United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

TRADE 

ADJUSTMENT 

ASSISTANCE 

Most Workers in Five 

Layoffs Received 

Services, but Better 

Outreach Needed on 

New Benefits 

January 2006 

 

GAO-06-43 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-43.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at 

(202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-06-43, a report to 

congressional requesters 

January 2006

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received 

Services, but Better Outreach Needed on 

New Benefits 

At all five trade-related plant closures that GAO studied, about three-quarters 

or more of the workers received reemployment assistance through a onestop center, and they most often received one-on-one services such as job 

search assistance, according to our survey estimates. About a third or less 

of the workers at most sites received training and long-term income support, 

with workers over age 55 less likely to enter training than younger workers. 

Workers who did not visit a center most often said they needed to find a job 

right away and did not think they had time to visit a center, or did not think 

they needed help finding a new job. 

At the time GAO conducted its survey, most of the workers had either found 

a new job or retired. At three sites, over 60 percent of the workers were 

reemployed. At another site, only about 40 percent were reemployed, but 

another third had retired. And at the final site, about a third were 

reemployed, but this site had the highest proportion of workers who entered 

training and most of them were likely still in training. The majority of 

reemployed workers at four of five sites earned less than they had 

previously—replacing about 80 percent or more of their prior wages—but at 

one site over half the reemployed workers matched their prior wages. 

Few workers at each site received either the health insurance benefit or the 

wage insurance benefit available to some older workers. No more than 12 

percent of workers at each site received the health insurance benefit, and at 

four of five sites, fewer than half the workers who visited a one-stop center 

were aware of it. Many workers did not use it because they had other 

coverage or because the cost of available health insurance was too high. No 

more than one in five of the older workers at each site received the wage 

insurance benefit, and at two sites, fewer than half the older workers who 

visited a center were aware of it. 

Most Workers in Four of Five Sites Found Jobs or Retired 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI 

(Mass.)

Toro 

(Miss.)

Weyerhaeuser 

(Wash.)

Lear 

(Pa.)

General Mills

(Mo.)

Percentage of workers

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Retired Reemployed

73

7

19

61

3

36 39

32

29

62

38 37

1

62

Not working

Surveyed less

than 1 year after 

layoff

Surveyed more than 1 year after layoff

Little is known nationally about the 

extent to which workers laid off as 

a result of international trade use 

the variety of federally funded 

reemployment services available to 

them. GAO was asked to study the 

experiences of workers affected by 

a small number of trade-related 

layoffs. GAO examined (1) the 

extent to which workers accessed 

federally funded reemployment 

services and the mix of services 

received, (2) the employment 

outcomes these workers achieved, 

and (3) the extent to which 

workers used the new health 

insurance and wage insurance 

benefits under the Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 

program, and the factors affecting 

their participation. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of Labor provide 

guidance to state and local officials 

on how to ensure that potentially 

eligible workers are made aware of 

the new health insurance and wage 

insurance benefits. In its 

comments, Labor agreed with our 

findings and recommendations and 

noted steps it was taking to 

implement them. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 7

Most Workers at Five Sites Received Some Reemployment 

Assistance, but Generally Less Than a Third Entered Training 12 

Most Workers at Four of the Five Sites Found a Job or Retired 

after Being Laid Off, and Employment Outcomes Varied by 

Services Received 29 

A Small Proportion of Workers in the Five Sites Received Health 

Insurance or Wage Insurance Benefits, but Many Workers Were 

Unaware of These Benefits 39 

Conclusions 48

Recommendations for Executive Action 50 

Agency Comments 50 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 52 

Appendix II Detailed Breakdown of Workers’ Training Providers 

and Costs by Site 56 

Appendix III Detailed Breakdown of Participation in HCTC 57 

Appendix IV Regression Analysis of Survey Data 59 

Appendix V General Mills Plant Closure (Hazelwood, Mo.) 63 

Appendix VI Lear Plant Closure (Lewistown, Pa.) 66 

Appendix VII Weyerhaeuser Plant Closure (Longview, Wash.) 69 

Page i GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix VIII Toro Plant Closure (Oxford, Miss.) 72 

Appendix IX Sanmina-SCI Plant Closure (Wilmington, Mass.) 75 

Appendix X Comments from the Department of Labor 78 

Appendix XI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 86 

Related GAO Products 87 

Tables 

Table 1: TAA Program Fund Allocations for Case Study States, 

Fiscal Year 2004 10 

Table 2: Workers in TAA- and WIA-Funded Training by Program 

Type 25 

Table 3: Maximum Allowable TAA Training Costs per Worker 28 

Table 4: Average Pre-layoff Hourly Wage and Wage Replacement 

Rates 35 

Table 5: Monthly Costs for HCTC-Eligible Health Insurance Plans 

Available to Dislocated Workers at Each Site 45 

Table 6: Number of Focus Groups and Participants by Site 53 

Table 7: Survey Response Rates by Site 54 

Table 8: Workers in TAA- and WIA-Funded Training by Provider 

Type 56 

Table 9: Workers in TAA- and WIA-Funded Training by Expected 

Program Cost 56 

Table 10: Workers’ participation in HCTC 57 

Table 11: Key Reasons Workers Gave for Not Participating in

HCTC 58 

Table 12: Numbers and Percentages of Workers Who Visited a OneStop Center, by Sex and Site, and Odds and Odds Ratios 

Derived from Them 60 

Page ii GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Table 13: Odds Ratios Describing the Effects of Various Factors on 

the Likelihoods of Visiting a One-Stop Center, Receiving 

Training, and Receiving HCTC 61 

Table 14: Profile of St. Louis County, Mo. 63 

Table 15: Characteristics of Workers at General Mills’ Hazelwood 

Plant 64 

Table 16: Profile of Mifflin County, Pa. 66 

Table 17: Characteristics of Workers at Lear’s Lewistown Plant 67 

Table 18: Profile of Cowlitz County, Wash. 69 

Table 19: Characteristics of Workers at Weyerhaeuser’s Longview 

Plant 70 

Table 20: Profile of Lafayette County, Miss. 72 

Table 21: Characteristics of TAA-Certified Workers at Toro’s 

Oxford Plant 73 

Table 22: Profile of Middlesex County, Mass. 75 

Table 23: Characteristics of Workers at Sanmina-SCI’s Wilmington 

Plant 76 

Figures 

Figure 1: Case Study Sites 4 

Figure 2: Most Dislocated Workers Visited a One-Stop Center 14 

Figure 3: Most Workers Received One-on-One Assistance at OneStop Centers 15 

Figure 4: Service Tracks Available at the Lewistown, Pa., One-Stop 

Center 16

Figure 5: Percentage of Workers Who Went to a One-Stop Center 

within 2 Months of Being Laid Off 20 

Figure 6: One-Third or Fewer of Workers at Most Sites Enrolled in 

Training 21

Figure 7: Workers in TAA- or WIA-Funded Training by Expected 

Length of Training Program 22 

Figure 8: Number of Months Workers Received Income Support 

Benefits (UI and in Some Cases Extended Income 

Support) 23

Figure 9: Most Workers at Four of Five Sites Had Found Jobs or 

Retired at the Time of the Survey 31 

Figure 10: Number of Months Workers Took to Find Their Current 

Jobs 33

Figure 11: Workers Replaced About 80 Percent or More of Wages 

on Average 34 

Figure 12: Most Workers Received Benefits in New Jobs 36 

Page iii GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 13: More Than Half of Reemployed Workers Returned to 

Manufacturing 37

Figure 14: Across Sites, HCTC Participation Was Relatively Low 40 

Figure 15: Percentage of Workers Who Visited a One-Stop Center 

Who Were Aware of HCTC 41 

Figure 16: Reasons for Not Participating in HCTC, among Workers 

Who Were Aware of HCTC but Chose Not to Participate 43 

Figure 17: Few Workers Participated in ATAA 47 

Figure 18: Percentage of Older Workers Who Visited a One-Stop 

Center and Were Aware of ATAA 48 

Figure 19: Time Line of General Mills Plant Closure, Hazelwood, 

Mo. 65

Figure 20: Time Line of Lear Plant Closure, Lewistown, Pa. 68 

Figure 21: Time Line of Weyerhaeuser Plant Closure, Longview, 

Wash. 71

Figure 22: Time Line of Toro Plant Closure, Oxford, Miss. 74 

Figure 23: Time Line of Sanmina-SCI Plant Closure, Wilmington, 

Mass. 77

Abbreviations 

ATAA Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 

COBRA Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 

ES Employment Service 

GED General Equivalency Diploma 

HCTC Health Coverage Tax Credit 

IRS Internal Revenue Service 

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance 

UI Unemployment Insurance 

WARN Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page iv GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

January 31, 2006 

The Honorable Charles Grassley, Chairman 

The Honorable Max Baucus, Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Finance 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Michael Enzi, Chairman 

The Honorable Edward Kennedy, Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

Manufacturing workers in the United States face an uncertain future, as 

manufacturing employment continues to decline. The rate of 

manufacturing job loss has slowed since early 2003, but manufacturing 

employment has continued to fall despite overall employment growth. 

Between January 2003 and June 2005, manufacturing employment in the 

United States fell by 3.9 percent while overall employment increased by 

2.6 percent. Finding a new job may be especially challenging for 

manufacturing workers who lose their jobs as a result of international 

trade, in part because they may be unable to adapt to the changing U.S. 

labor market. These workers tend to be older and to have fewer 

transferable skills than other laid-off workers, according to one study, 

making reemployment assistance especially important for them.1

The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, established in 1962, is

the federal government’s primary effort targeted at manufacturing workers 

who lose their jobs as a result of international trade. The program, funded 

at $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005, is focused on manufacturing workers laid

off as a result of increased import competition or a shift of production 

abroad. TAA provides up to 130 weeks of training and up to 104 weeks of 

income support benefits to supplement the regular 26 weeks of 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits available to workers in most 

states. The TAA Reform Act of 2002 added two new benefits to the 

program—health insurance assistance and wage insurance for older 

workers. In addition, the federal government funds reemployment services 

such as job search assistance for dislocated workers and job seekers more 

 1

 See Lori Kletzer, Job Loss from Imports: Measuring the Costs (Washington, D.C.:

Institute for International Economics, 2001). 

Page 1 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
generally, including trade-affected workers, through the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) Dislocated Worker program and the Employment 

Service (ES) program. The U.S. Department of Labor (Labor) oversees the 

TAA, WIA Dislocated Worker, and ES programs, which are generally 

implemented at the state and local level through a network of one-stop 

centers that provide access to a variety of employment and training 

services. 

Despite the availability of a broad array of federally-funded services, little 

is known nationally about the extent to which workers affected by 

international trade use these services. Labor tracks the number of 

individuals who receive services through the TAA, WIA Dislocated 

Worker, and ES programs, but these data do not tell us the proportion of 

workers affected by a given trade-related layoff who seek services or the 

full range of services they receive. Workers affected by a trade-related 

layoff could, for example, look for a job on their own; they could visit a 

one-stop center and receive reemployment services such as workshops 

and one-on-one assistance; or they could receive training and extended

income support. To better understand how trade-affected workers utilize 

federally funded assistance, and what employment outcomes they achieve,

you asked us to examine the experiences of workers affected by a small 

number of trade-related layoffs. Specifically, in this report we examine 

(1) the extent to which workers accessed federally funded reemployment 

services and the mix of services received, (2) the employment outcomes 

these workers achieved, and (3) the extent to which workers used the new 

health insurance and wage insurance benefits under the TAA program, and 

the factors affecting their participation. 

To address these questions, we selected plant closures at five locations: 

General Mills, Inc. (baked goods, Missouri); Lear Corporation (automotive 

carpets, Pennsylvania); Sanmina-SCI Corporation (printed circuit boards, 

Massachusetts); The Toro Company (lawnmower and snow-thrower 

engines, Mississippi); and Weyerhaeuser Company (fine paper and pulp, 

Washington).2

 These plant closures all occurred since January 2003, and 

Labor determined that all were related to international trade. In the 

aggregate, about 1,500 workers were affected by these closures and were 

potentially eligible for the TAA program, or almost half of 1 percent of the 

estimated number of workers covered by the 3,618 TAA petitions certified

 2

 For the remainder of this report, we refer to these companies as General Mills, Lear,

Sanmina-SCI, Toro, and Weyerhaeuser. 

Page 2 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
nationally during fiscal years 2003 and 2004.3

 The General Mills plant (near 

St. Louis) and the Sanmina-SCI plant (near Boston) were located in large 

metropolitan areas, the Lear and Toro plants were located in rural 

counties, and the Weyerhaeuser plant was located in a medium-sized 

town. We selected these sites because the plants manufactured a variety of

products, were located in different regions of the country, experienced a 

layoff event that affected between 100 and 500 workers, and occurred after 

the TAA Reform Act of 2002 was enacted (see fig. 1). The Toro layoff in 

Mississippi affected over 100 workers total, but just 40 of them were 

determined by Labor to have lost their jobs as a result of international 

trade and were potentially eligible for TAA services.4

 To learn about 

strategies to help affected workers, we visited each layoff site and 

interviewed state and local officials, company and union officials, and 

training providers. To learn more about workers’ experiences with 

employment and training services and their reemployment outcomes, we 

conducted a telephone survey of workers affected by each layoff. Survey 

response rates for each layoff ranged from 66 percent to 86 percent. We 

used the responses to make estimates about the entire population of each 

site, after conducting an analysis of the difference between the survey 

respondents and non-respondents. All percentage estimates from our 

survey have margins of error of plus or minus 7 percent or less unless 

otherwise noted. All wage related estimates from our survey have relative

margins of error of plus or minus 10 percent or less unless otherwise 

noted. (For detailed survey results by site, see GAO-06-44SP.) Using data 

from our worker survey, we performed multivariate regression analyses to

estimate the effects of factors such as age, gender, and education level on

the likelihood of receiving training and other services. We augmented the 

survey with several focus group discussions of two to seven workers at 

each site. We also reviewed state administrative data on workers’ 

demographics and the services they received, as well as state wage 

records on employment outcomes, when available. We assessed all data 

for reliability and found them to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

our reporting objectives. We performed our work from November 2004 

through December 2005 in accordance with generally accepted 

 3

 All workers covered by a certified TAA petition are potentially eligible for TAA benefits

and services. However, certified workers must apply individually for specific benefits and 

services. 

4

 In our analysis and reporting, we focused on the workers in the Toro site who were

covered by the TAA petition, but when relevant we included data on the other workers for 

comparison. 

Page 3 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
government auditing standards. (See app. I for more details on our 

objectives, scope, and methodology.) 

Figure 1: Case Study Sites 

Mass.

Mo.

Pa.

Wash.

Sources: State officials, U.S. Dept. of Labor, and GAO survey of dislocated workers. 

Company

 General Mills

Plant location

 Hazelwood, Mo.

Product

 Baked goods

Primary layoff dates

 Jan.-Oct. 2003

Number of workers

identified as potentially

eligible for TAA

 436

Company

 Lear

Plant location

 Lewistown, Pa.

Product

 Automobile carpets

Primary layoff dates

 Nov. 2003-Feb. 2004

Number of workers

identified as potentially

eligible for TAA

 308

Company

 Weyerhaeuser

Plant location

 Longview, Wash.

Product

 Fine paper and pulp

Primary layoff dates

 Nov. 2003-Sept. 2004

Number of workers

identified as potentially

eligible for TAA

 205

Company

 Toro

Plant location

 Oxford, Miss.

Product

 Lawnmower and 

 snow thrower engines

Primary layoff dates

 Apr.-May 2004

Number of workers

identified as potentially

eligible for TAA

 40

Total affected by closure

 112

Company

 Sanmina-SCI

Plant location

 Wilmington, Mass.

Product

 Printed circuit boards

Primary layoff dates

 Aug.-Oct. 2004

Number of workers

identified as potentially

eligible for TAA

 472

Miss.

Page 4 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
At all five sites that we studied, the majority of affected workers received 

some reemployment assistance through a one-stop center, but at most 

sites about a third or less received training and long-term income support. 

