 ARRA, the TAA program supported 

manufacturing workers who had suffered a trade-related job loss. These workers tended to differ 

from other displaced manufacturing workers. TAA eligible workers tended to be full-time workers 

with long-term employment at their previous job. On average, TAA eligible workers had been with 

their former employer for 13 years. They had relatively high-paying positions with generous 

employment benefits that typically included health insurance, paid vacations, paid holidays, and a 

retirement pension benefit. Most lost their position when their plant closed or moved, and few 

expected to be recalled. Unlike many layoffs in the manufacturing sector, most TAA eligible 

workers were faced with a permanent job loss. 

The characteristics of the TAA eligible population highlight the challenges that these displaced 

workers faced as they tried to find new employment of similar quality. They had long tenure at their 

former employer and likely developed a specialized set of non-transferrable skills. The TAA eligible 

workers were also older and sometimes less educated than other workers looking for employment. 

The TAA program was designed to alleviate some of these challenges. 

The services offered by the TAA program appealed to many eligible workers. We find that half 

of TAA eligible workers participated in the program. These workers cited training as a key reason 

for participation. Interest in training greatly exceeded interest in receiving TRA benefits, particularly 

among younger workers. Among eligible workers that did not participate, the main explanation was 

that the nonparticipants had found a job. 

The 2002 Trade Act requires state outreach to eligible workers in two specific ways: through the 

provision of Rapid Response services after a TAA petition has been filed and sending letters to 

workers to notify them of their potential eligibility after a petition has been certified. In many 

respects, this outreach seems successful. More than 80 percent of participants and 65 percent of 

nonparticipants reported receiving Rapid Response services. A similar share of participants reported 

receiving a letter about their TAA eligibility. While most nonparticipants reported having 

knowledge about the TAA program, some reported not participating because they were not aware of 

the program or did not understand program eligibility rules. 

The TAA program aims to help participants obtain rapid, suitable employment by delivering 

TAA services through One Stop Career Centers and thus facilitating linkages with other 

reemployment services such as WIA. Nearly all TAA participants (94 percent) received at least one 

reemployment service. Many reported taking advantage of a wide array of services including 

intensive counseling. TAA participants were significantly more likely than nonparticipants to use 

WIA-related services, although this should not be interpreted as a strict causal impact since TAA 

participation was voluntary. While we do not know the causal impact of the TAA program on 

WIA-related service receipt, there are certainly aspects of the TAA program that could encourage 

increased use of WIA-related services. 

While many TAA participants took advantage of WIA-related reemployment services, the takeup rates of two key TAA benefits, HCTC and ATAA, were very low. This is consistent with an 
 Mathematica Policy Research

68 

earlier report on implementation of the 2002 TAA provisions (D’Amico et al. 2007). Participants 

and nonparticipants had less awareness of these benefits than about other TAA benefits. For 

participants with knowledge of the HCTC and ATAA benefits, the reasons for not taking up the 

benefits were varied. Among workers age 50 and over, some did not apply for ATAA because they 

were more interested in receiving training than a wage subsidy, and others could not find 

employment within the required timeframe. Many workers reported that they did not apply for 

HCTC because they already had coverage, mainly through their spouse’s employer, and for others, 

the lack of affordable health insurance plans was a significant deterrent. 

Consistent with their primary reason for participation, TAA participants received significantly 

more training than nonparticipants. In the first year of TAA eligibility, enrolled participants 

attended training for an average of 30 weeks and spent 24 hours per week in training. While 80 

percent of enrolled participants had completed a training program, 28 percent were still enrolled. 

The most common type of training among TAA participants and nonparticipants was for a skill or 

occupation, although workers also enrolled in two-year community college programs and other 

general education classes (GED, ESL, and adult basic education). 

There were some notable differences in service receipt depending on workers’ demographic 

groups and program experiences. Females were more likely than males to participate in TAA, and 

among participants, they were more likely to receive HCTC and training. Older workers were more 

likely to participate in TAA than younger workers but were less likely to enroll in training, consistent 

with differences in these workers’ reasons for applying for TAA. Workers with different levels of 

completed education selected different training programs; among trainees funded by TAA, high 

school dropouts were more likely to enroll in GED or ESL programs, while those with a high 

school diploma or some college were more likely to enroll in two-year community college programs. 

In addition, workers who were notified about TAA through Rapid Response services, a state letter, 

or an orientation were more likely to know about available TAA services and receive WIA-related 

employment services. 

Current program entrants face an updated set of rules introduced through the 2009 ARRA. As 

ARRA expands eligibility for TAA and increases the accessibility and flexibility of benefits, it may 

lead to greater rates of service receipt among eligible workers. Furthermore, media attention 

devoted to these changes may itself affect participation through heightened awareness of the 

program. Findings from this report suggest that the changes to HCTC and ATAA in particular may 

lead to increases in rates of application for these benefits. For instance, some workers (covered 

under prior amendments) reported they did not apply for HCTC because health insurance would 

still be too expensive even with the tax credit covering 65 percent of the cost of premiums. The 

expansion of HCTC to cover 80 percent of premiums may make the program attractive to these 

types of workers. Changes to ATAA (now RTAA) may also address issues that discouraged some 

workers from applying for the benefit. We found that some workers did not apply for ATAA 

because they could not meet the application deadline or find a job; RTAA’s elimination of a deadline 

for finding qualified employment and increased allowable earnings for such employment may make 

RTAA appealing to workers like these. Likewise, allowing RTAA participants to enroll in training 

may encourage RTAA application among workers who, like some of those in our analysis, did not 

apply because they were interested in training. 
 Mathematica Policy Research

69 

REFERENCES 

D’Amico, Ronald, Kate Dunham, Annelies Goger, Melissa Mack, Rebekah Kebede, Johanna Lacoe, 

and Jeffrey Salzman. “Initial Implementation of the 2002 TAA Reform Act: A Report Prepared 

as Part of the Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program,” Report to the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Social Policy Research Associates, June 2007. 

Katz, Lawrence F., and Bruce D. Meyer. “The Impact of the Potential Duration of Unemployment 

Benefits on the Duration of Unemployment.” Journal of Public Economics, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 45–

72. 

Kletzer, Lori G. Imports, Exports, and Jobs: What Does Trade Mean for Employment and Job Loss?

Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, December 2002. 

Schochet, Peter Z. “Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program: Methodological 

Appendixes on the Sample Design and Baseline Interviewing.” Report to the U.S. Department 

of Labor, Mathematica Policy Research, September 2009. 
APPENDIX A 
6066-521 Mathematica Policy Research 

A.1 

Table A.1. Standard Errors and Item Response Rates for Selected Measures 

Standard Error Percent Responding to Survey 

Question Among Those Asked 

Measure 

TAA 

Participants 

TAA 

Nonparticipants 

TAA 

Participants 

TAA 

Nonparticipants 

TAA Participanta 0.41 100.0 

Received Any WIA Services 0.22 0.42 100.0 100.0 

Received ATAAb 0.50 n.a. 100.0 n.a. 

Received HCTC 0.37 n.a. 98.0 n.a. 

Received Rapid Response Services 0.38 0.47 100.0 100.0 

Received Letter from State 0.41 0.49 99.9 99.2 

Attended TAA Orientation 0.41 0.50 99.3 86.2 

Knew That TAA Provides 

Subsidized Training 0.29 0.48 100.0 99.4 

Enrolled in Any Trainingc 0.49 0.36 98.7 99.1 

Received Training for Skill or 

Occupation (Among Training 

Recipients)d 0.46 0.50 100.0 100.0 

Completed Any Training (Among 

Training Recipients)c 0.39 0.42 75.8 93.8 

Still Enrolled in Any Training at 

Time of Survey (Among Training 

Recipients)c 0.45 0.28 61.1 100.0 

Source: MPR TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. 

Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. 

n.a. = Not applicable 

a

Standard error calculated among all TAA eligible workers. 

b

Standard error calculated among workers aged 50 and over. 

c

Measure covers the 12 months following TAA eligibility. 

d

Measure is for main training program attended between TAA eligibility and baseline survey date. 

ATAA = Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; HCTC = Health Care Tax Credit; TAA = Trade Adjustment 

Assistance; WIA = Workforce Investment Act. 
APPENDIX B 
Table B.1. Unadjusted Means of Key Service Receipt Measures, by Subgroup 

Percentage of Sample 

 B.1 TAA Participant Received Any WIA Services Received ATA

(Among Tho

with Knowled

of Benefit)

TAA Eligibles TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participa

Female 56.6*** 93.0 70.5 7.9 Male 45.0 94.7 74.2 5.1 

Race/Ethnicity White Non-Hispanic 50.7† 95.5††† 74.3 5.8††

Black Non-Hispanic 54.6 91.5 71.4 12.0 Hispanic 40.5 88.2 63.5 1.7 

Other race 49.6 90.7 76.3 1.4 

Age (Years) < = 40 46.4 95.7††† 74.1 n.a. 