Between 72 and 100 percent of the workers in each site went to a one-stop 

center, and they most commonly received one-on-one assistance such as 

job search assistance, according to our survey estimates. Women and 

workers with lower pre-layoff wages were significantly more likely to visit 

a one-stop center than men and workers with higher pre-layoff wages. At 

four of the five sites that we studied, about a quarter or less of the workers 

did not go to a one-stop center. These workers most commonly reported 

that they needed to find a job right away and did not think they had time to 

visit a one-stop center, or did not need help finding a job. While most 

workers at each site visited a one-stop center, a minority at each site 

enrolled in training. The proportion who enrolled in training ranged from 9 

to 39 percent at the five sites, with no more than a third in training at four

of the sites. While about half the workers received income support 

benefits for over 6 months at three of five sites, about one-third or less of 

the workers in all five sites received long-term benefits—for 1 year or 

longer—which are generally available only to trade-affected workers in 

training who have exhausted their Unemployment Insurance benefits. 

Older workers were less likely to enter training, according to analysis of 

our survey data. For example, over half of the Weyerhaeuser workers in 

Washington were age 55 or older, and only 5 percent of these older 

workers entered training while almost 60 percent retired. 

Results in Brief 

Most of the affected workers had either found a job or retired at the time 

of our survey. At three of the sites, 60 percent or more of the workers had 

found jobs. In another site, Weyerhaeuser in Washington, 39 percent had

found jobs, and an additional 32 percent had opted for retirement. In the 

fifth site, Sanmina-SCI in Massachusetts, only 37 percent of the workers 

had found new jobs, but this layoff occurred more recently and had the 

highest proportion of workers who entered training, most of whom were 

expected to still be in training at the time of the survey. The majority of 

reemployed workers in four of the five sites earned less in their new jobs 

than they had previously earned, but typically replaced about 80 percent 

or more of their prior earnings. In one site, however, slightly more than 

half of the reemployed workers matched their prior wages. More than half 

of reemployed workers returned to the manufacturing sector, and at most 

sites workers who returned to manufacturing replaced about the same 

proportion of their pre-layoff wages as workers reemployed in other 

industries. Workers who entered training replaced slightly less of their 

wages than workers who did not in all but one site, and those who were 

trained generally left manufacturing for another industry. Our study 

Page 5 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
cannot be used to determine whether one set of services was more 

effective than another, but only to document what happened to different 

workers who chose different services. Labor has funded a long-term 

impact evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program that may 

tell us more about the effectiveness of various service strategies. The 

study is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2008. 

Few workers at each site received either the health insurance or wage 

insurance benefit, but many workers told us they were unaware of these 

benefits. Participation rates for the health insurance benefit, which covers 

65 percent of workers’ monthly premiums for eligible health insurance 

plans, did not exceed 12 percent of all workers at any site, according to 

our survey. At most sites, less than half of affected workers who visited 

one-stop centers said they were aware of the health insurance benefit,

although information on the program was provided to them at information 

sessions. Workers in several sites told us they might have applied for the

health insurance benefit if they had known about it. Yet, of the workers 

aware of the health insurance benefit at each site who did not use it, about

half or more said they did not need it because they had other coverage 

available or they could not afford health insurance even with the benefit’s 

65 percent tax credit. For example, the average cost of insurance 

premiums for a family plan in Mississippi was about $1,000 per month, 

leaving workers with an out-of-pocket cost of about $350 per month, 

roughly 41 percent of the maximum monthly Unemployment Insurance 

benefit of about $840 in Mississippi. Workers and officials also noted 

limited participation and awareness for the wage insurance benefit—

which provides a wage subsidy for workers 50 years of age or older who 

find a job within 6 months of their layoff without training. At four of the 

five sites, between 21 and 72 percent of workers were potentially eligible 

for the wage insurance benefit, and fewer than one in five of these 

workers received the benefit at any site. Workers at the fifth site were not 

certified as eligible for the wage insurance program. Workers said in our 

focus groups and on our survey that they had not participated in the 

program because they were unaware of it, did not want to forfeit the 

opportunity to take training for the $10,000 maximum wage subsidy, or 

were unable to find work within 6 months of their layoff. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of Labor provide guidance to

states and local one-stop centers to ensure that potentially eligible 

workers are made aware of and understand the new health and wage 

insurance benefits under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. In its 

written comments, Labor agreed with our findings and recommendations 

and noted steps it was taking to implement them. 

Page 6 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Dislocated workers who have lost their jobs as a result of international 

trade are largely provided services through three federally funded 

employment and training programs—the TAA program, the WIA 

Dislocated Worker program, and the Wagner-Peyser ES program. These 

services are provided through a consolidated service delivery structure 

called the one-stop system. In order to encourage the streamlined delivery 

of employment services, WIA was enacted in 1998 and required that the

TAA, WIA, ES, and other federally funded programs provide employment 

and training services through the one-stop center system made up of 

nearly 2,000 individual one-stop centers operating in about 600 local 

workforce areas across the nation. These program services may be 

provided directly at a one-stop center, or at other locations through 

referrals. 

The TAA program was designed to assist workers who have lost their jobs 

as a result of international trade. In order for workers to be eligible for 

TAA benefits, Labor must certify that their layoff was trade affected. This 

certification process begins when a petition on behalf of a group of laid-off

workers is filed with Labor. Petitions may be filed by a group of at least 

three affected workers, the employer experiencing the layoff, a union, or a

state or local workforce agency. Labor has 40 days to investigate whether 

workers were laid off as a result of international trade, for example 

because of a shift in production to another country or an increase in 

imports of articles like or similar to what the workers were involved in

producing. If Labor certifies the petition, it notifies the state in which the 

layoff occurred, which then has responsibility for contacting the workers 

eligible for TAA program benefits under the petition. States must inform 

workers individually about the benefits available to them as well as how to 

apply for benefits. 

Background 

Trade Adjustment 

Assistance Program 

The TAA program provides two primary benefits—training and extended 

income support. States have responsibility for approving training and 

determining eligibility for extended income support, while local one-stop 

centers are the main point of intake and actual delivery of TAA services 

and benefits. Training benefits include vocational training, on-the-job 

training, and remedial training (e.g., English as a second language or 

literacy). Participants in TAA-approved training must attend training fulltime. Program participants may also receive a total of 104 weeks of 

extended income support beyond the 26 weeks of UI benefits available in

most states. This includes 78 weeks of extended income support while 

workers are completing vocational training, and another 26 weeks if 

workers are completing remedial training. During their first 26 weeks of 

Page 7 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
extended income support, participants must either be enrolled in training, 

have completed training, or have a waiver from this requirement. To 

qualify for extended income support, participants must be enrolled in 

training by the later of two dates: either 16 weeks after being laid off or 8 

weeks after Labor certified their petition. The maximum level of extended

income support payments in a state is set by statute at the state’s 

maximum UI benefit level. 

The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Reform Act of 2002 added several 

new benefits to the TAA program, including the Health Coverage Tax 

Credit (HCTC).5

 Workers must be enrolled in training or have a waiver 

from this requirement to be eligible for the HCTC benefit that helps 

workers pay for health care insurance through a tax credit covering 65

percent of their premiums for qualified plans. Workers can choose to 

receive the tax credit in one of two ways—as an advanced option that 

covers 65 percent of their monthly premiums allowing them to lower the 

amount they have to pay out of pocket for health coverage, or as an end of

year tax credit that is claimed on their income taxes. The tax credit is 

administered at the federal level by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and 

three federal departments—Treasury, Labor and Health and Human 

Services—share responsibility for implementing HCTC. There are three 

health plan options that are automatically HCTC-eligible: 

COBRA continuation plans. Under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985,6

 certain employers with 20 or more 

employees are required to offer 18 to 36 months of continued health care 

coverage to former employees and their dependents who lose health 

coverage due to certain circumstances, such as when a worker is laid off. 

Generally, health care insurers may charge individuals purchasing COBRA 

continuation coverage no more than 102 percent of the total premium. 

Spousal coverage. Health care insurance obtained through a worker’s 

spouse’s employer is also HCTC-eligible, provided that the employer 

contributed less than 50 percent toward the cost of coverage.

 5

 For more information on TAA benefits such as HCTC see GAO, Trade Adjustment 

Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training Enrollment, but Implementation 

Challenges Remain, GAO-04-1012 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2004); and GAO, Health

Coverage Tax Credit: Simplified and More Timely Enrollment Process Could Increase

Participation, GAO-04-1029 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004). 

6

 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-272, 

Apr. 7, 1986. 

Page 8 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Individual market plans. Workers may use HCTC to cover a portion of 

the monthly cost of individually purchased health insurance coverage if 

the worker purchased the coverage at least 30 days prior to being laid off. 

In addition to the three options that are automatically qualified for HCTC, 

the TAA Reform Act allows states to designate other coverage

alternatives—called state-qualified options—for HCTC recipients. For 

example, states may make arrangements with individual health insurers, 

among others, to provide HCTC-eligible coverage to TAA participants. 

The Reform Act also established as a demonstration project a wage 

insurance benefit for older workers—known as the Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) program. This program supplements the 

incomes of workers 50 years of age or older who forgo TAA-funded 

training and are able to find jobs within 26 weeks of being laid off that pay 

less than $50,000 a year and pay less than what they previously earned. If

workers meet these criteria they are eligible to receive 50 percent of the 

difference between their new and old wages up to a maximum of $10,000

over 2 years. Older trade-affected workers are only eligible for the wage 

insurance program if the petition for TAA assistance that was filed with 

Labor included a specific request for ATAA eligibility. 

About $750 million was appropriated for income support for trade-affected 

workers for fiscal year 2005, while another $259 million was appropriated 

for training. Labor allocates 75 percent of these training funds to states 

according to a formula that takes into account each state’s previous year 

allocations, accrued expenditures and participant levels. Labor holds the 

remaining 25 percent of training funds in reserve, to distribute to states 

throughout the year according to need. To cover administrative costs 

associated with the TAA program, Labor allocates to each state an 

additional 15 percent of its program allocation (see table 1). For example, 

Pennsylvania was allocated $20.6 million in fiscal year 2004 to provide 

trade-affected workers with training and other services, and an additional 

$3.1 million was allocated to cover costs associated with administering the 

TAA program. Labor sets and tracks national TAA performance goals for 

job placement, job retention and wage replacement outcomes, but there 

are no individual state performance goals. 

Page 9 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Table 1: TAA Program Fund Allocations for Case Study States, Fiscal Year 2004 

Dollars in millions 

State TAA training funds TAA administrative funds

Missouri $4.8 $0.7

Pennsylvania 20.6 3.1

Washington 13.4 2

Mississippi 1.7 0.3

Massachusetts 5.2 0.8

Source: U.S. Department of Labor.

WIA Dislocated Worker 

Program 

The WIA Dislocated Worker program is available to dislocated workers in 

general and is not reserved for those affected by international trade. A 

dislocated worker is an individual who (1) has been terminated or laid off, 

or who has received a notice of termination or layoff, from employment; is 

eligible for, or has exhausted entitlement to, UI or is not eligible but has 

been employed for a sufficient duration to demonstrate attachment to the 

workforce; and is unlikely to return to his previous industry or occupation; 

(2) has been terminated or laid off, or has received a notice of termination 

or layoff, from employment as a result of any permanent plant closure of, 

or substantial layoff at a plant, facility, or enterprise; (3) was self 

employed but is unemployed as a result of general economic conditions in

the community in which the individual resides or because of natural 

disasters; or (4) is a displaced homemaker. 

Labor distributes 80 percent of the WIA Dislocated Worker funds ($1.5 

billion in fiscal year 2005) directly to states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico based on a formula. States then distribute 60 percent of these 

funds to local areas by formula to support WIA services for dislocated 

workers. Each state can reserve no more than 25 percent of its dislocated

worker funds to provide rapid response services to help dislocated 

workers transition quickly to reemployment, and up to 15 percent for 

other statewide activities. Labor retains 20 percent of dislocated worker 

funds ($283 million in fiscal year 2005) in a national reserve account to be

used to provide states with national emergency grants, demonstrations, 

and technical assistance.

7

 7

 These national reserve funds are also used to provide annual allotments to the outlying 

areas of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Northern

Mariana Islands, and the Republic of Palau. 

Page 10 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Under the WIA Dislocated Worker program there are three sequential 

levels of service available through the one-stop center system—core, 

intensive, and training. The initial core services—including job search and 

placement assistance, the provision of labor market information, and 

preliminary assessment of skills and needs—are available to everyone. If a 

dislocated worker is determined to be unable to find a job or has a job that 

does not lead to self-sufficiency after core services, intensive services may 

be made available, which include comprehensive assessments, 

development of an individual employment plan, and case management. 

Dislocated workers who are determined to be unable to obtain or retain

employment after intensive services can move on to training. At this level,

dislocated workers can receive services including occupational skills 

training and on-the-job training. 

The 1988 Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act 

generally requires employers with 100 or more workers to give notice—

often called a WARN notice—to the affected workers’ representatives 

(e.g., a labor union) or the workers themselves if they have no 

representatives, as well as to the state dislocated worker unit 60 days in 

advance of expected plant closings or mass layoffs.8

 Once an employer 

files a WARN notice with the state’s dislocated worker unit, a rapid 

response team is mobilized to provide immediate and on-site contact with

the employer experiencing layoffs as well as with employee 

representatives to assess the needs of affected workers. Generally workers 

are invited to attend a rapid response meeting where they are provided 

with information about UI and other federally funded employment and 

training services also available through the one-stop center system. 

Typically, if they have reserved adequate funds to provide rapid response 

services, states may also use rapid response funds for services including 

providing additional assistance to local areas that are experiencing 

increased unemployment, and to pay for direct services such as training. 

States can also apply to Labor for national emergency grant funds to 

provide additional employment and training services to workers affected 

by mass layoffs and plant closings, or to provide temporary assistance to 

workers affected by natural disasters and other catastrophic events. 

Labor monitors program performance by requiring states and localities to 

track job seekers who receive core services that require significant staff 

assistance, intensive services, and training. States and local areas are 

 8

 Pub. L. No. 100-379, Aug. 4, 1988; 28 U.S.C. § 2101. 

Page 11 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
required to monitor the outcomes of WIA Dislocated Worker program 

participants on measures including job placement, job retention, and 

earnings change. State performance targets are established annually 

through negotiations between individual states and Labor. States, in turn,

negotiate WIA performance levels with each local area. Labor holds states 

accountable for achieving their WIA performance levels by tying those 

levels to financial sanctions and incentive funding.

The ES was created in 1933 by the Wagner-Peyser Act and was designed to 

link job seekers with employers. ES is a partner in the one-stop center 

system and offers a range of services that are available to all job seekers 

and employers. About $800 million in ES funds was provided to states for 

fiscal year 2005. For job seekers, ES provides services such as job search 

assistance, job referral, and assessments, as well as one-on-one case 

management. ES also offers employer services including recruiting 

workers, screening applicants and helping employers manage layoffs. 

Labor tracks program performance by measuring outcomes of job seekers 

who received ES services against national goals related to job placement 

and job retention. 

At all five sites, the majority of affected workers visited a one-stop center 

and received some services, but at four of five sites only about a third or 

less received training and long-term income support. At least two-thirds of 

the workers in each site (ranging from 72 to 100 percent) went to a onestop center, and they most commonly received one-on-one assistance such 

as job search assistance, according to our survey estimates. In four of the

five sites we studied, workers who did not go to a one-stop center most 

commonly reported that they needed to find a job right away and did not 

think they had time to visit a one-stop center, or did not need help finding 

a job. Generally, one-third or less of the workers in each site (ranging from

9 to 39 percent) enrolled in training. Similarly, about one-third or less of 

the workers in each site received long-term income support benefits—for 

1 year or longer—which are available to trade-affected workers in training 

who have exhausted their UI benefits. Older workers were less likely to 

enter training, according to our survey data. 

Employment Service 

Most Workers at Five 

Sites Received Some 

Reemployment 

Assistance, but 

Generally Less Than a 

Third Entered 

Training

Page 12 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Over 70 percent of workers at each site visited a one-stop center, 

according to our survey (see fig. 2). While all TAA-eligible Toro workers 

visited a one-stop center since being laid off, over 80 percent of Toro 

workers who were not eligible for TAA also visited a one-stop center. 

Workers with lower pre-layoff wages were significantly more likely to visit 

a one-stop center than workers with higher pre-layoff wages, and women 

were twice as likely as men to visit a one-stop center, even after 

accounting for other factors such as time since being laid off.9

 General 

Mills workers were also significantly less likely than workers in the other 

sites to visit a one-stop center, which may have been linked to the fact that 

the General Mills plant closure was TAA-certified several months after the 

layoffs there began. According to union officials, many of the workers had 

already been laid off by the time the petition was certified and, because of

this, Missouri state officials noted they had difficulty reaching these 

workers to inform them about available benefits and services. 