41 – 50 50.4 96.4 72.6 n.a. 51 – 60 51.2 92.8 73.5 8.1 61 + 56.2 87.7 67.6 4.3 

Education 

Less than high school 49.5††† 91.0 70.0† 7.6††

High school diploma or GED 52.9 94.9 69.6 7.4 Associate’s degree or some college 49.4 93.5 79.8 5.3 

Bachelor’s degree or above 36.0 96.4 83.3 0.9 

Married 50.5 94.0 75.2 7.2 Not married 50.2 93.7 69.5 4.9 Self-reported health poor 49.9 90.4 54.3 4.1 Self-reported health not poor 50.3 94.0 73.3 6.6 Speak language other than English at home 45.1 90.1†† 64.2 4.0 Speak English at home 51.1 94.4 74.2 6.7 Union member 47.8 93.2 68.0 8.4 Not union member 51.6 94.2 75.1 5.5 
Table B.1 (continued) 

Percentage of Sample 

Received ATA

(Among Tho

with Knowled

of Benefit)

 B.2 TAA Participant Received Any WIA Services TAA Eligibles TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participa

Covered by health insurance prior to job loss 52.5*** 94.0 74.2 6.6 Not covered by health insurance prior to job loss 34.7 93.2 64.2 4.8 

Trade-Affected Employer Size (Number of Employees) < 25 54.0 94.0 62.8 4.8 

25 –100 54.2 94.4 79.2 3.3 100 –500 49.7 94.0 73.4 7.4 500 + 45.9 93.2 70.4 8.2 

Base Period Wage for UI Claim <$ 14,625 35.3††† 96.2††† 54.6††† 0.0††

$ 14,625 –$ 20,921 56.2 90.0 80.8 8.8 $ 20,922 –$ 29,520 59.8 93.5 85.4 6.9 $ 29,521 –$ 42,437 54.1 93.7 65.0 4.8 $ 42,437 –$ 57,394 48.9 97.4 71.0 8.3 $ 57,394 + 32.9 94.7 80.7 6.2 

Job loss due to plant moving or closing 56.2*** 94.0 82.4*** 5.4 Job loss due to other reason 38.8 93.4 59.2 10.4 Expect to be recalled to employer 34.0*** 90.0 62.2*** 8.3 Do not expect to be recalled to employer 55.2 94.2 80.8 5.3 Received Rapid Response services 56.2*** 95.1*** 54.9*** 5.8 Did not receive Rapid Response services 33.2 87.9 49.6 11.5 Received TAA Letter from state 58.8*** 96.0*** 80.7*** 5.8 Did not receive TAA Letter from state 32.3 85.4 61.8 9.9 Attended TAA orientation 67.3*** 96.7*** 88.8*** 7.7*** Did not attend TAA orientation 31.0 83.8 61.9 1.6 Knew TAA offers subsidized training 60.5*** 95.7*** 81.6*** 6.6 Did not know TAA offers subsidized training 20.0 76.7 59.2 4.7 
Table B.1 (continued) 

 B.3

Percentage of Sample 

TAA Participant Received Any WIA Services 

Received ATA

(Among Tho

with Knowled

of Benefit)

TAA Eligibles TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participa

USDOL Region 

1 55.8††† 90.4†† 81.2† 5.6 

2 49.3 97.3 63.2 11.8 3 59.7 92.7 80.4 5.4 4 37.5 93.0 77.4 4.0 5 46.3 95.2 66.5 5.5 6 35.7 94.1 71.5 8.6 

Sample size 2,860 2,228 631 641 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. a Among those ages 50 and older. */**/*** Subgroup is significantly different from others at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

†/††/††† Differences across all subgroup levels are statistically significant at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level. 

ATAA = Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; GED = General Equivalency Diploma; HCTC = Health Coverage TaAdjustment Assistance; WIA = Workforce Investment Act; USDOL = United States Department of Labor; n.a. = Not applicable
Table B.2. Regression Adjusted Means of Key Service Receipt Measures, by Subgroup 

 B.4 Percentage of Sample TAA Participant Received Any WIA Services Received ATAA (Among Those with Knowledge of Benefit)a 

TAA Eligibles TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participants 

Female 66.9*** 97.0 82.0* 1.6 Male 57.3 97.7 89.5 1.1 

Race/Ethnicity White Non-Hispanic 62.3 97.9†† 88.1 1.6††† 

Black Non-Hispanic 59.2 95.2*** 76.2* 4.7** 

Hispanic 56.5 96.3 87.1 0.2 

Other race 69.7 96.4 90.4 0.2** 

Age (Years) < = 40 56.8 98.2††† 90.5 n.a. 

41 – 50 62.5 98.3 82.9 n.a. 

51 – 60 63.2 96.4** 89.0 1.7 61 + 67.9** 94.1*** 78.5* 0.7* 

Education 

Less than high school 60.6† 97.0 88.6 2.1 

High school diploma or GED 64.6 97.5 84.7 1.6 Associate’s degree or some college 60.8 96.7 89.1 1.2 Bachelor’s degree or above 49.2 98.5 89.8 0.1** 

Married 61.8 97.5 87.2 1.9** Not married 62.9 97.1 86.3 0.6 Self-reported health poor 66.8 96.2 69.4 1.0 Self-reported health not poor 62.0 97.4 87.3 1.3 Speak language other than English at home 68.4 96.4 77.5 1.4 Speak English at home 61.1 97.5 88.1 1.3 Union member 62.8 96.5 86.7 1.3 Not union member 61.9 97.7 87.0 1.3 Covered by health insurance prior to job loss 62.9* 97.4 87.0 1.3 

Not covered by health insurance prior to job 

loss 54.9 97.1 86.0 2.2 
Table B.2 (continued) 

Percentage of Sample 

 B.5 Received ATAA (Among Those with Knowledge of Benefit)a 

TAA Participant Received Any WIA Services TAA Eligibles TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participants 

Trade-Affected Employer Size (Number of Employees) < 25 68.0 97.6 86.8 1.2 

25 –100 66.1 97.8 85.6 0.7 100 –500 59.6 97.5 85.6 1.6 500 + 60.5 96.3 90.1 1.6 

Base Period Wage for UI Claim <$ 14,625 57.6††† 99.6† 86.3 0.00††† 

$ 14,625 –$ 20,921 65.6 95.5*** 90.3 3.3*** 

$ 20,922 –$ 29,520 68.0* 97.4** 90.6 3.0*** $ 29,521 –$ 42,437 65.9 96.1*** 80.5 1.3*** $ 42,437 –$ 57,394 58.2 98.1* 78.6 3.1*** $ 57,394 + 41.2** 97.3** 92.2 4.9*** 

Job loss due to plant moving or closing 63.1 97.4 89.3** 1.3 Job loss due to other reason 59.5 97.2 79.1 1.2 Expect to be recalled to employer 53.0** 95.4* 86.9 1.5 Do not expect to be recalled to employer 63.3 97.5 86.9 1.3 Received Rapid Response services 61.9 97.6* 88.8* 1.1* Did not receive Rapid Response services 63.4 95.8 79.6 2.6 Received TAA Letter from state 62.8 97.9*** 87.9 1.7 Did not receive TAA Letter from state 60.2 93.9 84.4 0.5 Attended TAA orientation 70.0*** 98.0*** 93.0*** 0.66*** Did not attend TAA orientation 38.5 92.8 77.0 0.14 Knew TAA offers subsidized training 64.5*** 97.5** 88.5 1.4 Did not know TAA offers subsidized training 42.7 95.5 80.5 0.2 
Table B.2 (continued) 

 B.6 

Percentage of Sample 

TAA 

Participant Received Any WIA Services 

Received ATAA 

(Among Those with 

Knowledge of Benefit)a

TAA Eligibles

TAA 

Participants 

TAA 

Nonparticipants TAA Participants 

USDOL Region 

1 62.7††† 97.5 88.7 2.1††† 

2 60.7 98.3 73.8 2.0 3 70.1 96.1 89.7 1.0 4 39.4*** 96.9 83.2 1.1 5 64.8 97.5 87.6 0.8 6 51.3* 98.6 87.9 0.5 

Sample size 2,567 2,073 494 604 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. */**/*** Subgroup is significantly different from others at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. †/††/††† Differences across all subgroup levels are statistically significant at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level. ATAA = Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; GED = General Equivalency Diploma; HCTC = Health Coverage TaAdjustment Assistance; WIA = Workforce Investment Act; USDOL = United States Department of Labor; n.a. = Not applicable
Table B.3. Unadjusted Means of Key Notification and Knowledge Measures, by Subgroup 

 B.7 Percentage of Sample Received Rapid Response Services Received Letter from State Attended TAA Orientation Kn