Most Workers at Each Site 

Visited a One-Stop Center 

and Received One-on-One 

Assistance 

 9

 Using data from our worker survey, we performed a multivariate regression analysis to 

estimate the effects of age, gender, education level, job tenure, time since layoff, pre-layoff 

wage, and layoff site on the likelihood of visiting a one-stop center. The complete results of 

this analysis are presented in app. III. 

Page 13 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 2: Most Dislocated Workers Visited a One-Stop Center 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

Toro

Weyerhaeuser

Lear

General Mills

Percentage of workers

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Company

 (Mo.)

 (Pa.)

(Wash.)

 (Miss.)

 (Mass.)

72

88

100

84 86

Note: In some cases, not all workers who were asked a particular question in our survey answered

the question. For all figures in this report that use data from our survey, we have excluded from our 

calculations any workers who were asked but either did not answer the relevant question(s) or 

responded don’t know. 

Workers most commonly received one-on-one assistance such as job 

search assistance (see fig. 3). Over half of the workers in each site 

reported on our survey that they received one-on-one assistance at a onestop center, for example with how to look for a job or how to enroll in 

training. Workers were somewhat less likely to receive assessments, 

attend workshops, or use self-serve one-stop center services on their own. 

For example, at one-stop centers at each site we visited, workers were 

able to use computers to conduct on-line job searches or to up-date their 

resumes. However, some workers at these sites told us that they did not 

use these one-stop center resources, because they could use their home 

computers to access on-line job banks or to work on their resumes. 

Additionally, most workers who visited a one-stop center in four of the 

five sites we studied reported that one-on-one assistance was more helpful 

than services such as workshops and assessments. 

Page 14 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 3: Most Workers Received One-on-One Assistance at One-Stop Centers 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

(Mass.)

Toro

(Miss.)

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.)

Lear

(Pa.)

General Mills

(Mo.)

Percentage of workers

Company

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

One-on-one assistance

Self-serve services

Assessments

Workshops

53

48

21

61 59

37

26

72

61

55

37

31

52 50

44

15

67

52 51

40

To address the needs of some of these trade-affected workers, local onestop staff at one site designed a new service delivery process. Staff at the 

Lewistown, Pa., one-stop center developed three service tracks as a way to

streamline the assistance they provided to workers affected by the Lear 

plant closure (see fig. 4). Workers were placed into one of three service 

tracks depending on their interests and goals. Workers interested in 

getting a job right away were placed in the job seeking track that included

a series of workshops on interviewing and resume writing, while workers 

interested in retraining were placed in the training/education track that 

included several assessment tests to measure their basic skills and to 

identify their career interests. A third service track was designed for 

workers undecided about retraining or getting a job and included a 

combination of workshops and assessments aimed at helping workers 

determine if their job skills are in-demand and if their skill sets need 

upgrading through training. 

Page 15 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 4: Service Tracks Available at the Lewistown, Pa., One-Stop Center 

Source: Lewistown (Pa.) CareerLink.

States used a variety of federal funds to provide reemployment services to

trade-affected workers. In all five sites we visited, state or local officials 

told us that TAA administrative funds were insufficient to provide TAA 

participants with case management services, and they relied on other 

Page 16 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
funding sources, particularly ES or WIA, to fund these services.10 Only two 

states—Missouri and Washington—used a portion of their TAA 

administrative funds to fund one-on-one case management for TAA 

participants at sites we studied. The proportion of TAA participants who 

received services funded through WIA among the sites we studied ranged 

from 8 percent of Toro workers in Mississippi to 37 percent of General 

Mills workers in Missouri, according to administrative data. 

Local areas experienced some difficulties in using local WIA resources to 

serve trade-affected workers, according to officials in the sites we visited, 

and in response three states used alternative funding sources to provide 

these services. At some sites existing case management resources were 

not sufficient to meet the needs of trade-affected workers as well as other 

workers using one-stop center services. For example, one-stop officials in

Massachusetts told us that they are reluctant to dedicate WIA case 

management resources to assist TAA participants, because WIA case 

managers are already busy working with WIA program participants. In 

addition, concerns about WIA performance measures, especially those 

related to reemployment and wage replacement, may serve as a 

disincentive for local areas to co-enroll TAA participants. According to 

state and local officials in two states, TAA participants tend to have higher

earnings in their previous jobs than the average local job-seeker and are 

less likely to find jobs that pay at or near what they previously earned,

which can count against their WIA performance measures. In response to 

these concerns, three of the states we visited also used national 

emergency grants—discretionary funds that Labor awards to states 

experiencing large layoffs—or statewide rapid response funds to serve 

trade-affected workers. Massachusetts, for example, initially used a 

portion of its rapid response set aside funds to serve Sanmina-SCI 

workers, and later used $540,000 in national emergency grant funds. These 

funds were used to support additional case managers to provide SanminaSCI workers with one-on-one assistance. Similarly, Missouri received 

about $1.4 million in national emergency grant funds to hire additional 

staff including case managers and to provide training for dislocated 

workers affected by several lay-offs that occurred in the St. Louis area, 

including the General Mills plant closure. 

 10 According to our earlier study, states have increasingly relied upon WIA funds to provide 

services such as case management to TAA participants. See GAO-04-1012. 

Page 17 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
To address concerns that co-enrolling TAA participants in WIA may 

negatively affect performance measures, Labor recently piloted an 

initiative to encourage states to co-enroll participants in the WIA 

Dislocated Worker program. The seven states participating in this initiative

are required to co-enroll all new TAA participants in the WIA Dislocated 

Worker program from October 2005 to the end of June 2006.11 States may 

exclude these TAA participants’ employment and wage replacement 

outcomes from their WIA performance calculations when the outcomes 

adversely affect their statewide performance. Labor currently intends to 

track co-enrolled participants’ outcomes across these seven states for 

program years 2006 through 2008. 

Workers Most Often 

Visited One-Stop Centers 

for Job Search Assistance 

and to Learn More about 

Available Services and 

Benefits 

Workers most often visited one-stop centers for two reasons—to learn 

more about available services and benefits and to get job search 

assistance. At least 80 percent of workers who visited a one-stop center at

each site we studied told us that the prospect of learning more about 

benefits and services and getting assistance with finding a new job 

motivated them to initially visit a one-stop center. According to state or 

one-stop center officials in four of the five sites we studied, many workers 

do not have a specific course of action in mind when they first visit a onestop center and are interested in getting more information about available 

services and benefits. Some workers, however, are primarily interested in 

finding a new job and visit one-stop centers for that purpose. Workers also 

reported that they visited one-stop centers for other reasons including that 

they heard from friends and co-workers that the one-stop center offered 

helpful services, they were interested in enrolling in training for a new 

occupation, or to maintain their UI benefits. Most workers at each site 

learned about reemployment services available at the one-stop center from

a meeting held at or around the time of their layoff that provided them 

with information about reemployment services, often called a rapid 

response meeting. While over 70 percent of the workers at each site 

attended rapid response meetings, more workers at the Toro plant in 

Mississippi and the Sanmina-SCI plant in Massachusetts—where rapid 

 11 The states participating in Labor’s co-enrollment project are Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, 

Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.

Page 18 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
response meetings were held on company time—attended these meetings 

than workers at the other sites.12

At four of the five sites, between 12 and 28 percent of the workers did not 

visit a one-stop center.13 Across these sites, between 47 and 71 percent of 

workers who did not go to a one-stop center said they did not need help

finding a job. Workers also often told us that they did not go to the onestop center because they needed to find a job right away and did not think 

they had time to visit a one-stop center. Workers less commonly reported

that they did not visit a one-stop center because they were unaware that 

job search and training services were available at one-stop centers, that 

the one-stop center was located too far away from where they lived, or 

that it was difficult to get to the one-stop center. 

Over 60 percent of workers at each site who visited a one-stop center did 

so in the first two months after being laid off (see fig. 5). Some workers—

less than 10 percent of workers at each site—went to a one-stop center 

even before they lost their jobs. Workers in four of the five sites we visited 

told us that they were aware of the TAA program’s training enrollment 

deadline and enrolled in training quickly. Some workers, however, told us 

they initially felt that they could find employment without the help of the 

one-stop center, and only used one-stop center services when they were 

unable to find a job or a job that paid close to their former wage. 

 12 According to state and local officials, rapid response sessions for workers affected by the 

Weyerhaeuser layoff in Washington, the General Mills layoff in Missouri, and the Lear layoff

in Pennsylvania were not held on company time. 

13 All the TAA-eligible workers affected by the Toro layoff visited a one-stop center. 

Page 19 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 5: Percentage of Workers Who Went to a One-Stop Center within 2 Months of

Being Laid Off 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

Toro

Weyerhaeuser

Lear

General Mills

Percentage of workers

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Company

 (Mo.)

 (Pa.)

(Wash.)

 (Miss.)

 (Mass.)

63

66

61

77 77

About One-Third or Less of 

Workers Generally 

Received Training and 

Long-Term Income 

Support 

At most sites, relatively few workers had enrolled in training since being 

laid off. In four sites, less than one-third of workers were currently or had 

been enrolled in training at the time of our survey. At the remaining site, 

Sanmina-SCI in Massachusetts, 39 percent of the workers had enrolled in 

training (see fig. 6). Even after accounting for other factors that could 

affect training enrollment, such as workers’ age and gender, Sanmina-SCI 

workers were significantly more likely to enter training than workers at all 

the other sites.14 Among the Toro workers in Mississippi who were not 

TAA-certified, 6 percent enrolled in training, compared to the 18 percent of

TAA-certified Toro workers who took training. 

 14 Using data from our worker survey, we performed a multivariate regression analysis to 

estimate the effects of age, gender, education level, job tenure, time since layoff, pre-layoff 

wage, and layoff site on the likelihood of entering training. The complete results of this 

analysis are presented in app. IV. 

Page 20 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 6: One-Third or Fewer of Workers at Most Sites Enrolled in Training

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

Toro

Weyerhaeuser

Lear

General Mills

Percentage of workers

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Company

 (Mo.)

 (Pa.)

(Wash.)

 (Miss.)

 (Mass.)

21

29

18

39

9

Of the workers at the sites we studied who entered training programs, 

most entered programs that were relatively short-term and that cost less 

than $10,000. At four sites, half or more of the workers who enrolled in 

training were enrolled in programs expected to last 1 year or less, 

according to administrative data (see fig. 7).15 At three of these sites, about 

30 percent or more of the workers in training entered programs expected

to last 6 months or less. In the sites we studied, shorter-term training 

included, for example, a 2-month certification program in truck driving or

a 1-month nursing assistant program. Longer-term training included 2-year 

 15 We used state administrative data to examine certain details of workers’ training 

programs that were not available through our survey data. However, there was not an exact 

correspondence between states’ administrative records and our survey results regarding 

which workers entered training. The level of agreement between administrative and survey

data on whether workers had entered training ranged from 82 to 95 percent at the five sites. 

Also, at some sites, administrative data were not available for all aspects of each worker’s 

training program. For example, a state may have been able to provide administrative data 

on the type of training program a worker entered, but not on the expected duration of that

worker’s program. 

Page 21 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
associates degree programs at community colleges in fields such as 

elementary education or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

maintenance and repair. At each site, at least 60 percent of the workers 

who enrolled in training entered programs with an expected cost of less 

than $10,000. (For a detailed breakdown of training costs, see app. II.) 

Figure 7: Workers in TAA- or WIA-Funded Training by Expected Length of Training

Program 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

(Mass.)

Toro

(Miss.)

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.)

Lear

(Pa.)

General Mills

(Mo.)

Percentage of workers

Source: State administrative records.

Company

6 months or less

Over 6 months–1 year

Over 1 year

20

30

50

40

30 31

42 43

15

0 0

100

28 28

44

Notes: Data on training duration were available for 105 General Mills workers, 91 Lear workers, 25

Weyerhaeuser workers, 7 Toro workers, and 139 Sanmina-SCI workers. Because of rounding, totals

do not always equal 100 percent.

While about half the workers at three of five sites received income support 

for over 6 months, one-third or fewer at each site received benefits for 

over 1 year—generally only available to trade-affected workers in training 

who have already exhausted their UI benefits. At least two-thirds of the 

workers at each site had received income support benefits at the time of 

our survey, and at three sites about half the workers had received these 

benefits for over 6 months (see fig. 8). However, only about a third or less 

of the workers at each site had received the benefits for over 1 year, and 

Page 22 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
no more than 8 percent of the workers at any site had received benefits for 

longer than 18 months. Because most workers in the sites we studied did 

not enroll in training, and those who did most commonly entered 

programs lasting 1 year or less, the vast majority of the workers in these 

sites did not utilize the full 2 years of extended income support benefits 

available to them.16

Figure 8: Number of Months Workers Received Income Support Benefits (UI and in 

Some Cases Extended Income Support)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI 

(Mass.)

Toro 

(Miss.)

Weyerhaeuser 

(Wash.)

Lear 

(Pa.)

General Mills

(Mo.)

Percentage of workers

Company

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

No UI

6 months or less of benefits

More than 6 months to 12 months of benefits

More than 12 months of benefits

33

41

11

23

9

29

15

10

36

20

34

29

19

36

21

33

15

51

33

1

Notes: Data include workers still receiving UI or extended income support benefits at the time of our 

survey. For example, the Sanmina-SCI plant closure occurred about 8 months before our survey, and 

49 percent of Sanmina-SCI workers were still receiving income support benefits at the time of our 

survey. Because of rounding, totals do not always equal 100 percent. 

 16 TAA-certified workers may receive up to 104 weeks of extended income support benefits

beyond the 26 weeks of UI available in most states. This total includes 78 weeks while 

workers are enrolled in vocational training, and an additional 26 weeks if they are enrolled

in remedial training. 

Page 23 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
The majority of workers at each site who enrolled in training received

vocational training. A few industry categories were consistently popular 

across sites (see table 2, which provides information on training funded by

TAA and WIA). Training in health care occupations was among the more 

popular choices at most sites, including training for jobs in direct care 

(e.g., nursing assistant) and in administration (e.g., medical coding and 

billing). Training in office and computer skills, ranging from basic 

computer skills to more advanced network support and accounting skills, 

was also among the most popular in most sites. Construction and trades, 

including occupations such as electrician and plumber, were among the 

popular fields in two sites—General Mills and Lear; and transportation, 

including truck driving, was the leading field at Lear. Fewer workers at 

each site entered remedial training, which includes courses in literacy, 

English as a second language, and General Equivalency Diploma (GED) 

preparation. The proportion of workers entering remedial training funded 

by any source was highest at Sanmina-SCI in Massachusetts, where 

according to administrative data 50 percent of the workers who entered 

training took remedial training. One-stop center officials in Massachusetts 

told us a number of training providers in the area offered programs that 

combined GED preparation or English as a second language instruction 

with training in vocational skills. 

Page 24 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Table 2: Workers in TAA- and WIA-Funded Training by Program Type

Site 

Program type 

General Mills 

(Mo.)

Lear 

(Pa.)

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.) 

Toro 

(Miss.)

Sanmina-SCI 

(Mass.)

Construction and trades 15% 28% 4% 0% 5%

Health care 27 20 12 14 10

Manufacturing 0 0 0 0 3

Office and computer skills 36 15 4 29 21

Remediala0 0 0 0 13

Remedial in conjunction with 

occupational skillsa

0 0 0 0 37

Social services and education 1 0 4 57 1

Transportation 11 30 4 0 3

On-the-job training 0 2 8 0 0

Other 10 4 0 0 7

Unknown 0 1 64 0 0

Source: State administrative data. 

Notes: Administrative data on training programs were available for 92 General Mills workers, 94 Lear 

workers, 141 Sanmina-SCI workers, 7 Toro workers, and 25 Weyerhaeuser workers. Vocational 

training was most commonly supported by TAA training funds, although WIA was also sometimes 

used to pay for workers’ training at the General Mills, Lear, and Weyerhaeuser sites.

a

Sanmina-SCI was the only site where remedial training was funded by TAA or WIA; remedial training 

was provided at other sites through, for example, Adult Basic Education funds. 