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TA

Partic

Female 81.1** 63.4 80.5 55.6 77.8 40.9 89Male 85.2 67.1 79.2 57.9 80.4 47.8 90

Race/Ethnicity White Non-Hispanic 84.0††† 65.4 79.9††† 60.2†† 78.2††† 46.6 92

Black Non-Hispanic 85.5 66.4 84.6 58.5 84.5 47.6 88

Hispanic 74.3 56.6 73.7 39.2 71.3 31.3 78

Other race 74.9 72.2 71.7 56.5 76.3 50.1 83

Age (Years) < = 40 80.1 59.0 76.6 54.4 81.7††† 40.1 92

41 – 50 85.2 71.7 82.1 55.8 81.8 43.2 91

51 – 60 85.1 67.8 80.4 61.7 78.0 51.0 90

61 + 79.6 60.7 79.5 54.5 71.1 46.9 83

Education 

Less than high 

school 78.3†† 68.9† 79.2†† 56.7 73.5 47.2 81

High school diploma 

or GED 84.5 60.8 81.4 53.5 80.3 42.7 91

Associate’s degree 

or some college 85.9 72.5 80.6 66.1 80.0 49.8 94

Bachelor’s degree or 

above 76.8 75.3 66.8 66.4 81.6 51.2 92

Married 84.1 68.7 78.8 61.1* 79.6 46.7 90

Not married 81.7 61.5 81.5 51.3 78.4 42.7 89

Self-reported health 

poor 86.0 57.3 79.7 68.5 79.5 33.9 89

Self-reported health 

not poor 83.1 65.8 80.0 56.6 79.3 45.5 90

Speak language other 

than English at home 76.3** 60.7 72.7*** 41.1*** 74.6** 34.5* 80

Speak English at home 84.0 66.4 80.9 59.7 79.7 46.8 91

Union member 84.8 65.6 77.6 51.9 82.7** 41.1 90

Not union member 82.5 65.4 81.0 60.1 77.4 47.5 90
Table B.3 (continued) 

Percentage of Sample 

Received Rapid Response 

Services Received Letter from State 

 B.8 Attended TAA Orientation Kn

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TA

Partic

Covered by health insurance prior to job loss 83.7* 67.9** 80.1 59.7*** 79.0 48.1*** 90Not covered by health insurance prior to job loss 77.8 52.1 79.1 42.5 81.1 26.7 84

Trade-Affected Employer Size (Number of Employees) < 25 74.9††† 42.4††† 74.4† 52.1 77.7 53.3 88

25 –100 79.5 68.5 77.4 57.0 78.8 49.9 88

100 –500 86.3 70.4 81.7 55.1 79.8 43.4 90

500 + 84.0 63.5 82.0 62.6 78.8 42.5 91

Base Period Wage for UI Claim 

<$ 14,625 74.7††† 35.6††† 77.1 35.3†† 76.5††† 22.2††† 86

$ 14,625 –$ 20,921 83.8 71.1 78.4 65.4 76.6 43.2 85

$ 20,922 –$ 29,520 79.3 77.7 81.1 60.4 74.8 50.1 88

$ 29,521 –$ 42,437 85.8 63.9 81.5 60.0 81.6 48.0 92

$ 42,437 –$ 57,394 86.9 74.4 79.2 58.9 84.8 46.3 96

$ 57,394 + 88.0 69.0 77.3 60.1 83.1 54.9 92

Job loss due to plant 

moving or closing 88.5*** 82.0*** 81.2** 63.6*** 80.0 48.1 90

Job loss due to other 

reason 67.8 42.5 76.1 47.7 76.5 40.3 90

Expect to be recalled 

to employer 68.5*** 43.1*** 78.6 44.9** 75.7 31.8*** 83

Do not expect to be 

recalled to employer 84.9 77.3 80.1 63.2 79.3 49.3 91
Table B.3 (continued) 

 B.9 

Percentage of Sample 

Received Rapid Response 

Services Received Letter from State Attended TAA Orientation 

Kn

TAA 

Participants 

TAA 

Nonparticipants

TAA 

Participants

TAA 

Nonparticipants

TAA 

Participants 

TAA 

Nonparticipants

TA

Partic

USDOL Region 

1 76.4 69.9††† 66.6††† 63.5††† 73.2††† 49.2††† 84

2 84.6 61.5 84.5 59.5 80.0 54.0 95

3 83.9 77.6 83.2 62.9 75.6 37.7 88

4 83.3 68.9 79.1 75.8 83.9 57.4 88

5 84.3 51.6 77.7 43.6 85.5 44.1 93

6 78.7 70.5 74.5 46.8 76.8 38.2 85

Sample size 2,228 631 2,226 626 2,213 544 2,2

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. */**/*** Subgroup is significantly different from others at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. †/††/††† Differences across all subgroup levels are statistically significant at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level. GED = General Equivalency Diploma; TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; USDOL = United States Department of Labor. 
Table B.4. Regression Adjusted Means of Key Notification and Knowledge Measures, by Subgroup 

 B.10 Percentage of Sample Received Rapid Response Services Received Letter from State Attended TAA Orientation K

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants 

Part

Female 84.7 76.2 80.8 65.7 81.2 44.4 9Male 87.4 77.0 79.8 63.1 80.0 48.9 9

Race/Ethnicity White Non-Hispanic 87.1†† 78.8 80.5 67.6 80.0††† 47.8 9

Black Non-Hispanic 88.7 72.7 83.9 55.9* 87.9*** 53.0 9

Hispanic 80.8** 62.8 78.4 50.5 73.3 38.2 8

Other race 78.3*** 79.8 75.0* 66.2 76.5 43.1 8

Age (Years) < = 40 85.6 76.4†† 76.8 71.2 84.1††† 44.3 9

41 – 50 87.4 83.9 82.3** 62.2 83.2 47.1 9

51 – 60 86.0 74.7 80.4 64.4 78.0** 49.5 961 + 83.9 60.8* 81.0 52.0* 73.8*** 46.3 8

Education Less than high school 84.5† 88.9†† 80.1†† 74.6 78.4 58.6 8

High school diploma or 

GED 86.9 74.5*** 81.3 59.6* 81.4 45.1 9

Associate’s degree or some 

college 86.6 76.4 81.2 65.6 79.4 44.2 9

Bachelor’s degree or above 77.6 65.9*** 65.5*** 68.4 81.6 46.4 9

Married 86.7 76.1 79.5 68.7* 81.9* 48.2 9Not married 84.9 77.5 81.5 56.7 78.3 45.2 9Self-reported health poor 88.6 56.4* 80.7 75.1 83.1 29.3* 9Self-reported health not poor 85.9 77.3 80.3 63.7 80.5 47.8 9Speak language other than 

English at home 85.8 65.9* 79.5 36.8*** 77.6 35.4 9

Speak English at home 86.1 78.3 80.5 68.8 81.1 49.1 9Union member 86.6 78.5 77.7 58.6 81.3 40.7 9

Not union member 85.8 75.8 81.4 66.4 80.3 49.9 9

Covered by health insurance 

prior to job loss 86.3 76.8 80.2 64.8 80.2 49.2** 9

Not covered by health 

insurance prior to job loss 82.7 75.5 81.9 60.1 84.3 31.6 9
Table B.4 (continued) 

 B.11 

Percentage of Sample 

Received Rapid Response 

Services Received Letter from State Attended TAA Orientation 

K

TAA 

Nonparticipants

TAA 

Participants 

TAA 

Participants

TAA 

Nonparticipants

TAA 

Participants 

TAA 

Nonparticipants

Part

Trade-Affected Employer Size 

(Number of Employees) 

< 25 78.0††† 58.0† 76.0 54.3 81.2 61.8 9

25 –100 82.9 80.3** 77.4 64.2 81.3 48.2 9100 –500 88.3*** 77.3** 81.6 62.2 81.0 45.0 9500 + 87.2*** 79.1** 82.4 72.6 78.4 43.7 9

Base Period Wage for UI Claim 

<$ 14,625 80.1† 43.4††† 77.3 52.3 80.0†† 19.9†† 

$ 14,625 –$ 20,921 86.0 72.7*** 77.1 66.1 76.6 43.1** 8

$ 20,922 –$ 29,520 82.6 82.4*** 81.4 68.6 75.8 53.9*** 9

$ 29,521 –$ 42,437 87.8** 78.9*** 81.6 64.9 81.7 47.2*** 9$ 42,437 –$ 57,394 88.0* 83.0*** 80.7 65.5 85.9 49.7*** 9$ 57,394 + 89.3** 79.1*** 79.8 62.3 85.8 58.1*** 9

Job loss due to plant moving 

or closing 89.8*** 83.9 81.6** 68.0* 81.7** 48.2 9

Job loss due to other reason 66.9 55.7 75.9 55.7 76.8 44.5 9

Expect to be recalled to 

employer 78.0*** 53.8 80.5 53.7* 78.6 30.2*** 8

Do not expect to be recalled 

to employer 86.8 80.3 80.3 66.2 80.8 50.2 9

USDOL Region 

1 83.6 70.6 72.9†† 72.8†† 77.6††† 50.1† 9

2 88.3 71.2 84.0*** 67.8 80.0 61.2 9

3 85.1 82.4 82.3*** 62.8 74.6 33.8 94 89.1 76.5 81.9*** 78.9 85.4** 58.4 9

5 86.3 69.9 79.0* 46.3* 85.5** 50.0 96 84.7 83.4 78.2 67.0 82.3 50.2 9

Sample size 2,086 564 2,084 560 2,073 495 2

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. */**/*** Subgroup is significantly different from others at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. †/††/††† Differences across all subgroup levels are statistically significant at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level. GED = General Equivalency Diploma; TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; USDOL = United States Department of Labor.
Table B.5. Unadjusted Means of Key Training Measures, by Subgroup 

 B.12 Percentage of Sample Enrolled in Any Training Received Training for Skill or Occupation (Among Enrollees)a Completed Any Training (Among Enrollees) 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants Training Participants Training Participants 