Most workers in sites in large metropolitan areas who entered training 

attended proprietary schools, while workers in the other sites most 

commonly attended public institutions such as community colleges and 

vocational/technical schools. Seventy-five percent of the General Mills 

workers and 71 percent of the Sanmina-SCI workers who entered training

attended proprietary schools. All of the Toro workers in Mississippi who

entered training attended a community college, as well as 63 percent of the 

Weyerhaeuser workers in Washington who entered training and for whom 

data are available. Public vocational/technical schools that serve high

school students as well as adults were the leading providers for Lear 

workers in Pennsylvania, serving 48 percent of Lear workers who entered 

training. (For a detailed breakdown of the training providers used by 

workers at each site, see app. II.) 

Page 25 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
A variety of factors were associated with workers’ decisions about 

whether to enroll in training and what type of training to enter, according 

to our survey analysis and according to officials and workers we spoke 

with. Some of these factors were related to attributes of the individual 

workers, such as their age or gender, while others affected all workers at a 

particular site, such as the availability of training programs in the local 

area. 

Older workers were less likely than younger workers to enter training. 

Workers over age 55 at our five sites were significantly less likely than

younger workers to enter training, even after taking into account other 

characteristics such as workers’ gender and educational level, our survey 

data indicate.

17 Workers or one-stop center staff in four of the sites we 

studied said age was a factor in workers’ training decisions. For example, 

one-stop center staff in Mississippi told us that older workers often lacked 

the confidence to go back to school after many years away from the 

classroom. The Weyerhaeuser plant closure in Washington affected a 

higher proportion of workers age 55 and older (57 percent) than any of the 

other closures, and according to our survey only 5 percent of these older 

Weyerhaeuser workers entered training, compared to 14 percent of 

Weyerhaeuser workers under age 55. One-stop center staff in Washington 

said a large number of the older workers affected by the closure received

waivers from the training requirement under the TAA program because 

they were nearing retirement;18 56 percent of Weyerhaeuser workers age 

55 and older retired, according to our survey. 

Age, Gender among 

Factors Affecting Training 

Enrollment 

Workers’ Characteristics 

Workers’ gender affected the type of training program they entered and 

sometimes whether they enrolled in training, according to officials in three 

sites. One-stop center staff or training providers in multiple sites said men 

are more likely to enter training in truck driving, while women are more 

likely to enter training in nursing or other medical fields. And officials in

Missouri told us that in the St. Louis area, a shortage of training programs 

in traditionally male occupations—such as construction and auto body 

work—discourages some men from even seeking training. They said it was 

expensive to operate training programs in some of these fields, and 

potential providers are especially reluctant to invest in expensive 

 17 This finding is based on the regression analysis of our survey results.

18 Under the TAA statute, one reason that workers may receive a waiver from the training 

requirement is that they are within 2 years of retirement. 

Page 26 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
technology just for training purposes when the technology changes 

rapidly. 

Workers’ skills at the time of their layoffs were a factor that sometimes 

pushed workers into particular types of training and sometimes acted as a

barrier to training enrollment, according to workers, officials, or training 

providers in the sites we studied. In particular, lack of basic skills was 

often cited as a factor affecting training enrollment. For example, the 

Sanmina-SCI site in Massachusetts had the highest proportion of workers 

without a high school degree or GED (14 percent) among the sites we 

studied, and it had the highest proportion of workers enrolled in remedial 

training. One-stop center staff in Massachusetts said many of the workers 

affected by the Sanmina-SCI plant closure lacked basic skills and needed

GED preparation or English as a second language instruction. In 

Washington, a college official said inadequate math and science skills 

constrained training options for some dislocated workers. These workers 

chose to enter programs to become licensed practical nurses or certified 

nursing assistants because they lacked the basic skills necessary to enroll

in training to become registered nurses. A one-stop center official in 

Pennsylvania told us that workers need a minimum level of basic reading,

language and math skills to qualify for vocational training, and that lack of 

basic skills may have prevented many Lear workers from entering 

vocational training. 

The timing of training start dates affects which programs workers enter, 

according to officials or workers in four sites. One-stop center or state 

officials in these sites told us that community college training programs 

typically have only a few starting dates—or only one starting date—per 

year, and that the timing of program start dates is not always convenient 

for laid-off workers. For example, officials in Missouri and Washington 

explained that workers must sometimes wait a number of weeks until the 

start of the next community college semester, because of a lag between 

the worker’s layoff and the start of the next semester. In these cases, 

workers might choose to attend a proprietary school with an openenrollment policy rather than a community college, to avoid using up 

several weeks of income support benefits while waiting to start training, or 

they might opt for a shorter-term training program to avoid running out of

income support before completing training. 

Timing and Availability of 

Training Programs 

Officials in two sites that are not in large metropolitan areas said a lack of 

training programs in the local area limited workers’ training options. Onestop center officials in Pennsylvania said a shortage of affordable training 

programs in the Lewistown area, in particular the lack of a community 

Page 27 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
college, has been a barrier to training enrollment for Lear workers. One 

Lear worker told us he was interested in a particular training program at a 

community college, but he could not enroll in the program in part because

it would have been about a 50-mile commute each way. Similarly, an 

official in Washington told us that there are limited training programs in 

the Kelso/Longview area, and some workers relocated in order to enroll in

a program that is not offered in the Kelso/Longview area. 

States’ maximum allowable TAA training cost per worker sometimes 

affected workers’ training decisions. Four of the states we visited—all 

except Mississippi—have established a maximum limit or cap on TAA 

training costs per worker (see table 3).

19 Two of these states set different 

caps for different types of training programs, such as a lower cap for 

remedial training and a higher cap for vocational training. The maximum 

caps range from $12,000 in Washington to $23,000 in Massachusetts. 

Workers or state officials in three sites told us these caps sometimes 

affected workers’ training decisions. For example, a General Mills worker 

in Missouri told us that she initially wanted to enroll in a medical billing 

certification program that offered instructor-led training and an internship, 

but this program’s cost was higher than the state cap. She ultimately 

enrolled in a less expensive, computer-based medical billing program. 

State Training Policies 

Table 3: Maximum Allowable TAA Training Costs per Worker 

State (affected company) 

Maximum allowable TAA training 

cost per worker 

Missouri (General Mills) $13,000 

Pennsylvania (Lear) 16,000 

Washington (Weyerhaeuser) Public school—10,000 

Private school—12,000 

Mississippi (Toro) None 

Massachusetts (Sanmina-SCI) Remedial program—5,000

Vocational certificate program—15,000 

Degree program—23,000 

Source: State officials.

 19 In some states, training programs with costs exceeding the official state cap are approved

in special circumstances. 

Page 28 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
We found that most of the workers who lost their jobs because of foreign 

trade at four of the five sites we studied had either found a job or retired at 

the time of our survey. The majority of reemployed workers earned less in

their new jobs than they had previously earned, but according to our 

survey estimates generally replaced about 80 percent or more of their prelayoff wages. Also, more than half of reemployed workers returned to the

manufacturing sector, and at most sites workers who returned to 

manufacturing replaced about the same proportion of their pre-layoff 

wages as workers who entered other fields. Workers who entered training

replaced slightly less of their wages than workers who did not in all but 

one site, and those who were trained generally left manufacturing for 

another industry. The outcomes for workers in our study are generally

similar to those found in an earlier study of laid-off workers in industries 

significantly impacted by trade.20 Outcome measures allow an assessment 

of whether a participant is achieving an intended outcome, but they 

cannot measure whether the outcome is a direct result of program 

participation. Labor has funded a long-term study of the effectiveness of 

the TAA program, scheduled to be completed by 2008. 

The majority of workers at four of the five sites had either found a job or 

decided to retire at the time of our survey. At three of the sites, 60 percent 

or more of the workers had found jobs (see fig. 9). In the fourth site, 

Weyerhaeuser in Washington, less than half of the workers were 

reemployed, but almost 60 percent of the Weyerhaeuser workers were age

55 or older and over half of these older workers retired.21 A number of the 

reemployed Weyerhaeuser workers were simply rehired by Weyerhaeuser: 

almost one-fourth of the workers affected by this plant closure were able 

to find a new position at another part of the company. In the fifth site, 

Sanmina-SCI in Massachusetts, only 37 percent of the workers had found 

new jobs, but this layoff occurred more recently than any of the other 

Most Workers at Four 

of the Five Sites 

Found a Job or 

Retired after Being 

Laid Off, and 

Employment 

Outcomes Varied by 

Services Received 

Most Workers at Four of 

Five Sites Were 

Reemployed or Retired 

after Being Laid Off 

 20 See Kletzer. This study ranked manufacturing industries according to the increase in the 

import share of each industry from 1979 to 1994. Those industries in the top 25 percent in

terms of increase in import share are defined as high import-competing industries, or what 

we call industries significantly affected by international trade. The study used data from

the Displaced Worker Surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1984 to

2000. The Displaced Worker Survey is administered as part of the Current Population

Survey, a nationally representative monthly survey of about 60,000 households. 

21 At the time of the lay-off, Weyerhaeuser workers with at least 10 years of service to the 

company and who were at least 55 years old were eligible for early retirement. However, 

workers only received full retirement benefits if they were at least 59 years old. Retirement

was involuntary in that these workers’ positions were being eliminated. 

Page 29 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
layoffs—only 8 months prior to the survey. In addition, Sanmina-SCI had 

the highest proportion of workers who entered training, and most of these 

workers were expected to still be in training at the time of our survey. Of 

the Toro workers in Mississippi who were not TAA certified, 59 percent 

were reemployed, about the same as the percentage of TAA-certified 

workers at that site who had found new jobs. These findings are similar to 

those of an earlier study of U.S. workers laid off from industries 

significantly affected by trade where 63 percent of the workers had found 

reemployment after their layoffs.22

 22 See Kletzer. 

Page 30 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 9: Most Workers at Four of Five Sites Had Found Jobs or Retired at the Time 

of the Survey 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

(Mass.)

average time

from layoff to

survey:

8 months

Toro

(Miss.)

average time

from layoff to

survey:

14 months

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.)

average time

from layoff to

survey:

15 months

Lear

(Pa.)

average time

from layoff to

survey:

15 months

General Mills

(Mo.)

average time

from layoff to

survey:

22 months

Percentage of workers

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Retired

Reemployed

Not working

73

7

19

61

3

36 39

32

29

62

38 37

1

62

More than 1 year since layoff Less than 1 year

since layoff

Note: Totals do not equal 100 due to rounding. 

The workers who had entered training were the least likely to be 

reemployed at each site, but it may be too soon to know the effect of 

training on employment outcomes. Generally one-third or less of workers 

at each site enrolled in training, and among this group, no more than half 

at any site were reemployed. However, some of the workers who had 

enrolled in training were expected to still be in training at the time of our 

survey, according to administrative data.23 In two of the five sites, about 60 

 23 TAA participants in training must be in full-time training, which may make it more 

difficult for them to work while completing training. 

Page 31 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
percent or more of the workers who had entered training were expected 

to still be in training, and in the other three sites about a third were 

expected to still be in training. Among those scheduled to complete 

training by the time of our survey, over 60 percent were reemployed at all 

sites but one—similar to the overall reemployment rate for most sites. At 

the fifth site, Sanmina-SCI in Massachusetts, only 35 percent of workers 

who were scheduled to complete training were reemployed. 

Workers who did not go to a one-stop center were at least as likely to be

reemployed as those who visited a one-stop (but did not get training).24 In 

only two sites—Weyerhaeuser and Sanmina-SCI—were workers who did 

not visit a one-stop center more likely to be reemployed than those who 

did. For example, at Weyerhaeuser, 50 percent of those who did not visit a 

one-stop center were reemployed compared with 39 percent of those who 

did visit a one-stop center but did not get training. 

About half or more of the workers at four of the five sites took at least 7 

months to find their current job (see fig. 10).25 At the fifth site, SanminaSCI, about one-fifth of the reemployed Sanmina-SCI workers took at least 

7 months to find their current jobs, but the Sanmina-SCI plant closure 

occurred only 8 months before our survey. A smaller number of workers 

found their current jobs more quickly—in four sites, about one in five of 

the reemployed workers found their current jobs within 3 months. By 

comparison, an earlier study of workers laid off from industries affected

by trade found that a larger proportion of workers were reemployed more 

quickly—half of the workers found new jobs within 2 months of being laid

off, while 25 percent took over 6 months.26 Workers in the five sites in our 

study who did not go to a one-stop center generally were reemployed a bit 

more quickly than those who did. Of the reemployed workers who did not 

go to a one-stop center, half or more found their current jobs within 3 

months of being laid off. Of those reemployed workers who went to a onestop center (but did not get training), between 14 and 45 percent found 

their current jobs within 3 months. This difference may be due to time 

dedicated to receiving job search assistance and other services to help 

them get a job. 

 24 We could compare outcomes for four sites only. At Toro, all laid-off workers visited the 

one-stop center. 

25 Our survey asked workers about their jobs at the time of the survey. We did not ask

about their work history since being laid off. 

26 See Kletzer. 

Page 32 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 10: Number of Months Workers Took to Find Their Current Jobs 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

(Mass.)

Toro

(Miss.)

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.)

Lear

(Pa.)

General Mills

(Mo.)

Percentage of reemployed workers

Company

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

3 months or less

Between 4 and 6 months

Between 7 and 12 months

More than 12 months

27

14

28

20 18

33 31

20 22

31

28 27

20 18

65

0

53

25

22

0

The Majority of Workers in 

Most Sites Earned Less in 

Their New Jobs, Replacing 

about 80 Percent or More 

of Their Pre-Layoff Wages 

The majority of reemployed workers in four sites earned less in their new 

jobs than prior to being laid off, but at the fifth site—Weyerhaeuser in 

Washington—slightly more than half the reemployed workers earned the 

same or more than their prior wage. Reemployed workers at all five sites 

were able to replace, on average, between 79 and 94 percent of their prelayoff wages (see fig. 11). Similarly, an earlier study of workers laid off 

from industries significantly affected by international trade found that 

when these workers were reemployed, they replaced, on average, about 87 

percent of their prior wages.27 Workers and officials told us that several of

the plants that we studied paid higher wages than other companies in the 

area. Unless workers moved out of the area, they could not easily earn 

 27 See Kletzer. 

Page 33 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
comparable wages doing the same type of work. However, some 

reemployed workers at each site—with the proportion ranging from 12 

percent of reemployed Toro workers in Mississippi to 53 percent of 

reemployed Weyerhaeuser workers in Washington—were able to earn at 

least as much as they had prior to their layoffs. 

Figure 11: Workers Replaced About 80 Percent or More of Wages on Average 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

Toro

Weyerhaeuser

Lear

General Mills

Average wage replacement rate

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Company

 (Mo.)

 (Pa.)

(Wash.)

 (Miss.)

 (Mass.)

90

79 81

87

94

Workers in four of the five sites who did not go to a one-stop center had a 

higher average pre-layoff wage than those who did. For example, 

Weyerhaeuser workers who did not go to a one-stop center had an average

pre-layoff wage of about $30 an hour, while those who visited a one-stop 

center (but did not get training) had an average pre-layoff wage of about 

$27 an hour. When reemployed, workers who did not visit a one-stop 

center generally replaced at least the same proportion of their pre-layoff 

wages as those who did.28 With the exception of Lear, those who received 

 28 At the fifth site, Toro in Mississippi, all workers went to a one-stop center. Therefore, we 

could not compare the employment outcomes for those who visited a center to the

outcomes for those who did not. 

Page 34 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
training had the lowest average pre-layoff wages. And at two of five sites, 

these workers had the lowest average wage replacement rate when 

reemployed (see table 4). 

Table 4: Average Pre-layoff Hourly Wage and Wage Replacement Rates 

Went to one-stop and enrolled in 

training 

Went to one-stop but did not 

enroll in training Did not go to one-stop 

Company 

Average 

pre-layoff 

hourly wage (in 

dollars) 

Average wage

replacement

rate when

reemployed

(percent)

Average 

pre-layoff 

hourly wage

(in dollars)

Average wage

replacement rate 

when reemployed

(percent)

Average 

pre-layoff 

hourly wage

(in dollars)

Average wage

replacement

 rate when

reemployed

(percent)

General Mills $15.67 82 $16.49 88 $17.97 95

Lear 16.22 92a16.13 74 17.26 94

Weyerhaeuser 25.35 71a 27.10 87 30.34 93c

Toro 13.83 b15.21 81 b b

Sanmina-SCI 16.79 89 18.46 94 22.96 96c

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers. 