Female 61.9* 19.0*** 61.4*** 76.5** Male 57.5 10.7 74.7 83.2 

Race/Ethnicity White Non-Hispanic 57.8 12.9 72.1††† 84.7† 

Black Non-Hispanic 59.9 10.9 66.9 71.2 Hispanic 67.2 25.4 42.5 75.2 

Other race 63.6 10.9 66.3 78.5 

Age (Years) < = 40 72.2††† 16.0††† 69.5 76.6 

41 – 50 67.1 15.1 70.7 81.5 51 – 60 55.2 14.3 63.9 79.4 61 + 32.1 5.1 59.7 84.6 

Education 

Less than high school 55.1 16.2 23.3††† 71.5††† 

High school diploma or GED 60.8 13.0 75.7 79.4 Associate’s degree or some college 60.7 13.1 77.8 84.6 Bachelor’s degree or above 58.9 16.7 84.8 93.6 

Married 60.8 16.1* 68.5 83.9*** Not married 58.1 11.0 66.1 72.6 Self-reported health poor 52.0 21.1 61.2 62.7 Self-reported health not poor 60.0 13.8 68.0 80.2 Speak language other than English at home 69.0*** 25.2** 49.8*** 77.6 Speak English at home 58.4 12.1 71.1 80.0 Union member 61.5 7.1*** 72.9** 78.5 Not union member 59.1 17.7 65.4 80.0 
Table B.5 (continued) 

Percentage of Sample 

 B.13 Received Training for Skill or Occupation (Among Enrollees)a Completed Any Training (Among Enrolled in Any Training Enrollees) TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participants Training Training Participants Participants 

Covered by health insurance prior to job loss 59.8 14.9 69.2††† 80.1 Not covered by health insurance prior to job loss 58.7 9.5 51.8 74.3 

Trade-Affected Employer Size (Number of Employees) < 25 56.2 11.5 51.5††† 83.5 

25 –100 61.4 13.6 62.0 75.3 100 –500 57.9 11.3 70.5 80.7 500 + 63.6 20.2 73.7 79.8 

Base Period Wage for UI Claim 

<$ 14,625 53.4††† 9.8† 59.8††† 76.9††† 

$ 14,625 –$ 20,921 51.5 23.7 54.4 72.9 $ 20,922 –$ 29,520 58.2 16.1 60.8 76.8 $ 29,521 –$ 42,437 65.8 11.1 73.5 83.4 $ 42,437 –$ 57,394 64.3 9.1 80.2 79.6 $ 57,394 + 60.5 16.1 78.4 90.1 

Job loss due to plant moving or closing 61.5** 15.2 65.5 81.0 Job loss due to other reason 54.8 12.3 73.5 75.9 Expect to be recalled to employer 49.2*** 11.5 65.4 79.8 Do not expect to be recalled to employer 61.6 15.8 67.8 80.2 Received Rapid Response services 61.7*** 15.2 68.5 80.7 Did not receive Rapid Response services 49.9 11.7 63.1 74.9 Received TAA Letter from state 61.1** 18.3*** 67.7 79.6 Did not receive TAA Letter from state 54.1 8.4 67.4 79.7 Attended TAA orientation 63.2*** 16.8 68.9 79.6 Did not attend TAA orientation 47.6 12.9 64.4 79.9 
Table B.5 (continued) 

 B.14 

Percentage of Sample 

Enrolled in Any Training 

Received Training for 

Skill or Occupation 

(Among Enrollees)a

Completed Any 

Training (Among 

Enrollees) 

TAA 

Nonparticipants

TAA 

Participants Training Participants 

Training 

Participants 

Knew TAA offers subsidized training 61.9*** 15.7 69.9*** 80.2 Did not know TAA offers subsidized training 39.8 11.6 49.7 75.6 

USDOL Region 

1 60.4††† 11.6†† 61.5 80.1†† 

2 53.0 16.1 71.1 82.8 3 57.8 18.7 66.1 77.4 4 79.6 14.9 63.3 86.4 5 57.2 7.2 73.1 80.3 6 73.3 17.7 66.2 75.4 

Sample size 2,198 626 1,458 1,123 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. aPertains to the main training program following the UI claim date. */**/*** Subgroup is significantly different from others at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

†/††/††† Differences across all subgroup levels are statistically significant at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level. 

GED = General Equivalency Diploma; TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; USDOL = United States Department of Labor. 
Table B.6. Regression Adjusted Means of Key Training Measures, by Subgroup 

 B.15 Percentage of Sample Enrolled in Any Training Received Training for Skill or Occupation (Among Enrollees)a Completed Any Training (Among Enrollees) 

TAA Participants TAA Nonparticipants Training Participants Training Participants 

Female 67.2*** 14.8** 67.0*** 81.3 Male 58.2 8.5 77.6 85.1 Race/Ethnicity White Non-Hispanic 63.5 11.9 73.2 84.8†† 

Black Non-Hispanic 62.9 8.8 73.3 72.7*** 

Hispanic 63.3 10.7 62.2 83.0 Other race 59.8 6.6 72.7 84.6 

Age (Years) < = 40 76.4††† 14.4 73.1 81.8 

41 – 50 70.9* 13.3 75.9 82.9 

51 – 60 57.4*** 9.8 68.8 82.4 

61 + 33.5*** 4.3** 64.7 88.7 

Education 

Less than high school 66.3 11.0 26.5††† 75.5†† 

High school diploma or GED 62.6 12.2 78.4*** 82.8* Associate’s degree or some college 61.5 9.1 77.7*** 85.4** 

Bachelor’s degree or above 62.1 7.3 85.8*** 92.3** 

Married 64.8* 14.3*** 73.3 85.3 Not married 60.0 6.4 70.1 78.8 Self-reported health poor 53.2 8.8 59.4 73.3 Self-reported health not poor 63.3 10.8 72.5 83.4 

Speak language other than English at 

home 70.5* 26.4** 59.3** 81.5 

Speak English at home 61.5 9.1 74.7 83.5 Union member 64.3 5.8** 70.8 81.6 

Not union member 62.4 13.8 72.7 83.8 
Table B.6 (continued) 

 B.16 Percentage of Sample 

Received Training for Skill or Occupation (Among Enrollees)a Completed Any Training (Among Enrolled in Any Training Enrollees) TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participants Training Training Participants Participants 

Covered by health insurance prior to job loss 63.1 10.9 72.3 83.2 Not covered by health insurance prior to job loss 61.5 8.9 71.1 82.4 

Trade-Affected Employer Size (Number of Employees) < 25 60.6 12.3 57.4††† 88.4† 

25 –100 64.0 8.4 66.1 77.4** 100 –500 62.1 9.4 76.0*** 83.3 

500 + 65.1 15.9 76.1*** 85.2 

Base Period Wage for UI Claim 

<$ 14,625 57.1†† 11.2 74.8 80.2 

$ 14,625 –$ 20,921 52.6 17.2 68.7 78.5 

$ 20,922 –$ 29,520 60.5 11.1 67.2 81.7 

$ 29,521 –$ 42,437 66.6 9.6 72.5 87.7 

$ 42,437 –$ 57,394 68.6* 6.6 79.4 81.7 

$ 57,394 + 69.9* 12.3 72.6 84.0 

Job loss due to plant moving or closing 63.6 10.7 71.1 84.1 Job loss due to other reason 61.1 10.5 75.6 79.6 

Expect to be recalled to employer 53.1** 8.5 76.4 82.1 Do not expect to be recalled to 

employer 64.1 11.1 71.7 83.2 

Received Rapid Response services 64.2* 11.4 72.1 83.4 

Did not receive Rapid Response 

services 56.8 8.8 72.6 81.7 

Received TAA Letter from state 63.6 12.5 71.3 83.4 

Did not receive TAA Letter from state 60.4 7.3 75.6 82.0 

Attended TAA orientation 64.9*** 12.4 71.9 83.1 Did not attend TAA orientation 55.2 9.2 73.4 83.3 
Table B.6 (continued) 

 B.17 Percentage of Sample Enrolled in Any Training Received Training for Skill or Occupation (Among Enrollees)a Completed Any Training (Among Enrollees) 

TAA Nonparticipants TAA Participants Training Participants Training Participants 

Knew TAA offers subsidized training 63.9** 10.2 72.5 83.0 Did not know TAA offers subsidized training 51.4 12.5 66.7 85.3 USDOL Region 1 64.7††† 9.0† 72.6††† 84.4†† 

2 56.2 19.5 65.1 86.2 

3 61.1 15.3 65.6 81.6 

4 78.3*** 8.5 76.4 89.3 

5 55.7* 5.9 72.9 83.7 

6 75.8** 8.9 84.6 73.9 

Sample size 2,050 489 1,365 1,050 

Source: Mathematica TAA Baseline Survey administered 2008-2009. Note: Data pertain to all survey respondents who were eligible for TAA. aPertains to the main training program following the UI claim date. */**/*** Subgroup is significantly different from others at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level, two-tailed test. 

†/††/††† Differences across all subgroup levels are statistically significant at the 0.10/0.05/0.01 level. 

GED = General Equivalency Diploma; TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance; USDOL = United States Department of Labor. 
www.mathematica-mpr.com 

Improving public well-being by conducting high-quality, objective research and surveys 

Princeton, NJ ■ Ann Arbor, MI ■ Cambridge, MA ■ Chicago, IL ■ Oakland, CA ■ Washington, DC 

Mathematica® is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research