Note: Some of the workers who entered training—ranging from about one-third to over 60 percent 

among the five sites—were expected to still be in training at the time of our survey, and it may have

been more difficult for these workers to have started a new job. 

a

These estimates have margins of error of plus or minus 15 percent or less of the value of the 

estimates. 

b

All Toro workers went to a one-stop center. None of the Toro workers who went to training have 

become employed, according to administrative data; however, all but one were expected to still be in 

training at the time of our survey. 

c

Differences between estimates of average wage replacement rates for workers who did not visit a 

one-stop center versus those who did were not statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence 

level at Weyerhaeuser and Sanmina-SCI. 

The majority of the workers who had found new jobs at the time of our 

survey said they were receiving some benefits such as health insurance 

benefits or paid time off through their new employer (see fig. 12). Over 60 

percent of the reemployed workers at each site received health insurance

benefits in their new jobs.29 In addition, about 75 percent or more of the 

reemployed workers at each site received vacation time, sick leave, or 

personal leave at their new place of employment. However, some workers 

told us the benefits in their new jobs were less generous than the benefits 

received from their former employer. Generally, fewer reemployed 

 29 Prior to the layoffs, employers at all five sites provided health insurance benefits to their

employees. 

Page 35 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
workers received retirement benefits in their new jobs as compared to 

health insurance benefits and paid time off. 

Figure 12: Most Workers Received Benefits in New Jobs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI 

(Mass.)

Toro 

(Miss.)

Weyerhaeuser 

(Wash.)

Lear

 (Pa.)

General Mills

(Mo.)

Percentage of workers

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Company

Health insurance

Vacation time, sick leave, or personal leave

Retirement benefits

87 88

70 71

76

68

89

94

90

62

76

67

76

79

60

More than half of the reemployed workers at each site returned to jobs in

the manufacturing sector (see fig. 13). This was true for workers who 

visited a one-stop center (but did not get training) as well as for those who 

did not visit a center. Similarly, an earlier study of workers laid off from 

manufacturing industries that were significantly affected by international

trade found that when these workers were reemployed, 52 percent of them

returned to the manufacturing sector.30 When reemployed workers did not 

return to manufacturing, we found they entered fields such as professional 

and business services; trade, transportation, and utilities; construction; 

and education, health care, and social services. A higher proportion of 

 30 See Kletzer. 

Page 36 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
workers who took training entered a new field. In three sites, the majority 

of workers who enrolled in training and found new jobs entered a field 

other than manufacturing. 

Figure 13: More Than Half of Reemployed Workers Returned to Manufacturing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

Toro

Weyerhaeuser

Lear

General Mills

Percentage of workers

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Company

 (Mo.)

 (Pa.)

(Wash.)

 (Miss.)

 (Mass.)

53 51

62

74

79

Note: The estimate for Toro has a margin of error of plus or minus 9 percent of the value of the 

estimate. 

Reemployed workers who returned to manufacturing generally replaced 

about the same proportion of their pre-layoff wages as those who entered 

other fields. For example, at General Mills, workers who returned to 

manufacturing had an average wage replacement rate of 90 percent, while 

those who moved to other fields had an average replacement rate of 88

percent. However, at two of the sites—Weyerhaeuser and Sanmina-SCI—

those who stayed in manufacturing replaced a higher proportion of their 

pre-layoff wages than those who did not. At Weyerhaeuser, where 

workers’ average pre-layoff wages were about $27 per hour, reemployed 

workers who remained in manufacturing replaced 93 percent of their prior 

wages, while those who entered new fields replaced 65 percent of their 

prior wages. At Sanmina-SCI, where workers’ average pre-layoff wages 

were lower—about $18 per hour—reemployed workers who remained in

Page 37 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
manufacturing replaced 96 percent of their prior wages, compared to 89

percent for those who entered new fields. 

Outcomes Alone Cannot 

Measure Program Impact 

While outcome measures are an important component of program 

management in that they assess whether a participant is achieving an

intended outcome—such as obtaining employment—they cannot, by 

themselves, measure whether the outcome is a direct result of program 

participation. Other influences, such as the condition of the local economy 

or an individual’s readiness to search for work or learn new skills, may 

affect his or her ability to find a job as much or more than participation in 

an employment and training program. We examined the outcomes for all 

workers affected by the selected plant closures. However, we could not 

determine whether their outcomes were a direct result of the services they

received. To determine whether participant outcomes are a result of 

services, rather than of other factors, it is necessary to conduct an impact 

evaluation that can take these and other factors into account when 

comparing workers’ outcomes. 

Labor has funded a long-term study to assess the impact of TAA program 

services such as training on participants’ employment and earnings. The 

goal of the study is to determine not only the outcomes achieved by TAA 

participants, but also the impact of TAA program services—that is, 

whether participants had better outcomes as a result of the program than 

they would have if they had not received program services. Labor last 

completed an evaluation of the TAA program in 1993, but methodological

issues resulted in inconclusive findings from that study. According to 

Labor officials, the methodology used by the new study is an improvement 

over the methodology used by the 1993 study, and should provide more 

conclusive findings. The new study will compare the outcomes for a 

treatment group (TAA participants in 25 states) and a comparison group 

(UI claimants in the 25 states who are similar to the TAA participants in a 

number of observable characteristics). It will examine, for example, the 

workers’ job search methods, their training outcomes, and their 

employment history before and after being laid off. This methodology will

likely allow an assessment of the impact of the TAA program, rather than 

just outcomes. Data collection began in 2005 and will continue until 2008, 

and a final report is scheduled to be issued by the end of 2008.

Page 38 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
A small proportion of workers in the five sites received the health 

insurance benefit (HCTC) or the wage insurance benefit (ATAA), but many 

workers told us they were unaware of these benefits. Participation rates 

for the HCTC benefit did not exceed 12 percent at any site, according to

our survey estimates. In most sites, over half of the workers who visited a 

one-stop center said they were unaware of the benefit, despite efforts by 

state and local officials to inform them about the benefit. Of the workers 

who were aware of the benefit but did not use it, about half or more at 

each site said they did not need it because they had other health 

insurance, or it was too expensive. Likewise, few older workers received 

the ATAA benefit. Awareness of the benefit varied greatly by site, ranging 

from 0 percent of potentially eligible Toro workers in Mississippi to 81 

percent of potentially eligible Lear workers in Pennsylvania. In addition, 

some workers aware of the ATAA benefit chose not to receive it because 

they did not want to forfeit their training benefits or because they did not 

find a new job within 6 months of their layoff. 

Few workers at the sites we visited received the HCTC benefit, but it is 

difficult to assess the demand for this benefit among non-participants 

because many workers told us they were unaware of the benefit. 

Participation rates for HCTC, a benefit in which eligible participants may 

receive a tax credit covering 65 percent of their premiums for certain 

health insurance plans, did not exceed 12 percent at any site (see fig. 14).

Men were significantly more likely to receive HCTC than women, and Lear 

workers in Pennsylvania were significantly less likely to receive HCTC 

than workers at any other site, when controlling for other characteristics.31

A Small Proportion of 

Workers in the Five 

Sites Received Health 

Insurance or Wage 

Insurance Benefits, 

but Many Workers 

Were Unaware of 

These Benefits 

Few Workers Received 

HCTC at Any Site, and 

Less Than Half Knew 

about HCTC at Most Sites 

 31 Using data from our worker survey, we performed a multivariate regression analysis to 

estimate the effects of age, gender, education level, job tenure, time since layoff, pre-layoff 

wage, and layoff site on the likelihood of participating in the HCTC program. In addition to

gender and site being statistically significant, we also found that workers with less than 10

years of job tenure were significantly more likely to receive HCTC than workers with 10 

years or more job tenure, and that workers with some college were less likely to receive

HCTC than workers with less than a high school degree. Also, we found workers laid off 

more recently were less likely to receive the benefit. The complete results of this analysis 

are presented in app. IV. 

Page 39 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 14: Across Sites, HCTC Participation Was Relatively Low 

0

4

8

12

16

20

100

Sanmina-SCI

Toro

Weyerhaeuser

Lear

General Mills

Percentage

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Company

 (Mo.)

 (Pa.)

(Wash.)

 (Miss.)

 (Mass.)

12

10

6

3

4

Most workers visited a one-stop center at all sites, and at four of the five

sites, fewer than half of these workers said they were aware of the HCTC 

benefit (see fig. 15). Workers in several sites told us they might have 

applied for HCTC if they had known about the benefit. 

Page 40 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 15: Percentage of Workers Who Visited a One-Stop Center Who Were Aware

of HCTC 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

Toro

Weyerhaeuser

Lear

General Mills

Percentage of workers

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

39

60

47 48

41

 (Mo.)

(Pa.)

(Wash.)

(Miss.)

 (Mass.)

Company

Note: HCTC awareness was only assessed for those workers who went to a one-stop center. 

While state and local officials told us they took a number of steps to 

inform workers about HCTC, these efforts were not always successful. 

Officials in all sites said they discussed HCTC benefits at rapid response 

sessions or TAA information meetings, and provided written literature on

HCTC to workers.32 These materials varied by site, and they were either 

distributed at the rapid response meetings or mailed to workers at their 

homes. State officials in Washington prepared a bright pink flyer to 

distribute to workers highlighting the HCTC benefit, hoping that the 

coloring of the flyer would draw workers’ attention to the material. The 

flyer also highlighted the state-established toll-free telephone number that 

workers and local one-stop center staff could call to get further 

 32Generally, employers are required to inform the state dislocated worker unit 60 days in

advance of an expected plant closure or mass layoff. A rapid response team is then 

mobilized to provide information to affected workers on available benefits and services. 

Page 41 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
information about the HCTC benefit. In Massachusetts, the state attaches a 

HCTC brochure to letters sent to affected workers notifying them of their 

potential eligibility for TAA. However, some workers told us they were 

sometimes overwhelmed by the prospect of being laid off and by the 

volume of information received at the time of the layoff, and, therefore, 

could not absorb all of the information they received. 

While officials at all sites introduced HCTC at initial information meetings 

and distributed literature on the benefit, we found that the information 

provided to workers during follow-up discussions varied, and state 

officials in the sites saw their roles differently. For example, in

Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, if workers asked detailed questions 

about the benefit, case managers were instructed to have workers call the 

IRS’s toll-free HCTC number. A Massachusetts state official noted that 

because of HCTC’s complexity, it was too much to expect case managers 

to become experts on the benefit and to be able to answer workers’ 

questions. On the other hand, case managers in Washington receive

quarterly training on HCTC from state officials. During these training 

sessions, case managers are specifically instructed to tell clients about 

HCTC and are expected to answer basic questions about the benefit. 

About half or more of the workers at each site who were aware of HCTC 

and chose not to participate said they did not need to use the benefit 

because they had coverage through another source, such as through their

spouse’s health insurance plan. Other reason that workers gave for not 

participating in HCTC were that it was too expensive or too confusing (see 

fig. 16). Some workers who said they had other coverage listed multiple 

reasons why they did not participate in the benefit. After excluding those 

who said they had other coverage, most workers at each site, who were 

aware of HCTC, said that they did not participate because it was too 

expensive. A smaller number of workers at each site said they did not 

participate because the benefit was too confusing.33 (See app. III for more 

detailed survey results on reasons workers chose not to participate.) 

 33The total number of workers who reported that they had no other health care coverage 

and did not participate in the HCTC benefit in each site was small, ranging from 6 Toro

workers in Mississippi to 31 Sanmina-SCI workers in Massachusetts. 

Page 42 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 16: Reasons for Not Participating in HCTC, among Workers Who Were Aware 

of HCTC but Chose Not to Participate 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

(Mass.)

Toro

(Miss.)

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.)

Lear

(Pa.)

General Mills

(Mo.)

Percentage

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Company

Had other health care coverage

Too expensive

Too confusing

71

79

28

67

70

29

60

63

25

50 50

33

82

47

15

Notes: Totals do not equal 100 because workers were given a series of reasons and could answer 

yes to as many as applied to their situation. These questions were only asked of workers who came

to a one-stop center and said they were aware of HCTC. (See fig. 15 for the percentage of workers 

who visited a one-stop center and who were aware of HCTC.) The estimates for General Mills, 

Weyerhaeuser, and Toro have margins of error of plus or minus 13 percent of the value of the 

estimates. 

Page 43 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
About half or more of the workers in each site who were aware of HCTC, 

but did not use it, told us that even with the benefit’s 65 percent credit, 

they could not afford the health care insurance premiums.34 The monthly 

cost of available health care plans covering one worker in our five sites 

ranged from $233 per month to $488 per month (see table 5).35 Premiums 

for family plans ranged from $651 per month to $1,512 per month. Workers 

receiving HCTC benefits would be responsible for paying 35 percent of 

these amounts. With HCTC benefits, the least expensive individual plan 

would cost $82 per month, and the least expensive family plan available 

would cost $228 per month. Workers receiving UI benefits received 

maximum monthly payments of between $840 and just over $2,000

depending on the state they lived in. Depending on the type of health 

insurance plan workers received, a large portion of their UI benefits could 

have been spent on health care. For example, the average cost of 

insurance premiums for a family plan in Mississippi was about $1,000 per 

month, leaving workers with an out-of-pocket cost of about $350 per 

month, roughly 41 percent of the maximum monthly UI benefit of about 

$840 in Mississippi. For four states, these costs were for COBRA 

continuation plans only. 36 Pennsylvania also had two state-qualified 

options that were available in the county where the Lear layoff occurred, 

 34 While most of the workers who said they did not receive HCTC because of cost told us 

that it was the ongoing premium payment that was too high, a slightly lower percentage 

said that it was the initial months of unsubsidized premiums. Workers choosing the 

monthly payment option for HCTC are usually responsible for paying the entire premium 

until their applications are processed. (See also GAO-04-1029 for additional information.)

A mechanism exists to provide interim health insurance cost assistance until the first 

payment processes under the HCTC program. Labor’s Office of Inspector General recently 

published a report finding low participation for this mechanism, and their findings on

reasons workers did not participate were similar to ours. For example, they found that

reasons for non-participation included that workers could not afford premiums even with

this assistance and that workers found the program to be too complex. (See “Performance

Audit of Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) Bridge and Gap Programs,” DOL-02-05-204-03-

330.) 

35 In some cases, plans have different deductibles that workers are responsible for paying. 

36 Under COBRA, workers are eligible to continue their employer sponsored health care

insurance plan at their own expense, but at the group rate the employer paid, if they lose

coverage because of reasons including loss of employment. Generally, health insurers may

charge workers purchasing COBRA continuation plans no more than 102 percent of the

total premium. 

Page 44 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
but the monthly premiums for these plans were generally no less 

expensive than for COBRA continuation plans.37

Table 5: Monthly Costs for HCTC-Eligible Health Insurance Plans Available to Dislocated Workers at Each Site 

Individual plan

Cost of

 individual plan after

HCTC subsidy

 (35% of total cost) Family plan

Cost of family plan 

after HCTC subsidy 

(35% of total cost) 

Approximate

monthly maximum 

UI benefit available

General Mills (Mo.) $233 to $341 $82 to $119 $733 to $997 $257 to $349 $1,000

Lear (Pa.) 235 to 389 82 to 136 651 to 1237 228 to 433 1,912

Weyerhaeuser (Wash.) 296 to 381 104 to 133 834 to 1089 292 to 381 2,040

Toro (Miss.) 388 136 993 348 840

Sanmina-SCI (Mass.) 331 to 488 116 to 171 1,026 to 1,512 359 to 529 2,032

Source: Published premiums by health insurers and employer data.

Note: Range of premiums include COBRA plans and state qualified coverage options. 

In addition, some workers chose not to receive HCTC because they found

the benefit confusing. For example, one Sanmina-SCI worker from 

Massachusetts commented during the survey that the 10-page pamphlet he

received from the state on HCTC was too confusing. Similarly, a Lear 

worker in Pennsylvania said he had to take the pamphlets he received to 

the one-stop center for additional explanation. When the one-stop officials 

referred him to a phone number, he decided it was too difficult to pursue 

the benefit. Workers at another site said that they did not understand that 

they could receive HCTC benefits under their spouse’s health care plan in

some circumstances. 

In a prior report,38 we recommended that Labor help individuals better 

understand HCTC, including the eligibility requirements, and Labor has 

begun to take steps to help inform workers about the program. For 

example, Labor held forums for state agency staff on integrating 

dislocated worker services in early 2004, which included discussions of 

the HCTC benefit. In addition, Labor is developing fact sheets on HCTC for 

states to distribute to trade-affected workers at rapid response meetings 

and at one-stop centers. Labor has also informally encouraged states to 

 37 Washington currently has an HCTC-eligible state-qualified option, but the option was not 

available at the time of the Weyerhaeuser layoff. 

38 See GAO-04-1029. 

Page 45 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
have local case managers talk about HCTC with clients. Despite these 

efforts, many workers were still unaware of HCTC at the time of our 

survey. 

Few Workers Received 

Wage Insurance Benefits at 

Any Site 

Few workers participated in the wage insurance benefit at the four sites 

that were certified for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), a 

program that subsidizes some of the difference between the prior and new 

wages of older trade-affected workers who find reemployment quickly. At 

the four sites which were ATAA-certified, between 21 percent and 72

percent of the population were age 50 or older and, therefore, potentially 

eligible for the wage insurance benefit.39 No more than one in five of these 

potentially eligible workers participated in ATAA at any site. For example, 

at Lear in Pennsylvania, where the largest proportion of potentially eligible 

workers received ATAA, about 30 percent were 50 years of age or older at 

the time of the survey, but only about 18 percent of these older workers 

(or about 5 percent of all Lear workers) actually received ATAA (see 

fig. 17). 

 39 To determine potential eligibility, we included workers who said they were 50 years of

age or older at the time of the survey. Not all of the workers we identified as potentially 

eligible could necessarily have received ATAA benefits. To receive ATAA benefits, workers

must be able to obtain reemployment within 6 months in a job that pays less than their 

prior job, and be willing to forgo TAA-funded training. These criteria were not included in 

our calculation of potentially eligible workers. 

Page 46 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 17: Few Workers Participated in ATAA 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

Toro

Weyerhaeuser

Lear

Percentage

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Company

Percentage of all workers who were 50 or older

Percentage of all workers who participated in ATAA

30

72

21

32

(Pa.)

(Wash.)

(Miss.)

(Mass.)

While state or local officials in three ATAA-certified sites told us that they 

discussed the ATAA benefit at rapid response meetings and TAA 

information meetings, workers’ awareness of the ATAA benefit varied 

greatly at the sites we visited. Awareness among workers who were 50 

years old and older and visited a one-stop center ranged from zero percent 

of Toro workers in Mississippi to 81 percent of Lear workers in 

Pennsylvania (see fig. 18). State or local officials at three of the four 

ATAA-certified sites told us they discussed the ATAA benefit at rapid 

response meetings or TAA information meetings. However, some workers 

said they were overwhelmed by the volume of information received after 

the layoff, and some told us they did not necessarily recall ATAA specifics. 

Labor officials are taking steps to promote the ATAA benefit, such as 

informally encouraging states to ensure case workers talk about ATAA 

during one-on-one case management sessions. 

Page 47 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Figure 18: Percentage of Older Workers Who Visited a One-Stop Center and Were 

Aware of ATAA 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sanmina-SCI

Toro

Weyerhaeuser

Lear

Percentage

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers.

Company

 (Pa.)

(Mass.)

 (Miss.)

 (Wash.)

81

46

63

0

Workers gave additional reasons for not participating in the ATAA benefit. 

According to several state and local officials, workers may not want to 

give up the opportunity to enter training for the $10,000 wage subsidy. 

Several older workers also reported on our survey that they did not 

receive ATAA, in part, because they did not find a new job within 6 months 

of their layoff. Officials and older workers told us that it was difficult for 

older workers to find new jobs. For example, a dislocated Weyerhaeuser 

worker told us he would have been willing to forfeit his training benefits 

for ATAA had he been able to find a job within 6 months of the layoff.

However, he said that the high wages that he had earned from

Weyerhaeuser may have discouraged potential employers. 

The TAA program targets manufacturing workers affected by international 

trade, who may have fewer transferable skills and face greater challenges 

to reemployment than other dislocated workers. The program provides a 

unique blend of services and benefits that have been designed to meet 

these workers’ needs—some of which are not available to other dislocated 

Conclusions 

Page 48 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
workers. But little has been known about whether the services provided 

are the right mix for today’s workers who are dislocated due to trade. This

study provides a glimpse of the needs of a small group of workers, the 

services they received, and their employment outcomes about 8 to 22 

months after their layoffs. 

Workers affected by these layoffs have taken a variety of paths. A large 

majority sought some assistance from their one-stop center. Relatively 

small numbers chose to enroll in training, but those who did often used 

this opportunity to chart a new career path. A few did not seek any 

federally funded reemployment services, and yet were still successful in 

getting a new job. We cannot know all the factors that motivated workers 

to seek particular services or that affected their employability, and we 

cannot assess the role that TAA services played in the outcomes workers 

achieved. It may be that some workers make an independent assessment 

of what they need to help them rejoin the workforce and then try to take 

the necessary steps to make that happen. 

While few workers took advantage of training and long-term income 

support through the TAA program, even fewer made use of two new 

benefits under the TAA program—health insurance assistance and wage 

insurance for older workers. Workers who knew about the benefits 

sometimes told us that the benefit levels were not high enough to get them 

to participate. But relatively large numbers were simply not aware of the 

benefits, and some said they might have applied for the benefits had they 

known about them. Sometimes workers admitted to being overwhelmed 

by the prospect of losing their jobs and by the wealth of information they 

initially received. However, states’ efforts to inform workers about and 

explain these benefits have been mixed at best—some trained their case 

managers to answer questions from workers, while others did not see that 

as their role. Despite Labor’s efforts to encourage states to make this 

information more widely available, many workers still do not know about 

these benefits and, as a result, cannot make use of them. Without better 

information, these workers may not have the opportunity to avail 

themselves of benefits that could ease their transition to reemployment. 

Page 49 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
We recommend that the Secretary of Labor provide guidance to states and

local officials on how to better ensure that workers are aware of two new 

benefits under the TAA program: 

• the Health Coverage Tax Credit and 

• the Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance program. 

This guidance should clarify that workers need additional information 

beyond what is provided at initial informational meetings. 

We provided a draft of this report to officials at Labor for their review and

comment. In its comments, Labor agreed with our findings and 

recommendations, noting a number of steps it has already taken to 

improve access to HCTC and ATAA for eligible workers. Labor also 

acknowledged that more needs to be done, saying that many of the 

difficulties encountered in providing services and administering benefits 

are driven by the complexities of the systems used to implement the 

program. Labor noted additional steps it will be taking to help ensure 

access to services, such as working with the IRS and states to identify and 

resolve HCTC issues as they arise, and developing a revised TAA benefits 

brochure for workers to be distributed by states. Labor also provided 

technical comments which were incorporated as appropriate. A copy of 

Labor’s response is in appendix X. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 15 

days from the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this 

report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant congressional committees, and 

others who are interested. Copies will also be made available to others 

upon request. The report is also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site 

at http://www.gao.gov. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

Page 50 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any 

questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of the report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix XI. 

Sigurd R. Nilsen 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 

Page 51 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix I: 

Methodology 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Page 52 GAO-06-43

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

We examined (1) the extent to which workers accessed federally funded

reemployment services and the mix of services received, (2) the 

employment outcomes these workers achieved, and (3) the extent to 

which workers used the new health insurance and wage insurance 

benefits under the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, and the 

factors affecting their participation. To address these issues, we selected 

five plant closures that were determined by the U.S. Department of Labor 

to be related to international trade, visited each layoff site, conducted a 

telephone survey of workers affected by each plant closure, held focus 

groups with affected workers, and collected state administrative data on 

services and benefits received. We also interviewed officials from Labor. 

We conducted our work from November 2004 to December 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

To obtain information for this report, we judgmentally selected five plant 

closures based on several criteria. First, we selected five states by 

considering factors such as states’ prior TAA training allocations and 

number of TAA participants, the manufacturing products that have been 

affected by mass layoffs in different states, and geographic diversity. We 

then chose plant closures within the five states that met several criteria: 

the plant closures were determined to have been related to international 

trade by the U.S. Department of Labor, and therefore all or some of the 

affected workers were potentially eligible for the TAA program; the plants

manufactured a variety of products; the closures affected between 100 and 

500 workers; and the closures occurred after the TAA Reform Act of 2002 

was enacted. We also sought to achieve a mix of sites in rural and 

metropolitan areas. Based on these criteria, we selected plant closures 

that had occurred at General Mills (Mo.), Lear (Pa.), Sanmina-SCI (Mass.), 

Toro (Miss.), and Weyerhaeuser (Wash.). Because we studied only five

plant closures and because of the method of selection, we cannot 

conclude that our findings are representative of the experiences of tradeaffected workers nationwide. 

We visited each site to obtain information on the plant closures and to 

learn about the experiences of the affected workers. During the site visits, 

we interviewed state and local officials, training providers, and, when 

available, company and union officials. We also held focus group 

discussions with workers at each site to learn more about workers’ 

experiences with employment and training services. Focus group 

participants were recruited by one-stop center case managers, as it was 

not feasible for us to recruit focus group participants at each site. Because

Case Study Site Selection 

Site Visits and Focus 

Groups 

 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

of this selection method, the focus group participants did not include any 

workers who had not visited a one-stop center. This selection method 

could have introduced bias into the focus group results; however, the 

information we obtained from focus groups was used only to provide 

examples. We conducted 15 focus groups in total, with between two and 

seven workers participating in each focus group. A total of 69 workers 

participated across all sites (see table 6). The questions used for the focus 

groups covered topics such as workers’ experiences with one-stop center 

services and training and the helpfulness of those services, knowledge 

about and participation in the HCTC and ATAA programs, and 

employment outcomes. GAO facilitators conducted the focus groups, the 

discussions were tape recorded, and transcripts were professionally 

prepared. 

Table 6: Number of Focus Groups and Participants by Site

Company 

General Mills

 (Mo.)

Lear

 (Pa.)

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.) 

Toro 

(Miss.)

Sanmina-SCI

 (Mass.)

Number of focus 

groups 3 3 2 3 4

Number of 

participants 9 11 11 14 24

Source: GAO analysis.

Review of State 

Administrative Data 

We reviewed state administrative data on workers’ demographics and 

services received, and, when available, state wage records on workers’ 

employment outcomes. The data we reviewed included workers’ age, 

education level, weeks of UI received, training program enrollment, cost of 

training, and reemployment status. Administrative data were not available 

for every worker in each site. We recoded certain elements in the raw data

so that they would be comparable across sites. For example, we recoded 

workers’ training programs into a few standardized categories. When 

recoding the data, we reached a team consensus on the recodes and 

independently checked each recode. We assessed the reliability of the data 

by interviewing state officials who had provided the data, performing edit 

checks of the data, and comparing the administrative data to information 

generated from the telephone survey. Based on these methods, we found 

state data quality processes and procedures to be sufficiently reliable for 

the purposes of our report. 

Page 53 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

We conducted a telephone survey of all workers who were laid off from 

the five plants we studied. The survey was designed to obtain information 

on workers’ experiences with local one-stop centers, HCTC, and ATAA; 

use of UI benefits; employment outcomes; and demographics. We obtained 

lists of affected workers at each site from state officials. Prior to 

administering the survey, we pre-tested the survey questions with workers 

at each site, and made changes to the questions based on these pretests. 

The data from 15 completed pre-tested interviews were incorporated into 

the final dataset. 

Telephone Survey 

The surveys were administered via phone by a contractor hired by GAO.1

The survey was conducted from April 19, 2005, through June 24, 2005. The 

survey administration included the following elements: (1) advance letters 

were mailed to all dislocated workers approximately 5 to 7 days prior to 

the start of data collection to provide information on the study and add 

legitimacy and saliency to the survey; (2) all interviews were conducted 

via Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), and a minimum of 

10 callbacks were made to each worker to maximize contact and response 

rates; and (3) all cases with missing information or incorrect contact 

information were researched via several avenues to find the most accurate 

information for each worker. Survey response rates for each survey 

ranged from 66 percent to 86 percent (see table 7). Some of the reasons 

workers did not complete the survey included that their phone numbers 

were no longer in service, they had passed away since their layoff, they

had limited English skills, or they declined to complete the survey. 

Table 7: Survey Response Rates by Site 

Toro (Miss.) 

Company 

General Mills 

 (Mo.) 

Lear

 (Pa.)

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.) TAA-certified

Not TAAcertifiedSanmina-SCI 

(Mass.)

Number of workers 436 308 205 40 72 472

Number of respondents 285 262 160 34 52 348

Response rate 66% 86% 81% 85% 72% 75%

Source: GAO analysis.

Note: A small number of out-of-scope workers were subtracted from the population for certain sites, 

for purposes of calculating the survey response rates. Workers were considered out-of-scope if they 

had quit or retired prior to the layoff, or were still working at the plant at the time of the survey. 

 1

 Due to a technical problem with the survey administration, GAO staff separately asked 

TAA-certified workers in Mississippi the HCTC and ATAA questions. 

Page 54 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

We investigated the magnitude of potential non-response bias in the 

results of dislocated worker surveys at the five locations, and concluded

that there was no significant non-response bias at any of the five locations. 

We compared administrative data on worker demographics and services 

received for survey respondents and the overall population and found 

there generally were not significant differences between survey 

respondents and the overall population for each site. Therefore, we chose 

to generalize the survey results to the entire population of affected 

workers at each site. We generated estimates for each site by treating the 

responding workers as simple random samples from each of the 

populations.

Because we decided to treat the respondents as simple random samples, 

our results are estimates of the populations and thus are subject to 

sampling errors that are associated with samples of this size and type. Our 

confidence in the precision of the results from these samples is expressed 

in 95 percent confidence intervals, which are expected to include the 

actual results in 95 percent of samples of this type. All percentage 

estimates have margins of error of plus or minus 7 percent or less unless 

otherwise noted. All wage related estimates have relative margins of error 

of plus or minus 10 percent or less unless otherwise noted. 

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce other 

errors, commonly referred to as non-sampling errors. These errors can 

occur if survey respondents have difficulty interpreting a particular 

question, lack information necessary to answer a question, are 

uncomfortable with accurately reporting certain sensitive information, or 

do not answer certain questions, among other factors that affect data 

collection and measurement. We took steps in the development of the 

survey, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. 

Regression Analysis of 

Survey Data 

As a complement to our interviewing and focus group efforts we also 

applied logistic regression analysis to our survey data to identify factors 

affecting the likelihood that workers received a set of services. 

Specifically, we examined the effects of a series of demographic and other 

variables from our survey on the likelihood of a worker (1) coming into a 

one-stop center, (2) receiving training, and (3) receiving HCTC. The 

demographic and other variables we examined included gender, age, 

education, tenure in previous job, pre-layoff wage, and time since layoff. 

The full results of this analysis are presented in app. IV. 

Page 55 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix II: Detailed Breakdown of Workers’ Appendix II: Detailed Breakdown of W Training Providers and Costs by Site orkers’ 

Training Providers and Costs by Site 

Table 8: Workers in TAA- and WIA-Funded Training by Provider Type

Site 

Provider type 

General Mills 

(Mo.)

Lear 

(Pa.)

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.)

Toro 

(Miss.)

Sanmina-SCI 

(Mass.)

Community college 15% 15% 40% 100% 14%

Four-year college or university 1 0 8 0 11

Public vocational/technical school 4 48 4 0 1

Proprietary school 75 26 4 0 71

Non-profit agency 0 0 0 0 1

Employer (e.g., on-the-job training) 2 2 8 0 0

Other 1 9 0 0 2

Unknown 1 1 36 0 0

Source: State administrative data. 

Notes: Administrative data on training providers was available for 92 General Mills workers, 94 Lear

workers, 141 Sanmina-SCI workers, 7 Toro workers, and 25 Weyerhaeuser workers. Because of 

rounding, totals do not always equal 100 percent. 

Table 9: Workers in TAA- and WIA-Funded Training by Expected Program Cost 

Site 

Expected program cost 

General Mills 

(Mo.) 

Lear 

(Pa.)

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.)

Toro 

(Miss.) 

Sanmina-SCI 

(Mass.)

$4,999 or less 27% 21% 8% 83% 43%

5,000-9,999 47 43 68 17 36

10,000-14,999 19 18 16 0 15

15,000-19,999 5 16 8 0 7

20,000 or more 3 2 0 0 0

Source: State administrative data. 

Notes: Administrative data on training cost was available for 105 General Mills workers, 91 Lear 

workers, 134 Sanmina-SCI workers, 6 Toro workers, and 25 Weyerhaeuser workers. Because of 

rounding, totals do not always equal 100 percent. 

Page 56 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix III: Detailed Breakdown of Appendix III: Detailed Breakdown of Participation in HCTC

Participation in HCTC 

The following tables provide further detailed analysis of workers’ use of 

HCTC and their reasons for not participating in the benefit. Table 10 

provides information on the number of workers who visited a one-stop 

center and were aware of the HCTC benefit and whether they participated

in HCTC. Table 11 provides information on the reasons given by workers 

for not participating in HCTC. Note that in Table 11 respondents could 

choose more than one of these reasons for not participating. 

Table 10: Workers’ participation in HCTC 

General Mills 

(Mo.) Lear (Pa.)

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.) Toro (Miss.)

Sanmina-SCI 

(Mass.)

Total number of affected workers 436 308 205 40 472

Total number of survey respondents 285 262 160 34 348

Total number of workers who went to a onestop center and were aware of HCTC 80 136 61 14 115

Number of workers who said they were

participating in HCTC 33 26 5 2 15

Number of workers who said they were

considering participating in HCTC or expecting 

to get the benefit 5 12 10 0 13

Number of workers who said they were not 

participating in HCTC 42 98 46 12 87

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers. 

Page 57 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix III: Detailed Breakdown of 

Participation in HCTC

Table 11: Key Reasons Workers Gave for Not Participating in HCTC 

General 

Mills 

(Mo.) Lear (Pa.)

Weyerhaeuser

(Wash.) Toro (Miss.)

Sanmina-SCI 

(Mass.)

Number of workers who did not participate in HCTC 42 98 46 12 87

Workers who said they had other health coverage 29 62 36 6 46

Workers who said they did not have other health coverage 12 30 8 6 31

Workers who did not respond whether or not they had 

other health coverage 1 6 2 0 10

Of those workers who said they did not have other health 

coverage 

The number of workers who only said they did not 

participate in HCTC because the benefit was too 

expensive 7 12 5 2 13

The number of workers who only said they did not 

participate in HCTC because the benefit was too confusing 2 5 0 1 1

The number of workers who said they did not participate in 

HCTC because the benefit was both too confusing and too 

expensive 1 10 1 2 7

The number of workers who gave other reasons for not 

participating in HCTC 0 1 2 1 9

The number of workers who gave no reason for not 

participating in HCTC 2 2 0 0 1

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers. 

Note: For an overview of responses to HCTC-related questions by layoff site see GAO-06-44SP. 

Page 58 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix IV: Regression Analysis of Survey

Appendix IV Data : Regression Analysis of Survey 

Data 

To determine what factors were related to whether workers went to a onestop center, received training, or received HCTC benefits, we used 

multivariate logistic regression models to estimate the effects of several 

factors. The advantage of the multivariate approach is that the effect of 

any given factor is estimated after its relationship with other factors is 

taken into account. The factors we considered were sex, age, education,

tenure, time since the layoff, pre-layoff wage, and site, or the plant where 

the worker had been employed. 

The logistic regression approach requires that we use odds and estimate 

differences in the odds by taking their ratios. Table 12 below provides an 

example of how odds and odds ratios are calculated. The top panel of 

table 12 shows that 88 percent of female workers visited a one-stop center, 

compared to 80 percent of male workers. Alternatively, we can calculate

the odds on women and men visiting a one-stop center, which were 291/38 

= 7.7 and 608/150 = 4.0, respectively. These odds imply that 7.7 women 

visited a one-stop center for every woman that did not, and that 4.0 men 

visited a one-stop center for every man that did not. Moreover, the ratio of 

the two odds, 4.0/7.7 = 0.52 can be interpreted as meaning that the odds on

visiting a center were only half as large for men as for women. While this 

might seem inconsistent with the difference between 88 percent and 80 

percent, consider that 12 percent of the women but 20 percent of the men 

(nearly twice the percentage) did not visit a one-stop center. When the 

factor being considered has more than two categories, we choose any one 

category arbitrarily as the referent category, and calculate the ratios of the 

odds for all other categories relative to that one. For example, in the 

bottom panel of table 12 we see the odds on visiting a one-stop center in 

each of the five sites, and odds ratios which indicate how much different

the odds were for every site relative to General Mills. These odds ratios 

indicate that at the Sanmina-SCI, Lear, and Weyerhaeuser sites, the odds 

on visiting a one-stop center were greater than in General Mills, by factors

of 2.3, 2.8, and 2.0, respectively. The odds were highest at the Toro site, in 

fact, but because all workers visited a center in that site, the odds, and 

thus the odds ratio, are undefined. 

Page 59 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix IV: Regression Analysis of Survey

Data 

Table 12: Numbers and Percentages of Workers Who Visited a One-Stop Center, by Sex and Site, and Odds and Odds Ratios

Derived from Them 

Sex No Yes Total Odds on visited Odds ratio

Female 38 291 329 7.658

11.6% 88.5% 100.0%

Male 150 608 758 4.053 0.529

19.8% 80.2% 100.0%

Total 188 899 1087 

17.3% 82.7% 100.0%

Site 

Sanmina-SCI 50 298 348 5.960 2.326

14.4% 85.6% 100.0%

Toro 0 34 34 a a

0 100.0% 100.0%

General Mills 80 205 285 2.563

28.1% 71.9% 100.0%

Lear 32 230 262 7.188 2.805

12.2% 87.8% 100.0%

Weyerhaeuser 26 134 160 5.154 2.011

16.3% 83.8% 100.0%

Total 188 901 1089 

Visited one-stop center

17.3% 82.7% 100.0%

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers. 

a

 Indicates odds and odds ratios that cannot be estimated given that there were no TAA-certified Toro

workers who did not visit the one-stop center. 

Table 13 shows the effects of the different factors on visiting a one-stop 

center (first column), receiving training (second column), and receiving

the HCTC benefit (third column) when we use multivariate logistic 

regression models to estimate their effects simultaneously. As noted 

above, the advantage to this approach is that it allows us to estimate the 

effect of each factor after taking account of the fact that the different 

factors are related to each other (i.e., males and females in the sample may 

have different lengths of service or wages, workers at different sites may 

vary by sex, education, etc.) and have sometimes intertwined effects on 

the outcomes of interest. 

Page 60 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix IV: Regression Analysis of Survey

Data 

Table 13: Odds Ratios Describing the Effects of Various Factors on the Likelihoods of Visiting a One-Stop Center, Receiving

Training, and Receiving HCTC 

Service

Factor One-Stop Center Training HCTC

Female 

Male 0.486* 0.737 1.947*

Under 40 

40 – 55 1.094 0.702 1.159

Over 55 0.659 0.455* 1.152

< High School 

High School Graduate 0.965 0.784 0.649

Some College 1.407 1.464 0.464*

College Graduate 0.631 0.925 0.551

Unknown Education 0.397 1.756 0.752

< 10 Years Tenure 

10 – 19 Years Tenure 1.267 0.906 0.410*

>19 Years Tenure 1.228 1.103 0.368*

Time Since Layoff 0.989 .981 1.025*

Pre-layoff Wage 0.617* 0.766 0.925

Sanmina-SCI 3.191* 3.595* 2.200*

Toro 11.980* 2.200*

General Mills 2.385* 2.200*

Lear 3.191* 2.385*

Weyerhaeuser 11.980* 2.200*

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers. 

Notes: Asterisks indicate effect coefficients that are significant at the 0.05 level. 

The numbers of cases used in the analyses were 987 (one-stop center), 842 (training), and 821

(HCTC). 

The model for each outcome in this table is one that imposes simplifying constraints on the 

differences between sites. That is, we selected for each outcome a model that included dummy 

variables for sites or groups of sites that were significantly different from others. Equal odds ratios

across sites imply that the only difference across those sites were due to random fluctuations or 

chance. We used formal tests of the difference in the fit of models to determine whether the more 

parsimonious models adequately described the significant differences across sites. 

Page 61 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix IV: Regression Analysis of Survey

Data 

Sex, pre-layoff wage, and site are the only factors that have significant 

effects on the likelihood of visiting a one-stop center. Men were roughly 

half as likely as women to visit a one-stop center (odds ratio of .486). 

Better paid workers were less likely to visit a center as well, with every 

$10 increase in pre-layoff wage diminishing the odds of visiting a center by 

a factor of 0.617. Net of the other factors, workers at the Toro and 

Weyerhaeuser sites were nearly 12 times as likely as workers at General 

Mills to visit a center, and workers at the Sanmina-SCI and Lear sites were 

roughly 3 times as likely as workers at General Mills to do so. This implies 

that (1) workers at Toro and Weyerhaeuser were similar with respect to 

the likelihood of visiting a center; (2) workers at Sanmina-SCI and Lear 

were likewise similar; and (3) workers at Toro and Weyerhaeuser were 

11.98/3.19 = 3.8 times as likely to visit a center as workers at Sanmina-SCI 

and Lear. Once these effects, and the differences across sites, were taken 

account of, none of the other factors (i.e., age, education, etc.) appeared to 

have any significant effect. 

The only factors that had significant net effects on the likelihood of 

receiving training were age and site. Workers over age 55 were less than 

half as likely to receive training as workers under age 40. Workers at 

Sanmina-SCI were more than three times as likely to receive training, and

workers at General Mills and Lear were more than twice as likely to 

receive training, as workers at Toro and Weyerhaeuser. 

Finally, the factors which affected whether workers received the HCTC 

benefit were sex, education, tenure, time since layoff, and site. Men were 

twice as likely as women to receive HCTC, and workers with some college

were half as likely as workers with less than a high school education to 

receive the HCTC benefit. Workers with 10 or more years of service were

less than half as likely to receive HCTC as workers with less than 10 years, 

and workers laid off earlier were more likely to receive the benefit, 

because each additional month since the layoff increases the odds on 

receiving it by a factor of 1.025. Net of these effects, workers at every plant 

except Lear were alike, and more than twice as likely as the workers at 

Lear to receive the HCTC benefit. 

Page 62 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix V: General Mills Plant Closure Appendix V (Hazelwood, Mo.) : General Mills Plant Closure 

(Hazelwood, Mo.) 

The General Mills plant located in Hazelwood, Mo. (population 26,000 in 

2004) shut down in 2003. Hazelwood is a city located 18 miles northwest of 

St. Louis and most of the plant’s employees lived in the St. Louis 

metropolitan area in St. Louis County (see table 14). The St. Louis 

metropolitan area experienced several large layoffs in 2003 that affected 

almost 1,000 manufacturing workers and left the metropolitan area with 

one of the state’s highest unemployment rates in 2003. State and local 

officials say that food manufacturing, once a major employer in the St. 

Louis metropolitan area, is in a state of decline, resulting in few dislocated 

General Mills workers being able to find new jobs with the area’s existing 

food manufacturers. 

Table 14: Profile of St. Louis County, Mo.

Population, 2003 estimate 1,013,123

High school graduates, persons 25 years old and older, 2000 88%

Median household income, 1999 $50,532

Unemployment rate 2004 annual average 5.4%

Unemployment rate 2003 annual average 5.2%

Unemployment rate 2002 annual average 4.7%

Major employment sectors, 2000 Education, health, and social

 services (22%) and manufacturing (13%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

General Mills is an international company that produces an array of 

packaged consumer foods such as cereals, refrigerated and frozen dough 

products as well as snacks and yogurt. General Mills employed over 27,000 

workers and operated 36 plants in the United States in 2004. General Mills’ 

Hazelwood plant produced frozen dough products such as cakes and 

doughnuts, employed over 400 workers at the time it closed, and paid

workers an average of $12.45 per hour—comparable to wages paid in the 

St. Louis metropolitan area by other employers. The affected workers 

were predominantly male, 40 years old or older, had worked at the plant 

for at least 10 years, and had at least a high school diploma (see table 15). 

State and union officials told us that the workers were not considered 

highly skilled. Most of the workers were unionized through the Bakery, 

Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union. 

Page 63 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix V: General Mills Plant Closure 

(Hazelwood, Mo.) 

Table 15: Characteristics of Workers at General Mills’ Hazelwood Plant 

Age Percent

39 years and younger 

40–54 years 

55 years and older 

11

69

21

Gender

Male 

Female 

57

43

Education 

No high school diploma/GED

High school diploma/GED 

Some post-secondary education 

Four-year college degree or more 

Other 

5

55

35

4

1

Years worked at plant 

Less than 5 years 

At least 5 years, less than 10 years 

At least 10 years, less than 20 years 

At least 20 years 

16

11

48

25

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers and Washington state administrative data. 

Note: Percentages of some characteristics may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding. 

The General Mills plant completely ceased operations in October 2003 as a 

result of a shift in production to Canada. General Mills gave the state of 

Missouri official notice of its intentions to close its plant on December 18,

2002, and began laying off workers in waves beginning in January 2003 and

ending in October 2003 (see fig. 19). According to the employer, only some 

salaried employees were offered transfers to other General Mills plants. 

Unionized workers were not eligible for transfers to other General Mills 

plants. A group of workers from the Hazelwood plant submitted a petition

for TAA eligibility with Labor. Labor began its investigation in June 2003 

and certified the layoff as TAA eligible in July 2003. Workers were not 

eligible for the wage insurance program (ATAA), which was not 

implemented until August 2003. 

Page 64 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix V: General Mills Plant Closure 

(Hazelwood, Mo.) 

Figure 19: Time Line of General Mills Plant Closure, Hazelwood, Mo. 

Jan. 15, 2003

June 30, 2003

May 2003

Sept. 18, 2003

Dec. 18, 2002 WARN notice filed by company

 Most workers

 laid off 

Rapid response 

meetings 

held at the company

TAA petition certified

TAA notification 

letters sent to affected workers

Source: GAO analysis and Art Explosion graphics.

Time Line of 

General Mills

plant closure

Hazelwood, Mo.

June 27, 2003 Labor begins investigating TAA petition

Multi-company NEG awarded

July 2003

July 28, 2003

Most workers

initially 

come to 

one-stop

centers

Sept. 3, 2003

TAA orientation sessions

held at company

Aug. 2004

Oct. 2003

Page 65 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix VI: Lear Plant Closure Appendix VI: Lear Plant Closure (Lewistown, Pa.) 

(Lewistown, Pa.) 

The Lear plant in Lewistown, Pa. (population of about 8,800 in 2003) 

closed in 2004. Most of the plant’s employees lived in Lewistown, the 

largest town in rural Mifflin County in central Pennsylvania (see table 16). 

The town is relatively geographically isolated: it is situated in a valley, with

about a 30-mile drive over mountain roads to the nearest city. The 

Lewistown area experienced four mass layoff events between 2002 and 

2004, including the closure of the Lear plant. The resulting loss of about 

700 jobs had a significant impact on the local economy, according to 

Pennsylvania state officials. 

Table 16: Profile of Mifflin County, Pa. 

Population, 2003 estimate 46,335 

High school graduates, persons 25 years and over, 2000 77.2% 

Median household income, 1999 $32,175 

Unemployment rate, 2004 annual average 6.8%

Unemployment rate, 2003 annual average 7.6%

Unemployment rate, 2002 annual average 8.8% 

Major employment sectors, 2000 Manufacturing (30%); education,health care,

 and social services (18%); and retail trade (14%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Lear manufactures automobile interiors, and had about 300 plants 

nationwide at the time it closed its Lewistown plant. The Lewistown plant 

produced automobile carpets; employed about 300 workers; and paid 

wages of $15 to $17 per hour, some of the highest in the area. The workers 

at the plant were predominantly male and age 40 or older, most had 

worked at the plant for at least 10 years, and the vast majority had at least 

a high school diploma (see table 17). They also had fairly specialized job 

skills, according to local officials. Most of the workers were unionized 

through UNITE (formerly the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and 

Textile Employees). The union did not play an active role in serving the

workers when they were laid off, according to some workers and officials. 

Page 66 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix VI: Lear Plant Closure 

(Lewistown, Pa.) 

Table 17: Characteristics of Workers at Lear’s Lewistown Plant 

Age Percent

39 years and younger 

40 – 54 years

55 years and older 

23

62

15

Gender

Male 

Female 

73

27

Education 

No high school diploma/GED

High school diploma/GED 

Some post-secondary education 

Four-year college degree or more 

5

77

13

6

Years worked at plant 

Less than 5 years 

At least 5 years, less than 10 years 

At least 10 years, less than 20 years 

At least 20 years 

8

15

48

30

Source: GAO survey of affected workers and state administrative data. 

Note: Percentages for some characteristics may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding. 

The Lear plant in Lewistown was closed on February 15, 2004, primarily as 

a result of a shift of production to another country. Lear officially notified

the state of Pennsylvania of the Lewistown plant closure on October 1, 

2003, and most workers were laid off from the plant between November 

2003 and February 2004 (see fig. 20). Twenty-six of the workers laid off 

from Lear’s Lewistown plant were hired at Lear’s plant in Carlisle, Pa. 

(approximately 60 miles from Lewistown) and then laid off primarily in 

January 2005 when production was reduced at that plant. A group of 

workers from the Lewistown plant submitted a petition for TAA eligibility. 

Labor began its investigation of the petition in October 2003, and certified

the affected workers as TAA-eligible in November 2003, finding that the

plant closure was related primarily to a shift of production to Canada. 

Labor also certified the workers as eligible for the wage insurance (ATAA) 

program. 

Page 67 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix VI: Lear Plant Closure 

(Lewistown, Pa.) 

Figure 20: Time Line of Lear Plant Closure, Lewistown, Pa. 

Nov. 2003 

 Nov. 10 &12, 2003 

Nov. 12, 2003

Nov. 2003 - Mar, 2004

WARN notice filed by company

 Rapid response meetings held at plant

 Labor certifies TAA petition

Source: GAO analysis and Art Explosion graphics.

TAA orientations held at 

one-stop center

Oct. 9, 2003 Labor begins investigating TAA petition

Oct. 1, 2003

Time Line of 

Lear plant 

closure

Lewistown, Pa.

Jan. 2005

TAA notification letter 

sent to workers

Nov. 24, 2003

Former Lewistown workers 

laid off from Lear plant in Carlisle, Pa.

Feb. 2004

Most workers 

laid off (some 

rehired at 

Carlisle, Pa. 

plant)

May 2004

Most workers

initially come

to one-stop

centers

Page 68 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix VII: Weyerhaeuser Plant Closure Appendix VII: W(Lonegvyerhaeuser Plant Closure iew, Wash.) 

(Longview, Wash.) 

The Weyerhaeuser plant located in Longview, Wash. (population 35,943 in

2003) shut down 2003. Most of the plant’s employees lived in or around the 

Longview metro area in Cowlitz County situated along Washington’s 

southeastern border with Oregon (see table 18). Longview lies about 50 

miles east of Portland, Oregon, and 100 miles south of Tacoma, Wash. 

Cowlitz County experienced several large layoffs from 2001 to 2003 that 

affected more than 1,600 workers and left the county with the state’s 

second highest unemployment rate in 2004. According to state and local 

officials, these layoffs have had a significant impact on the local economy, 

and while a few years ago laid-off workers were quickly absorbed by other 

local employers, laid-off workers are now having difficulty finding jobs. 

Table 18: Profile of Cowlitz County, Wash. 

Population, 2003 estimate 95,146

High school graduates, persons 25 years old and older, 2000 83.2%

Median household income, 1999 $39,797

Unemployment rate 2004 annual average 8.5%

Unemployment rate 2003 annual average 10.4%

Unemployment rate 2002 annual average 11.4%

Major employment sectors, 2000 Manufacturing (21%) and education,

 health, and social services (20%) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Weyerhaeuser is an international company that manufactures a host of 

wood-related products, ranging from paper and paper packing products to 

finished wood products such as lumber used in home construction. 

Weyerhaeuser’s fine paper plant produced paper commonly used for 

copying and printing. Weyerhaeuser employs about 65,000 workers 

internationally of which about 27,000 work in its plants across the United 

States. Weyerhaeuser operated its fine paper plant on its 700-acre 

company campus in Longview. Over 200 workers were employed at the 

fine paper and pulp plant and about 2,000 at Weyerhaeuser’s campus 

overall. Weyerhaeuser still operates several other production lines on this 

campus. According to state officials, Weyerhaeuser is considered one of 

the best companies to work for in the Longview area and pays some of the 

area’s highest wages. Entry level positions at the fine paper plant started at

$17 per hour and most affected workers were earning an average of $24 

per hour. Affected workers were considered highly skilled and most had at 

least a high school diploma (see table 19). The majority of the workers 

were male, 55 years of age or older, and had worked at the plant for at 

least 20 years. The workers were unionized through the Association of 

Page 69 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix VII: Weyerhaeuser Plant Closure 

(Longview, Wash.) 

Western Pulp and Paper Workers. State and local one-stop center officials

told us that they worked closely with union representatives to coordinate 

outreach and services for affected workers. 

Table 19: Characteristics of Workers at Weyerhaeuser’s Longview Plant 

Age Percent

39 years and younger 

40 – 54 years

55 years and older 

8

36

57

Gender

Male 

Female 

89

11 

Education 

No high school diploma/GED

High school diploma/GED 

Some postsecondary education 

Four-year college degree or more 

Other 

3

42

48

8

1

Years worked at plant 

Less than 5 years 

At least 5 years, less than 10 years 

At least 10 years, less than 20 years 

At least 20 years 

0

3

24

73

Source: GAO survey of dislocated workers and Washington state administrative data. 

Note: Percentages of some characteristics may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding. 

The plant ceased operations in mid-2004 as a result of a shift in production

to Canada. Weyerhaeuser gave the state of Washington official notice of its 

intentions to close its fine paper plant on November 26, 2003, and workers 

were laid off in waves beginning in November 2003 and ending in August 

2004 (see fig. 21). According to the employer, almost 50 workers were 

reabsorbed at other Weyerhaeuser plants operating in Longview or 

Cosmopolis, Wash. (almost 100 miles from Longview). In accordance with 

union rules affected workers were able to bid on positions held by junior 

Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers members working at 

Weyerhaeuser. Furthermore, many affected workers were also eligible for 

retirement. The union negotiated an early retirement option available to 

workers who had at least 10 years of service to the company and were at 

least 55 years old. The union filed a petition for TAA eligibility with Labor. 

Labor began its investigation of the petition in November 2003 and 

certified the layoff as TAA eligible in January 2004. Workers were also 

certified as eligible for the wage insurance (ATAA) program. 

Page 70 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix VII: Weyerhaeuser Plant Closure 

(Longview, Wash.) 

Figure 21: Time Line of Weyerhaeuser Plant Closure, Longview, Wash. 

Nov. 26, 2003

Dec. 1, 2003

Jan. 13, 2004

Feb. 2-3, 2004

Mar. 17, 2004

WARN notice filed by company

 Most workers

 laid off

Rapid Response 

meetings 

held at union hall

 Labor certifies TAA petition 

 First TAA notification

 letters sent to affected 

 workers

Second TAA notification 

letter sent to affected workers

Most workers 

intially come to 

one-stop centers

Oct. 2004

Sept. 2004

Source: GAO analysis and Art Explosion graphics.

Jan. 23, 2004

TAA orientations held at 

 the union hall

Time Line of 

Weyerhaeuser plant 

closure

Longview, Wash.

Nov. 18, 2003 Labor begins investigating TAA petition

Nov. 2003

Page 71 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix VIII: Toro Plant Closure Appendix VIII: T(Oxford, Miss.) oro Plant Closure 

(Oxford, Miss.) 

The Toro plant located in Oxford, Miss. (population of about 12,700 in 

2003) shut down in 2004. Oxford is the largest city in rural Lafayette 

County in northern Mississippi, and most of the plant’s employees either 

lived in Lafayette County or surrounding counties (see table 20). 

According to local officials, Lafayette County experienced four mass layoff 

events and plant closures between 2002 and 2004, including the Toro plant, 

which contributed to a 40 percent reduction in manufacturing jobs in the 

county. 

Table 20: Profile of Lafayette County, Miss. 

Population, 2003 estimate 40,188

High school graduates, persons 25 years old and older, 2000 78.5%

Median household income, 1999 $28,517

Unemployment rate 2004 annual average 4.8%

Unemployment rate 2003 annual average 4.9%

Unemployment rate 2002 annual average 3.2 %

Major employment sectors, 2000 Education, health, and social services (33%);

 manufacturing (12%); and retail trade (11%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Toro designs, markets, and manufactures landscaping equipment, and 

employed about 5,200 employees worldwide in 2004. Toro’s Oxford plant 

produced two-cycle engines for lawnmowers, employed about 110 

employees, and paid workers between $8.50 and $15 per hour depending 

on their job title. Approximately 40 employees were machinists (who 

created the engine parts produced at the Oxford plant) and the remaining 

70 employees included assemblers (who put the engine parts together). 

Only the machinists were TAA-certified. Most machinists at the plant were

male, 40 years old or older, had worked at the plant for at least 10 years, 

and had at least a high school diploma (see table 21). The workers were 

not unionized. 

Page 72 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix VIII: Toro Plant Closure 

(Oxford, Miss.) 

Table 21: Characteristics of TAA-Certified Workers at Toro’s Oxford Plant 

Age Percent

39 years and younger 

40-54 years 

55 years and older 

35

53

12

Gender

Male 

Female 

61

39

Education 

No high school diploma/ GED 

High school diploma/ GED 

Some post-secondary education 

Four-year college degree or more 

3

53

44

0

Years worked at plant 

Less than 5 years 

At least 5 years, less than 10 years 

At least 10 years, less than 20 years 

At least 20 years 

3

22

71

6

Source: GAO survey of affected workers and state administrative data. 

Note: Percentages for some characteristics may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding. 

The Toro plant in Oxford was closed on July 30, 2004, at least partly as a 

result of a shift of production to China. Toro gave the state of Mississippi 

official notice of its intentions to close the Oxford plant on January 30, 

2004, and most workers were laid off during April and May 2004 (see 

figure 22). The company submitted a petition for TAA eligibility to Labor 

on behalf of the workers. Labor began its investigation of the petition on 

January 26, 2004, and certified the 40 machinists as TAA-eligible on 

February 19, 2004, because the plant closure was related to a shift of 

machining two-cycle engine components to China. However, Labor did not 

certify the assemblers as TAA-eligible because it determined Toro was 

shifting the assembly of two-cycle engines to another domestic facility. 

Labor also certified the machinists as eligible for the wage insurance 

(ATAA) program. 

Page 73 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix VIII: Toro Plant Closure 

(Oxford, Miss.) 

Figure 22: Time Line of Toro Plant Closure, Oxford, Miss.

Jan. 30, 2004

Feb. 19, 2004

Mar. 25, 2004

Apr. 2004

May 2004

WARN notice filed by company

 Labor certifies TAA petition for a portion of Toro workers

Source: GAO analysis and Art Explosion graphics.

TAA orientation sessions held at company

Jan. 26, 2004 Labor begins investigating TAA petition

Oct. 21, 2003

Time line of 

Toro plant 

closure

Oxford, Miss.

Most workers 

initially come 

to one-stop 

centers

TAA notification 

letter sent 

to workers

June 2004

Rapid response meetings held at company

Most 

workers 

laid off

Page 74 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix IX: Sanmina-SCI Plant Closure Appendix IX: Sanmina-SCI Plant Closure (Wilmington, Mass.)

(Wilmington, Mass.) 

The Sanmina-SCI plant located in Wilmington, Mass. (population of about 

22,000 in 2003) closed in 2004. Wilmington is in Middlesex County roughly 

16 miles northwest of Boston (see table 22). About two-thirds of the 

plant’s employees lived in Massachusetts, and almost a third lived in New 

Hampshire. Economic conditions during 2004 and 2005 have been varied 

among the communities where Sanmina-SCI workers lived. Some of these 

workers lived in communities that have experienced a number of traderelated layoffs in recent years, and have had relatively high 

unemployment. But other Sanmina-SCI employees lived in communities 

that had lower unemployment rates and, according to local officials, 

experienced strong job growth. 

Table 22: Profile of Middlesex County, Mass. 

Population, 2003 estimate 1,466,561

High school graduates, persons 25 years and over, 2000 88.5%

Median household income, 1999 $60,821

Unemployment rate, 2004 annual average 4.4%

Unemployment rate, 2003 annual average 5.3%

Unemployment rate, 2002 annual average 5.0%

Major employment sectors, 2000 Educational, health and social services (24%);

 professional, scientific, management, administrative and

 waste management services (16%); and manufacturing (12%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Sanmina-SCI is an electronics manufacturing company with operations in 

over 20 countries. The Wilmington plant produced printed circuit boards 

and employed almost 500 workers at the time it was closed. The workers 

at the plant were predominantly male, age 40 or older, and over half had 

worked at the plant for at least 10 years. At least three-quarters had a high

school diploma or GED (see table 21). The workers were not unionized. 

Page 75 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix IX: Sanmina-SCI Plant Closure 

(Wilmington, Mass.)

Table 23: Characteristics of Workers at Sanmina-SCI’s Wilmington Plant 

Age Percent

39 years and younger 

40 – 54 years

55 years and older 

23

62

15

Gender

Male 

Female 

70

30

Education 

No high school diploma/GED

High school diploma/GED 

Some post-secondary education 

Four-year college degree or more 

Other 

14

41

25

12

10

Years Worked at Plant 

Less than 5 years 

At least 5 years, less than 10 years 

At least 10 years, less than 20 years 

At least 20 years 

15

26

45

14

Source: GAO survey of affected workers and state administrative data. 

Note: Percentages for some characteristics may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding. 

The Sanmina-SCI plant in Wilmington was closed in September 2004, at 

least partly as a result of a shift of production to another country. 

Sanmina-SCI officially notified the state of Massachusetts of the 

Wilmington plant closure on July 20, 2004, and most workers were laid off

from the plant between August and October 2004 (see fig. 23). The 

company submitted a petition for TAA eligibility to Labor. Labor began its 

investigation of the petition in July 2004 and certified the affected workers 

as TAA-eligible in August 2004 because the plant closure was related to a

shift of production to Malaysia. Labor also certified the workers as eligible 

for the wage insurance (ATAA) program. 

Page 76 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix IX: Sanmina-SCI Plant Closure 

(Wilmington, Mass.)

Figure 23: Time Line of Sanmina-SCI Plant Closure, Wilmington, Mass. 

Aug. 2-17, 2004

Aug. 13, 2004

Aug. 30, 2004

Aug. 30-Sept. 9, 2004

WARN notice filed by company

Rapid response meetings held at plant

 Labor certifies TAA petition 

 TAA notification letter sent to workers

Source: GAO analysis and Art Explosion graphics.

TAA orientations held at 

 company

 July 30, 2004 Labor begins investigating TAA petition

July 20, 2004

Time Line of 

Sanmina-SCI plant 

closure

Wilmington, Mass.

Oct. 2004

Most workers 

initially come to 

one-stop center

Aug. 2004

Dec. 2004

s

Most

workers

laid off

Page 77 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix X: Comments from the Department Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Labor 

of Labor 

Page 78 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix X: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 79 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix X: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 80 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix X: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 81 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix X: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 82 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix X: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 83 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix X: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 84 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix X: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 85 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Appendix XI: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 86 GAO-06-43

Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director (202) 512-7215 

Dianne Blank, Assistant Director 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

Lorin Obler, Analyst-in-Charge 

In addition, the following staff made major contributions to this report: 

Irene J. Barnett and Amanda Mackison served as team members; James 

Ashley, David Dornisch, Beverly Ross, Douglas Sloane, and Shana Wallace 

provided guidance and assistance with design and methodology issues; 

Jonathan McMurray advised on report preparation; Jessica Botsford 

advised on legal issues; Avrum Ashery and Karen Burke provided graphic 

design assistance; and Ramona Burton, Anne Cangi, Maureen Driscoll, 

Anna Kelley, Christopher Murray, Carol Patey, Michelle St. Pierre, and 

Wayne Sylvia verified our findings. 

 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to 

Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82. 

Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but 

Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650. 

Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005. 

Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment 

Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied

with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address 

Employers’ Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005. 

Health Coverage Tax Credit: Simplified and More Timely Enrollment 

Process Could Increase Participation. GAO-04-1029. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 2004. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training 

Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012. 

Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. 

GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve 

Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant 

Awards and Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 

Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and 

Information Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18,

2003. 

Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and 

Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to 

Other Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding 

Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. 

Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002.

Page 87 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
Related GAO Products 

Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance 

Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness. 

GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Experiences of Six Trade-Impacted 

Communities. GAO-01-838. Washington, D.C.: August 24, 2001. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Trends, Outcomes, and Management 

Issues in Dislocated Worker Programs. GAO-01-59. Washington, D.C.: 

October 13, 2000. 

(130421) Page 88 GAO-06-43 Trade Adjustment Assistance
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER