Report to the Committee on Finance, 

U.S. Senate 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

April 2006 TRADE 

ADJUSTMENT 

ASSISTANCE 

Labor Should Take 

Action to Ensure 

Performance Data Are 

Complete, Accurate, 

and Accessible 

GAO-06-496 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 2006 

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

Labor Should Take Action to Ensure 

Performance Data Are Complete, 

Accurate, and Accessible 

Highlights of GAO-06-496, a report to 

Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate 

In the current tight budgetary 

environment, program 

performance is likely to be an 

increasingly significant factor used

to help policymakers assess 

programs and determine funding 

levels. Given concerns over the 

quality of performance data for the 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

(TAA) program and the importance 

of having meaningful information 

to assess program performance, we

examined (1) whether the TAA 

performance data provide a 

credible picture of the program’s 

performance, (2) what TAA 

performance data the Department 

of Labor (Labor) makes available 

to the public and states and the

usefulness of the data for managing

the program, and (3) what Labor is 

doing to address issues with the 

quality of TAA data submitted by

states. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending actions for 

Labor to help improve the 

completeness and accuracy of 

performance data, to make the 

performance data more

informative, and to increase

opportunities for states to share 

lessons learned on issues relevant 

to TAA data quality. In its 

comments, Labor did not disagree 

with our findings and 

recommendations and said the 

report will be helpful in its 

continuing efforts to improve the 

quality of TAA performance data. 

The performance information that Labor makes available on the TAA 

program does not provide a complete and credible picture of the program’s 

performance. Only half the states are including all participants, as required,

in the performance data they submit to Labor–states were more likely to 

report participants who received training than those who received other 

benefits and services but not training. In addition, many states are not using

all available data sources to determine participants’ employment outcomes. 

This may result in lower reported outcomes because states may be 

inaccurately recording some workers as unemployed who actually have jobs. 

To compile their performance data, some states are using manual processes

or automated systems that lack key capabilities to help minimizes errors, but 

many states have plans to improve their systems’ capabilities. 

Labor reports data on TAA activity levels, services provided to TAA

participants, and key performance measures. The performance data may be

useful for providing a long-term national picture of program outcomes, but it 

represents participants who left the program up to 30 months earlier and, 

thus, is not useful for gauging the TAA program’s current performance. Also, 

the performance information is not displayed using categories that would be 

informative to policymakers, such as type of service received and industry of 

dislocation. Most states find the performance information they receive from 

Labor to be at least moderately useful, but many want more information. 

Labor has taken steps to improve the quality of TAA performance data, but 

issues remain. In 2003, Labor began requiring states to validate their data, 

and most states reported that this increased awareness of data quality at the

state and local level. However, the validation process does not address the 

problem of participants being excluded from the performance data. In fiscal 

year 2006, Labor instituted a set of common measures, and many states 

reported they are experiencing delays in implementing all required changes.

States also expressed interest in receiving more opportunities to share 

lessons learned on topics relevant to TAA data quality. 

Number of States Including All or Most Participants in TAA Performance Data, by Type of

Service Received 

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.

Types of TAA-funded services

46

24

36

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Waivers, but no

TAA-funded training

Job search and relocation

allowances, but no

TAA-funded training

TAA-funded training

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-496.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd R. 

Nilsen at (202) 512-7215 or

nilsens@gao.gov.. 
Page i GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 4 

TAA Data Do Not Provide a Complete, Credible Picture of the 

Program’s Performance 12 

Labor Makes Some TAA Performance Data Available, but Its 

Usefulness Is Limited 23 

Labor Has Taken Steps to Improve the Quality of Performance 

Data, but Issues Remain 31 

Conclusions 39 

Recommendations for Executive Action 41 

Agency Comments 41 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 43 

Appendix II Program Information in State TAA IT Systems 46 

Appendix III State TAA Administrative Allocations, Fiscal Years 

2005-2006 48 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Labor 50 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53 

GAO Related Products 54 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Tables 

Table 1: TAA National Performance Goals and Outcomes, Fiscal 

Years 2004 and 2005 10 

Table 2: Percentage of Participants Included in States’ TAPR 

Submissions Who Received Training 15 

Table 3: How TAA Performance Measures Changed under Common 

Measures 36 

Table 4: Site Visit States and Local Areas 45 

Table 5: Program Information for Other U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration Programs 

Contained in State IT Systems Used to Compile TAPR 

Submissions 46 

Table 6: State TAA Training and Administrative Allocations, Fiscal 

Years 2005-2006 48 

Figures 

Figure 1: Participants Who Received Training Are Most Likely to 

Be Reported in States’ TAPR Submissions 14 

Figure 2: Many States Are Using WRIS 18 

Figure 3: Many States Are Not Using Supplemental Data 19 

Figure 4: Number of States with TAA IT Systems That Currently 

Have or Will Be Adding Certain Capabilities 21 

Figure 5: Period between When a TAA Participant Exits the 

Program and When Data Are Reported to Labor 26 

Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 TAA Performance Data Represent 

Exiters from as early as Fiscal Year 2002 27 

Figure 7: Many States Found Labor’s Performance Information to 

Be Moderately Useful 29 

Figure 8: Most States Reported That Additional Performance 

Information from Labor Would Be Useful for Program 

Management 31 

Figure 9: States’ View of How Labor’s Data Validation Efforts Have 

Helped Them 32 

Figure 10: Most State Expressed Interest in Having More 

Opportunities to Share Lessons Learned on Data Issues 35 

Figure 11: Most States Viewed Changes Needed for Common 

Measures to Be a Burden 38 

Figure 12: Coordinating Exit Dates Was Change States Were Least 

Likely to Expect to Have Completed in 2006 39 
Page iii GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Abbreviations 

ATAA Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 

ES Employment Service 

HCTC Health Coverage Tax Credit 

IT information technology 

NAFTA-TAA North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional 

 Adjustment Assistance 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance 

TAPR Trade Act Participant Report 

TRA Trade Readjustment Allowance 

UI Unemployment Insurance 

VETS Veterans Employment and Training Program 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

WRIS Wage Record Interchange System 

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 1 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

April 25, 2006 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chairman 

The Honorable Max Baucus 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Finance 

United States Senate 

More than 150,000 manufacturing workers lost their jobs in fiscal year 

2004 due to international trade. Most of these workers were eligible for 

services under the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, the 

primary federal employment and training program serving trade-affected 

workers. TAA, funded at about $1 billion in fiscal year 2005, provides 

workers with a variety of services, including training and income support 

after they exhaust their Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits. The U.S. 

Department of Labor (Labor) oversees the program, and states and local 

areas administer services to TAA participants. Despite the role the TAA 

program plays in helping trade-affected workers transition to new 

employment, program outcomes have shown mixed results. Labor collects 

some key performance information from states and uses it to track 

program performance against three national goals in the areas of 

employment, job retention, and wages. Since 2001, the TAA program has 

exceeded the national goal for job retention in every year but one. 

However, it has failed to meet at least one of the national goals each year, 

and in fiscal year 2003, the program failed to meet all three. Further, the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)—a diagnostic tool that the 

Administration uses to help formulate the budget—rated the program 

ineffective, in part because it failed to meet its national goals. It is unclear, 

though, whether the outcomes reported in the goals accurately reflect the 

program’s achievements. Our previous work and work by Labor’s 

Inspector General have identified problems with the performance data 

states submitted to Labor—information was often incomplete, and many 

states did not validate the information they reported to Labor. While Labor 

has taken some steps to improve the performance data, it is not known 

whether the data currently collected on TAA performance are reliable. 

In the current tight budgetary environment, program performance is likely 

to be an increasingly significant factor used to help policymakers assess 

programs and determine funding levels. Given concerns over the quality of 

TAA data and the importance of having meaningful information to assess 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

program performance, we examined (1) whether the TAA performance 

data provide a credible picture of the program’s performance, (2) what 

TAA performance data Labor makes available to the public and states and 

the usefulness of the data for managing the program, and (3) what Labor is 

doing to address issues with the quality of TAA data submitted by states. 

To address these questions, we conducted a Web-based survey of 

workforce officials in the 46 states that were allocated TAA funds in fiscal 

year 2005, and we obtained a 100 percent response rate.1

 In addition, to 

gather in-depth information about how states manage their TAA 

performance data, we conducted site visits in California, Iowa, Ohio, 

Texas, and Virginia, where we interviewed state officials and visited at 

least one local area in each state. We selected these states because they 

represent different TAA data collection approaches (that is, states where 

data are entered into information technology [IT] systems at the local level 

and those where data are entered at the state level), received a relatively 

large share of TAA funds in fiscal year 2005, and are geographically 

dispersed. In addition, to gather insights into data management strategies 

and requirements, we interviewed Labor officials in headquarters and in 

the regional offices and experts on data quality. We also reviewed 

legislation, guidance, summaries of state TAA performance outcome 

information, participant data submitted by states to Labor, and other 

relevant reports and literature related to data quality. Our work was 

conducted between December 2004 and March 2006 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. (See app. I for a 

detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.) 

The performance information that Labor makes available on the TAA 

program does not provide a complete and credible picture of the 

program’s performance. Only half the states reported that the data they 

submit to Labor for determining progress toward national performance 

goals include all TAA participants who stop receiving benefits or 

services—that is, exit the TAA program—as Labor requires. Other states 

reported that they are more likely to include in their performance data 

participants who received TAA-funded training rather than those who 

received other TAA benefits but did not receive TAA-funded training. 

Labor does not currently have a process in place, such as a standard 

 1

Delaware, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Wyoming were not included in our survey because 

they were not allocated TAA funds in fiscal year 2005. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

monitoring tool, to ensure that states are including all exiting participants 

in their data. As a result, the performance data are incomplete and may be 

skewed. Further, not all states obtain the documentation they need to 

verify that TAA participants’ exit dates, used to develop the performance 

data, are accurate. Without such documentation, there is no assurance that 

the right participants are included and, therefore, that the employment 

outcomes are reliable. Some states are not using all available data sources 

to determine TAA participants’ employment outcomes. This may result in 

lower reported outcomes because states may be inaccurately recording 

some workers as unemployed who actually have jobs. To compile TAA 

data, some states have IT systems with limited capabilities that may hinder 

their ability to ensure that the TAA data are complete and accurate. Nine 

states are using manual rather than automated processes to compile their 

TAA performance data, increasing the data’s vulnerability to data entry 

errors, and only about half of the states’ TAA IT systems can perform edit 

checks to help minimize errors. Many states are planning to make 

improvements to their TAA IT systems’ capabilities this year. State TAA 

officials said that resource shortages contribute to their data problems. 

Labor reports data on TAA petition and certification activity, program 

participation, and key performance measures, but this information may 

not be useful for gauging current program performance. This performance 

information may be helpful in providing a long-term national picture of 

program outcomes, but it does not represent a current picture of program 

performance. UI wage records—the primary data source for tracking TAA 

performance—provide a fairly consistent national view of TAA 

performance and allow for tracking outcomes over time. At the same time, 

the UI wage records suffer from time delays and, together with the use of 

longer-term outcome measures, such as employment retention, affect the 

timing of states’ performance reports to Labor and, subsequently, the 

information that Labor makes publicly available. Most of the outcome data 

reported in a given program year actually reflect participants who left the 

program up to 2 years earlier. In addition, Labor does not consistently 

report TAA data by state or by services or benefits received—a step that 

would make the data more useful to policymakers. Most states reported 

that they find the TAA performance information they receive from Labor 

to be at least moderately useful, but many states would like additional 

information from Labor, such as how their TAA performance compares to 

that of other states and other federal employment and training programs. 

While it has limited authority to hold states accountable, Labor has taken 

steps to improve the quality of TAA data submitted by states, but these 

steps do not fully address all issues. Labor has no mechanism to sanction 
Page 4 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

states for poor performance or poor quality data because the law and 

current regulations do not provide one. However, beginning in 2003, Labor 

implemented a new data validation process for its TAA performance data 

that requires states to review a sample of participants’ records and 

compare the data recorded for certain data elements to source files. While 

it is too soon to fully assess whether Labor’s efforts have improved data 

quality, most states reported that Labor’s new requirements have improved 

data accuracy and increased awareness of data quality at the state and 

local level. Labor has taken other steps to improve data quality such as 

providing additional guidance, training, and technical assistance. Yet most 

states reported that they do not currently have opportunities to share 

lessons learned with other states on various topics related to TAA data 

quality and expressed interest in having such opportunities. In fiscal year 

2006, Labor is requiring changes in some TAA data-reporting requirements 

in order to implement a set of common measures for federally funded job 

training programs that share similar goals. Many states reported that the 

changes are burdensome, and some states are experiencing delays in 

implementing the changes. 

To help ensure that TAA participant data reported by states is consistent, 

complete, and accurate, we recommend that Labor clarify reporting and 

documentation requirements, provide guidance to regional offices for 

assessing states’ data collection processes, and create opportunities for 

states to share lessons learned on data quality issues. Finally, to make TAA 

performance information more useful for program management, we 

recommend that Labor provide performance information that is more 

detailed. In its written comments on a draft of this report, Labor did not 

disagree with our findings and recommendations and said the report will 

be helpful in its continuing efforts to improve the quality of TAA 

performance data. 

To assist workers who are laid off as a result of international trade, 

Congress passed the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and created the Trade 

Adjustment Assistance program. Historically, the main benefits available 

through the program have been extended income support and training. 

Participants are generally entitled to income support, but the amount of 

funds available for training is limited by federal statute. Labor certifies 

groups of laid-off workers as potentially eligible for TAA benefits and 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

services by investigating petitions that are filed on the workers’ behalf.2

Workers are eligible for TAA if they were laid off as a result of 

international trade and were involved in making a product or supplying 

component parts to or performing finishing work for directly affected 

firms. Workers served by the TAA program have generally been laid off 

from the manufacturing sector. 

Congress has amended the TAA program a number of times since its 

inception. For example, in 1974 Congress eased program eligibility 

requirements, and in 1988 Congress added a requirement that workers be 

in training to receive income support. In 1993 Congress created a separate 

North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment 

Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) program specifically for workers laid off 

because of trade with Canada or Mexico.3

 The most recent amendments to 

the TAA program were included in the TAA Reform Act of 2002 

(Pub. L. No. 107-210), which was signed into law in August 2002. The 

Reform Act consolidated the former TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs into 

a single TAA program, doubled the amount of funds available for training 

annually, expanded program eligibility to more workers, extended the time 

periods covered by the program, and added new benefits. 

Under the current TAA program, eligible participants have access to a 

wider range of benefits and services than before, including: 

Training. Participants may receive up to 130 weeks of training, including 

104 weeks of vocational training and 26 weeks of remedial training 

(e.g., English as a second language or literacy). On-the-job training is also 

available under TAA. Participants in TAA-approved training must attend 

training full-time. 

 2

Not all workers covered by an approved TAA petition are individually eligible for TAA 

benefits and services. Individual eligibility also depends on factors including the timing and 

duration of a worker’s layoff. In this report, when referring to workers eligible for the TAA 

program, we generally mean workers who have been certified as potentially eligible for the 

program. 

3

For more information on the earlier TAA programs see GAO, Trade Adjustment 

Assistance: Trends, Outcomes, and Management Issues in Dislocated Worker Programs, 

GAO-01-59 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 13, 2000); GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: 

Experiences of Six Trade-Impacted Communities, GAO-01-838 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 24, 2001). 

Services Available under 

the TAA Program 
Page 6 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Extended income support, or Trade Readjustment Allowances 

(TRA). Participants may receive up to 104 weeks of extended income 

support benefits after they exhaust the 26 weeks of UI benefits available in 

most states. This total includes 78 weeks while participants are completing 

vocational training and an additional 26 weeks, if necessary, while 

participants are completing remedial training. The amount of extended 

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

benefit level.4

During their first 26 weeks of extended income support, participants must 

be enrolled in training, have completed training, or have a waiver from this 

requirement; to qualify for more than 26 weeks of extended income 

support, participants must be enrolled in training. The TAA statute lists six 

reasons why a TAA participant may receive a waiver from the training 

requirement, including that the worker possesses marketable skills or that 

the approved training program is not immediately available.5

 States must 

review participants’ waivers at least every 30 days and if necessary may 

continue to renew participants’ waivers each month throughout the initial 

26 weeks of extended income support. 

Job search and relocation benefits. Payments are available to help 

participants search for a job in a different geographical area and to 

relocate to a different area to take a job. Participants may receive up to a 

maximum of $1,250 to conduct a job search. The maximum relocation 

benefit includes 90 percent of the participant’s relocation expenses plus a 

lump sum payment of up to $1,250. 

Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC). Eligible participants may receive 

a tax credit covering 65 percent of their health insurance premiums for 

certain health insurance plans. To be eligible for the credit, trade-affected 

workers must be either receiving extended income support payments, or 

they must be eligible for extended income support but are still receiving 

UI payments, or they must be recipients of benefits under the wage 

insurance program. As a result, trade-affected workers who are still 

 4

Extended income support payments may be reduced based on other income and training 

allowances. 

5

The four other reasons listed in the TAA statute are (1) worker will be recalled by former 

employer, (2) worker is within 2 years of retirement, (3) worker is unable to participate in 

training because of health problems, and (4) approved training is either not available or not 

available at a reasonable cost, or no training funds are available. 
Page 7 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

receiving UI rather than extended income support may register for the 

HCTC only if they are in training, have completed training, or have a 

waiver from the training requirement. 

Wage insurance. The wage insurance program—known as the 

Alternative TAA (ATAA) program—is a demonstration project designed 

for workers age 50 and older who forgo training, obtain reemployment 

within 26 weeks, but take a pay cut. Provided the participant’s annual 

earnings at his or her new job are $50,000 or less, the benefit reimburses 

50 percent of the difference between the participant’s pre- and postlayoff 

earnings up to a maximum of $10,000 over 2 years. 

The process of enrolling trade-affected workers in the TAA program 

begins when a petition for TAA assistance is filed with Labor on behalf of 

a group of laid-off workers. Petitions may be filed by entities including the 

employer experiencing the layoff, a group of at least three affected 

workers, a union, or the state or local workforce agency. The TAA statute 

lays out certain basic requirements that all certified petitions must meet, 

including that a significant proportion of workers employed by a company 

be laid off or threatened with layoff. In addition to meeting these basic 

requirements, a petition must demonstrate that the layoff is related to 

international trade. The law requires Labor to complete its investigation, 

and either certify or deny the petition, within 40 days after it has received 

it. When Labor has certified a petition, it notifies the relevant state, which 

has responsibility for contacting the workers covered by the petition, 

informing them of the benefits available to them, and telling them when 

and where to apply for benefits. 

Workers generally receive services through a consolidated service delivery 

structure called the one-stop system, where they can access a broad range 

of services beyond TAA, including the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 

Dislocated Worker program, the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service (ES) 

program, and services funded by the WIA National Emergency Grants.6

Training for trade-affected workers may be funded by TAA or by one of 

the WIA funding sources. Workers often meet one on one with a case 

manager who may assess worker’s skills and help decide what services 

 6

State officials generally 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. 

Certification Process and 

Eligibility Requirements 
Page 8 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

they need. Because the TAA program has limited funds that can be used 

for case management and program administration, these case management 

services are often performed by ES or WIA Dislocated Worker program 

staff. When this occurs, participants are often co-enrolled in WIA or ES as 

well as TAA. 

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

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

for training, job search and relocation allowances, and administrative 

costs.7

 Of the $259 million, $220 million is set aside for training, and Labor 

allocates 75 percent of it 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 training under the TAA 

program, Labor allocates additional administrative funds to each state 

equal to 15 percent of its training allocation.8

Labor is responsible for monitoring the performance of the TAA program. 

In fiscal year 1999, Labor introduced a new participant outcomes reporting 

system, the Trade Act Participant Report (TAPR), that was designed to 

collect national information on TAA program participants, services, and 

outcomes. States are required to submit TAPR reports to Labor each 

quarter, with data on individuals who exited the TAA program. The TAPR 

data submitted by states are used to calculate national and state outcomes 

on the TAA performance measures for each fiscal year, which include 

(1) the percentage of participants that found jobs after exiting the program 

(reemployment rate), (2) the percentage of those participants who were 

employed after exiting the program who were still employed 9 months 

later (retention rate), and (3) the earnings in their new jobs compared to 

prior earnings (wage replacement rate). 

 7

Unlike other federally funded employment and training programs that operate on a 

program year basis, the TAA program operates on a federal fiscal year basis, that is, fiscal 

year 2004 ran from October 1, 2003, to September 30, 2004. 

8

To cover the cost of administration, states also receive an additional 15 percent of any 

additional funding they receive from the reserved training funds or the job 

search/relocation allowances. 

TAA Funding 

TAA Performance 

Reporting System 
Page 9 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Labor’s guidance requires states to include in their TAPR submissions all 

TAA participants who exit the program, that is, stop receiving benefits or 

services. Under Labor’s guidance, a participant is defined as any individual 

who receives any TAA benefit or service, including extended income 

support payments, training, or job search and relocation allowances. 

According to this definition, participants would include those who, for 

example, received only extended income support and a waiver that 

allowed them to forgo training. 

TAPR reports include data on each exiter’s characteristics, services 

received, and employment outcomes. Data on characteristics, for example, 

should include the worker’s date of birth, gender, ethnicity, educational 

level, and layoff date. Data on services received should include data on 

training (such as dates the participant entered and completed training, and 

the type of training received), on other TAA benefits received (such as 

extended income support, job search allowance, and relocation 

allowance), and on co-enrollment in WIA or other federal programs. Data 

on outcomes should include the date the worker exited the TAA or other 

federal program, whether the worker was employed in the first full quarter 

after exit, whether the worker was employed in the third full quarter after 

exit, and the worker’s earnings in these quarters. Where possible, outcome 

data are to be obtained from state UI wage records. 

Labor uses the TAPR data to track TAA program outcomes against 

national goals. Unlike the WIA programs, however, TAA has no individual 

state performance goals, and states do not receive incentives or sanctions 

based on their performance levels, nor are they otherwise held 

accountable for their performance. At the national level, the TAA program 

has failed to meet at least one of its performance goals each year since 

2001, the first year for which goals were set. Table 1 shows goals and 

outcomes for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. 
Page 10 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Table 1: TAA National Performance Goals and Outcomes, Fiscal Years 2004 and 

2005 

Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year 2005 

Measure Goal Outcome Goal Outcome

Wage replacement 90% 73% 80% 76%

Reemployment rate 70% 62% 70% 70%

Retention rate 88% 86% 89% 91%

Source: Department of Labor. 

Note: Bold denotes TAA program goal met or exceeded. 

In addition to submitting TAPR data, states also submit data to Labor on 

TAA services and expenditures each quarter through the Form 563. Form 

563 includes counts of participants receiving TAA services, while TAPR 

includes individual-level data on former participants who have exited the 

program. States are required to submit each quarter’s Form 563 data about 

1 month after the end of the quarter. Form 563 includes data on services 

such as the number of new training participants (by type of training—

occupational, remedial, and on-the-job), the number of workers in training 

at the end of the quarter, the number of training waivers issued, and the 

number of recipients of job search and relocation allowances, and 

expenditures on extended income support. 

In response to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initiative, 

Labor recently began requiring states to implement common performance 

measures for WIA programs.9

 OMB established a set of common measures 

to be applied to most federally funded job training programs that share 

similar goals. Labor further defined the common measures for all of its 

Employment and Training Administration programs and required states to 

implement these measures beginning July 1, 2005. Because it operates on a 

fiscal year rather than a program year basis, Labor required the TAA 

program to implement the measures by October 1, 2005. 

In addition to standardizing the performance measures, the common 

measures guidance also standardizes the definition of exiters across all 

programs. An exiter is defined as any participant who has not received a 

 9

See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches to 

Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements, GAO-05-539 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 27, 2005). 

Common Measures 
Page 11 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

service funded by the program or funded by a partner program for 

90 consecutive calendar days and is not scheduled for future services. 

The exit date is defined as the last date of service. For TAA participants, 

the exit date may be the training completion date, but if additional services 

are provided after training is completed, or if the participant is continuing 

to receive TRA, he or she would not be exited from the program. Some 

services are not significant enough to delay exiting, however. These 

include receiving UI benefits, some case management services, and 

postplacement follow-up.10

The process of collecting and reporting TAA performance data involves all 

three levels of government. Participant forms and case files are generally 

collected and organized by frontline staff in local areas, usually at the onestop. In some states, local staff may enter some of the information into an 

IT system that is either integrated with the state’s IT system or able to 

create an electronic file to transmit to the state. In other states, paper case 

files are physically transferred to state officials for data entry. 

At the state level, TAA data are often maintained in more than one IT 

system. For example, benefit payment information is usually in the same 

IT system that houses Unemployment Insurance payment information. 

However, information on participant characteristics and services 

(including status of training and whether or not the individual has exited) 

resides in one or more other systems. In some states, this participant 

information remains as a paper case file until it is determined that the 

participant has exited, and it is time to include him or her in the TAPR 

submission. 

To compile the TAPR submission, state agencies administering TAA 

typically match participant records to their state’s UI wage record system 

to determine whether these former participants are employed and, if so, 

the wages they are earning. In some states, staff must manually enter 

information obtained from the UI wage record system into the TAPR file, 

while other states have IT systems capable of automatically matching UI 

data with participants’ records. States may also use the Wage Record 

Interchange System (WRIS) to match participant records to other states’ 

 10Labor distinguishes between UI benefits and TRA benefits in determining exit because 

TRA benefits are tied to continuous participation in skills training or having a waiver of 

that requirement. 

Flow of Data for Collecting 

and Reporting TAA Data 
Page 12 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

UI wage records for participants who found jobs in other states. Some 

states may link participant records to other partner programs’ IT systems 

to track activities across programs or to determine if the participant has 

exited all programs. Once Labor receives the TAPR data, officials perform 

edit checks and calculate performance levels at the national and state 

level. 

TAA performance data are incomplete and may be inaccurate. States 

report that they are not including all TAA participants in their TAPR 

performance data, despite Labor’s requirement that all participants be 

included after they exit the program. In addition, some states may not have 

documentation to verify the accuracy of participants’ exit dates in TAPR 

and are not using all available data sources to determine TAA participants’ 

employment outcomes. Furthermore, 1 state in 5 is using manual rather 

than automated processes to compile TAPR data, and others have IT 

systems with limited capacity to control for errors. Having such IT systems 

could hinder states’ ability to ensure that the data are complete and 

accurate. However, many states are planning to make improvements to 

their TAA IT systems’ capabilities this year. Some state TAA officials said 

that resource constraints have made it difficult to ensure their data are 

complete and accurate. 

TAA Data Do Not 

Provide a Complete, 

Credible Picture of 

the Program’s 

Performance 
Page 13 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Many states are not including all exiting participants in the TAPR 

submissions that Labor uses to calculate performance outcomes for TAA 

participants, such as the reemployment and retention rates. Participants 

who received training were most likely to be included in states’ TAPR 

data, but those who had training waivers and had not received training 

were least likely to be included. Only 23 of the 46 states we surveyed 

reported that they are including in their TAPR submissions to Labor all 

exiting participants, regardless of the type of benefit or service they 

received. Fourteen states reported that participants who received waivers 

but did not receive training were unlikely to be included in the TAPR 

(see fig. 1), and 3 states reported that they do not include any participants 

unless they receive training. This finding is consistent with a review by 

Pennsylvania’s state auditor that found that participants who received 

waivers from training were not included in their TAPR submissions.11

 11Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Office of the Budget and Comptroller Operations, 

Single Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003 (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Aug. 

31, 2005). 

TAA Performance Data Are 

Incomplete and May Be 

Inaccurate 
Page 14 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Figure 1: Participants Who Received Training Are Most Likely to Be Reported in 

States’ TAPR Submissions 

Note: States that did not respond or that responded “uncertain” to the specific survey questions 

analyzed for the figure were not included in the analysis. 

Our review of the TAPR data states submitted to Labor during fiscal year 

2005 confirms our survey results—some states appear to be excluding 

some of their participants in their TAPR data files. For example, 9 states 

only included in their TAPR submissions participants who received 

training. Another 12 states had TAPR submissions composed almost 

exclusively (97 to 99 percent) of participants who received training 

(see table 2). However, several states did include relatively more of the 

participants who had not received training. For example, for 6 states, 

under 60 percent of the participants reported in the TAPR had received 

training. We have no other reliable source of data to help us assess what 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Waivers, but no

Job search and

TAA-funded training

Number of states

Types of TAA-funded services

Report few or no participants

Report some participants

Report all or most participants

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.

 relocation allowances, but

no TAA-funded training

TAA-funded training

46

36

2

6

24

5

14
Page 15 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

proportion of participants nationwide actually receive training and, 

therefore, what the proportion in the TAPR should be. In a recent study 

that examined services and outcomes for five trade-related layoffs, 

however, we found that between 9 and 39 percent of potentially eligible 

TAA participants enrolled in training.12 Excluding certain participants from 

the TAPR could skew the TAA performance outcomes calculated by Labor 

because the outcomes may be disproportionately based on participants 

who received TAA-funded training. 

Table 2: Percentage of Participants Included in States’ TAPR Submissions Who 

Received Training 

Percentage of participants included in TAPR 

Number of states 

Received other benefits 

 or services but no training Received training

9 None 100

12 0.1—3 97—99.9

11 4—20 80—96

8 21—40 60—79

6 Over 40 Under 60

Source: GAO analysis of TAPR data submitted to Labor during fiscal year 2005. 

Labor does not have a process in place to ensure that states are including 

in their TAPR submissions all exiting TAA participants. Labor’s regional 

offices may review whether states’ TAPR submissions are complete during 

their state monitoring visits. However, because Labor has not had a 

standard monitoring tool, there has been no assurance that the regional 

offices were consistently reviewing whether all exiting participants are 

reported in states’ TAPR data. Labor officials tell us that they are currently 

developing a core monitoring guide, but it is not clear if the guide will 

address this issue. 

Despite the importance of accurately identifying exiters, the exit dates 

themselves may not be accurate because some states do not consistently 

obtain proper documentation to verify the dates. Accurate exit dates are 

critical to TAA performance data for two reasons. First, a participant’s exit 

 12GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received Services, 

but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits, GAO-06-43 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2006). 

For this study, potentially eligible participants are defined as all workers covered under the 

certification, whether or not they enrolled in the TAA program. 
Page 16 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

date determines if the individual should be included in the state’s TAPR 

submission to Labor. Second, the timing of the date of exit determines 

when a participant’s employment outcomes will be assessed. Labor’s 

guidance requires that states have documentation for participants’ exit 

dates but does not specify the type of information that needs to be 

included in the documentation. For example, for participants who 

received training, it does not specify that the documentation should 

demonstrate that training was actually completed. Such documentation 

could include certificates of training completion, attendance records, or 

reports from training providers. 

TAA officials in 4 of the 5 states we visited said they had a process for 

obtaining documentation to show that participants completed training, but 

it is not clear whether such processes are uniformly followed by states. 

Officials in 3 states said that they receive training certifications, either 

from participants or from trainers, that show that training was completed. 

In another state, a TAA official said that the state sends participants a 

follow-up survey after training to verify that the training was completed, 

but some participants do not return the survey. Officials in 1 of the 5 states 

we visited said they did not have a process for certifying or documenting 

that participants completed training. 

A recent review in 4 other states by Labor’s Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) confirmed that states do not have effective processes for verifying 

exit dates.13 In its review of 150 TAA case files, the OIG found that there 

was no documentation in any of the reviewed files to verify that the 

participants had completed the program on the recorded date of exit. OIG 

reported that states often recorded an anticipated date of exit when 

participants first entered the program, but did not collect any further 

documentation to confirm that participants had completed the training, 

and if so, whether they had completed training on the originally recorded 

date. The OIG recommended that Labor ensure that states collect and 

record TAA participants’ actual date of exit, maintain the source 

documentation for such exit dates, and make the documentation readily 

available for review. According to an OIG official, Labor had not 

implemented these recommendations as of January 2006. 

 13Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor, GPRA Data Validation Review: 

Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, (Department of Labor Office of Audit Report 

Number 22-05-007-03-330, Sept. 15, 2005). 
Page 17 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Some states are not using all available data sources to determine TAA 

participants’ employment outcomes. Labor requires states to use UI wage 

records to determine the employment outcomes of participants reported 

in the TAPR. However, each state’s wage record database includes only 

wage data on workers within the state and does not have data on 

participants who found employment in another state. 

To help track employment outcomes of TAA participants across state 

lines, states can obtain their employment and earnings information using 

other methods. Labor encourages states to use WRIS, a data clearinghouse 

that makes UI wage records available to participating states seeking 

information on TAA participants who may have found employment outside 

their state.14 Thirty-four of the 46 states we surveyed reported that they 

routinely use WRIS to obtain employment outcome data on former TAA 

participants (see fig. 2). Three states reported that they do not use WRIS 

but instead routinely use interstate agreements with individual states to 

obtain employment outcome data. Opting to use interstate agreements 

with individual states instead of using WRIS is likely to result in access to 

fewer states’ UI wage records than states would have if they used WRIS 

and may result in lower reported outcomes. Seven states use only their 

own states’ UI wage records to determine participants’ employment 

outcomes. State TAA officials cited several reasons for not using WRIS, 

including that it took too long to receive the needed information and it was 

not a priority for the state. Six states that do not currently use WRIS said 

that they plan to begin using this system in the future. 

 14According to an official involved in the operation of WRIS, all states except Hawaii 

currently provide UI wage data to WRIS. 

Some States Are Not Using 

All Available Data Sources 

to Determine Employment 

Outcomes for TAA 

Participants 
Page 18 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Figure 2: Many States Are Using WRIS 

Nearly half of the 46 states are not routinely using other supplemental 

information sources even though it may be the only way to collect 

outcome information for certain participants. UI wage records, which 

cover about 94 percent of workers, do not include some categories of 

workers, such as self-employed persons, most independent contractors, 

military personnel, federal government workers, and postal workers. To 

document the employment status of these workers in the TAPR, states can 

use supplemental data, such as pay stubs and follow-up surveys sent to 

participants after they leave the program. Using supplemental data is likely 

to provide a more complete picture of participant outcomes because it 

helps states avoid inaccurately recording participants as unemployed in 

the TAPR. In an earlier report on WIA performance data, 23 of the 50 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Uncertain

Only own state's

UI records

Interstate agreements

but not WRIS

Wage Record Interchange

System (WRIS)

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.

Type of method

34

3

7

2
Page 19 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

states told us they needed to use supplemental data in order to meet their 

expected performance levels for the reemployment measure under WIA.15

Twenty-two states reported that they rarely if ever collect supplemental 

data to obtain outcome information on TAA participants (see fig. 3). State 

TAA officials said that they did not collect supplemental data because 

• states’ TAA IT systems lacked the capacity to record supplemental 

data; 

• they judged data collected through UI wage records and WRIS as 

sufficient, or collecting supplemental data was not required; and 

• they lacked sufficient resources. 

Figure 3: Many States Are Not Using Supplemental Data 

Some states reported IT system limitations that could hinder the states’ 

ability to ensure their TAA data are complete and accurate. 

Use of manual processes for compiling data. Nine states reported that 

they compile their TAPR report manually by entering data from various 

sources into a spreadsheet or other database. For example, 1 state 

reported that its TAPR submission was compiled every quarter by culling 

data from the actual case files housed in a state official’s office. Of the 

9 states that reported compiling their TAPR manually, 4 keypunch their UI 

 15GAO, 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). 

Some States’ TAA IT 

Systems Have Limited 

Capacity to Help Ensure 

Data Quality 

Frequency of use

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Always or often

Sometimes

Rarely or never

10

22

14
Page 20 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

data on employment outcomes into their TAPR data rather than 

electronically transferring the data from the UI wage record file. Using 

manual rather than automated processes increases the opportunity for 

errors to be introduced into the data through data entry. Six states 

responding to our survey expressed concern that errors in data entry may 

be one of the main causes of incomplete or inaccurate TAA data. 

One state’s process for manually compiling the TAPR illustrates 

opportunities to introduce errors into the data. In this state, staff at the 

state level enter data on TAA participants’ training contracts into a 

contract database. To compile the TAPR, they identify participants in the 

contract database whose training was scheduled to be completed during 

the quarter covered by the TAPR, and they enter data on those participants 

into a new spreadsheet. To identify employment outcomes for the TAPR, 

the staff look up the exiting TAA participants on printouts from the state’s 

UI wage record system and manually enter data on the participants’ 

employment status and wages into the spreadsheet. The data from the 

spreadsheet are then converted into the TAPR reporting format and sent 

to Labor. 

Limited IT system capabilities. Many states’ IT systems for compiling 

TAA data do not have certain IT system capabilities, such as performing 

edit checks, that help a state report complete and accurate data to Labor. 

Only 15 of the 46 states we surveyed had TAA IT systems with each of 

three such capabilities: 

• Performing edit checks to prevent data errors: Edit checks aid in 

identifying invalid data, such as an entry in a date field that is not a 

date. 

• Identifying dates TAA participants completed WIA-funded services: 

The ability to identify when TAA participants complete WIA-funded 

services can help ensure that TAA participants are not counted in the 

TAPR report while they are still receiving services under WIA. If 

participants are still receiving services, then it is too soon to assess 

their employment outcomes in the TAPR report. 

• Allowing staff to query the system to assess data reliability and 

completeness: Queries allow staff to pull certain information out of the 

system to answer questions, and without this capability, staff may not 

be able to properly assess data quality and diagnose data problems. For 

example, in one local area we visited, a TAA specialist who is 

responsible for reporting on numerous TAA participants described 
Page 21 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

having great difficulty determining if training completion dates had 

been entered for participants as appropriate because the specialist 

could not query the system to get a list of participants and their training 

status. 

More than half of the states told us they had plans to make at least one of 

these system improvements during the next year. For example, 17 states 

reported plans to improve their TAA IT systems’ capability to perform edit 

checks (see fig. 4). 

Figure 4: Number of States with TAA IT Systems That Currently Have or Will Be 

Adding Certain Capabilities 

Some states with electronic systems may have the capability to track TAA 

participants across other programs serving them, but several do not. Out 

of the 37 states that told us they had electronic systems to compile their 

TAPR data, 29 states said this same system captures program information 

for WIA programs, and similarly, 29 said the system captures information 

for Employment Services. Thirteen states said that these capabilities 

extended to all six programs and benefits that we examined, which 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Allow staff

queries

Identify WIA

completion dates

Perform edit

checks

Number of states

Type of capability

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.

Have capability

Adding capability

24

17 17 16

23

25
Page 22 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

includes, in addition to WIA and ES, Trade Readjustment Allowance, 

National Emergency Grants, Veterans Employment and Training Program, 

and UI. See appendix II for a complete listing of states’ systems linkages. 

In addition, several states commented on our survey that they have 

planned enhancements to their TAA IT systems that may help coordinate 

across programs and increase the likelihood of capturing more outcomes: 

• Improving coordination of data across programs: Six states reported 

planning changes, such as developing a single case management system 

for several programs that would allow more coordination of data 

across programs. 

• Transitioning from manual to electronic processes: Two states that 

have been using manual processes reported plans to develop electronic 

interfaces to capture needed data for the TAPR. 

• Adding capacity to record supplemental data: Two states reported 

that their IT system changes will enable them to begin recording 

supplemental data for use in determining TAA participants’ 

employment outcomes. 

Some states reported that limited TAA administrative funds hindered their 

ability to ensure the quality of the TAA performance data they collect and 

maintain. To cover their TAA program’s administrative costs, states 

receive an allocation each year equal to 15 percent of their TAA training 

allocation. In fiscal year 2006, 9 states received less than $100,000 in TAA 

administrative funds, and another 10 states received between $100,000 and 

$300,000. These funds are used to cover all the administrative activities of 

the program, such as reviewing waivers and training plans, processing 

applications for job search or relocation allowances, and any associated 

data collection and reporting. Some states also use these funds for direct 

case management services to participants because they are the only TAA 

funds available to provide these services. However, we recently reported 

that state officials told us the TAA administrative funds were often 

insufficient to meet the case management needs of the program and they 

relied on other programs to provide those services.16 (For a complete 

listing of each state’s TAA training and administrative funds, see app. III.) 

 16See GAO-06-43. 

Some States Told Us 

Limited Resources 

Contributed to TAA 

Performance Data 

Problems 
Page 23 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

State and local TAA officials said that resource shortages contribute to 

difficulties in identifying exit dates, using supplemental data sources, and 

entering data in a timely manner. For example, one state official 

commented on our survey that TAA case managers often do not have 

enough time to follow up with participants to learn about their status after 

they have been sent to training. Another state official said that insufficient 

case management can delay the identification of participants exiting the 

program. Officials in 2 other states told us that supplemental data were too 

time-consuming and burdensome to collect, given the program’s current 

funding levels. Officials said that resource limitations also presented 

challenges in entering the data in a timely manner. An official in one local 

area we visited reported a tremendous backlog in entering TAA participant 

data into the IT system because there were just two staff to handle 

approximately 1,000 TAA cases. Similarly, in another local area, the office 

manager told us that TAA staff were spread too thinly, a condition that 

adversely affected the collection and entry of TAA data. 

Labor reports data on TAA petition and certification activity, program 

participation, and key performance measures, but this information may 

not be useful for gauging current program performance. The information 

may be helpful in providing a long-term national picture of program 

outcomes, but it represents past, rather than current, performance. UI 

wage records—the primary data source for tracking TAA performance—

provide a fairly consistent national view of TAA performance and allow for 

tracking outcomes over time. At the same time, the UI wage records suffer 

from time delays and, together with the use of longer-term outcome 

measures, affect the timing of states’ performance reports to Labor and, 

subsequently, the information that Labor makes publicly available. Most of 

the outcome data reported in a given program year actually reflect 

participants who left the program up to 2 years earlier. In addition, Labor 

does not consistently report TAA data by state or industry or by services 

or benefits received—a step that would make the data more useful to 

policymakers. States responding to our survey reported that they would 

like additional information from Labor, such as how their TAA 

performance compares to the performance of other states and other 

federal employment and training programs. 

Labor Makes Some 

TAA Performance 

Data Available, but Its 

Usefulness Is Limited 
Page 24 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Labor makes some TAA statistics available through postings on its Web 

site and through published reports, but they do not provide useful 

information on current performance.17 Labor provides some TAA activity 

and participant data by fiscal year including 

• number of petitions received, certifications issued, and denials by state; 

• distribution of certifications by industry; 

• number of new participants receiving extended income support 

payments or training; and 

• summary statistics on former TAA participants (such as race, 

education level, and benefits and services received). 

In addition to reporting on TAA activity and participant data, Labor also 

reports on three key TAA performance measures. The TAPR data 

submitted by states are used to calculate national and state outcomes on 

the TAA performance measures—wage replacement, reemployment, and 

retention—for each fiscal year. In 2005, Labor made state-by-state TAA 

outcome information publicly available for the first time. According to 

Labor officials, making this information public represents an effort to 

emphasize performance, and they intend to post state-by-state outcome 

information on the Web site for all future fiscal years. Labor’s regional 

offices directly provide states with information on their TAA performance 

relative to the program’s national goals. Some regional offices also provide 

states with reports showing the performance of all states in the region, 

according to officials we interviewed. 

However, the information Labor makes publicly available may not provide 

a clear picture of current TAA performance because, in addition to being 

incomplete and perhaps inaccurate, the data represent past performance 

and are not consistently reported by type of service, state, or industry. 

Data represent past performance. Because TAA performance is 

measured using UI wage records and long-term performance measures 

such as employment retention, the most up-to-date TAA performance data 

currently available may represent performance from several years in the 

past. 

 17Labor’s Web site for TAA statistics can be found at 

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/taa_stats.cfm. 

Publicly Available TAA 

Data Do Not Provide a 

Clear Picture of Current 

Program Performance 
Page 25 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Use of wage records: Using UI wage records to measure outcomes 

provides a common yardstick for making long-term comparisons 

across states because they contain wage and employment 

information on most workers. At the same time, these files suffer 

delays between the time an individual gets a job and when this 

information appears in wage records. State procedures for 

collecting and compiling wage information from employers can be 

slow and time-consuming. Data are collected from employers only 

once every quarter, and employers in most states have 30 days 

after the quarter ends to report the data to the state. For example, 

the wage report for the last calendar quarter of the year (ending on 

December 31) is due to the state on January 31. We previously 

reported that for the majority of states, the delay between the time 

an individual gets a job and the time this information appears in 

wage records is up to 4 months.18

Design of measures: In addition to using a job placement measure, 

Labor also uses two longer-term measures to gauge TAA 

performance—an earnings measure and a job retention measure. 

These measures may be useful for assessing how well the program 

is meeting its long-range goals to increase the employment, 

retention, and earnings of participants. However, the use of these 

measures requires states to wait from one to three quarters after 

participants exit the TAA program before measuring the outcomes. 

For example, although states record whether participants entered 

employment in the first quarter after exit, two more quarters must 

elapse before employment retention is measured. Participants who 

exit the TAA program have their outcomes assessed in the first, 

second, and third quarters after exit. However, data to measure all 

outcomes are not available until the fifth quarter after exit, and the 

outcomes are not submitted to Labor until midway through the 

sixth quarter. Figure 5 illustrates the time it takes before a TAA 

participant would be included in performance outcome 

calculations. 

 18GAO-04-657. 
Page 26 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Figure 5: Period between When a TAA Participant Exits the Program and When Data Are Reported to Labor 

Note: The outcome measures shown in this figure are those used prior to implementation of common 

measures in fiscal year 2006. Under common measures, retention is measured in both the second 

and third quarters after exit. 

Labor posts TAA performance data on its Web site on an annual basis, and 

because of the time required to collect outcome data on exiters, the 

performance data that Labor makes available each year include workers 

who exited the program up to 30 months earlier. For example, states were 

required to submit performance data to Labor on individuals who exited 

the program in the July-to-September quarter of 2002 by February 15, 2004. 

However, these data were not publicly released until early 2005, when they 

were included in the annual data report covering those who exited the 

program between July 2002 and June 2003 (see fig. 6). Furthermore, 

individuals who exited the TAA program in July 2002 and who received 

training could have entered the program 2 years earlier, or July 2000— 

41⁄2 years before their outcome data were included in the annual reporting 

of outcomes. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor guidance and Art Explosion.

Exit quarter Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 5 Quarter 6

Reemployment Earnings

Retention 

and earnings 

Using data 

available by 

this quarter 

45 days

Outcomes measured for these quarters

Deadline

Participant 

exits

One-stop

Center

Dept. of Labor

TAPR 

submission
Page 27 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 TAA Performance Data Represent Exiters from as early as Fiscal Year 2002 

Categories used to display outcome data are not sufficiently 

informative. The categories Labor uses to report program outcomes are 

unlikely to provide policymakers a broad understanding of different 

aspects of the program’s performance. Labor combines all participants in 

the publicly available outcome information, regardless of the types of 

services and benefits they received. As a result, there is no information 

available to the public on how the outcomes of participants who received 

TAA-funded training differ from those of participants who received other 

benefits or services, such as job search assistance or extended income 

support. In addition, Labor does not consistently report TAA participant 

and activity data by state or by industry. This makes it difficult for 

policymakers to accurately assess program activities and performance and 

determine future needs. 

Examining data by different categories may also allow Labor to recognize 

and address problems related to performance and data quality. We and 

other experts have found that reporting performance information in 

smaller, meaningful categories can help identify and resolve problems. For 

example, comparing the performance of states on different TAA measures 

may draw attention to low-performing states. Furthermore, careful 

Jul-Sep,

2002

Oct-Dec,

2002

Jan-Mar,

2003

Apr-Jun, 

2003

Oct-Dec, 

2003

Jan-Mar,

2004

Apr-Jun,

2004

Jul-Sep,

2004

Nov 15,

2004

Early calendar year,

2005

Participants who exit in 

these quarters...

...are included in fiscal year 2004 

quarterly reports to Labor for 

these quarters

Labor receives final 

quarterly report and 

compiles fiscal year 

2004 annual report

Labor posts fiscal year 

2004 outcomes on Web site

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor guidance.

//
Page 28 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

analysis of disaggregated data could uncover data quality issues. For 

example, if Labor analyzed each state’s data by the different benefits and 

services TAA participants received, then it may be able to identify those 

states that are excluding some exiting participants in their TAPR 

submissions by looking at which states reported few or no participants in 

certain categories. 

Ongoing study will assess program impact. Labor has funded a longterm study to assess the impact of TAA program services such as training 

on participants’ employment and earnings that will provide policymakers a 

broader understanding of the program’s effectiveness. 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 29 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

While approximately one-third of the states found TAA performance 

information they currently receive from Labor to be greatly useful, some 

would like Labor to provide them with additional information to help 

manage their program. Nearly half of the 46 states we surveyed told us that 

they find the performance information they receive from Labor to be 

moderately useful (see fig. 7), and 8 states reported that Labor’s TAA 

performance information is of little or no use for program management. 

Figure 7: Many States Found Labor’s Performance Information to Be Moderately 

Useful 

Note: One state responded “uncertain” and was not included in this figure. 

Nearly half of the states we surveyed told us that they routinely develop 

information on their own performance beyond what they submit to Labor. 

For example, an official in 1 state reported that it calculates its own 

outcomes before receiving them from Labor in order to make managers 

and executives aware of the state’s performance, and it uses this 

information to engage state and local TAA staff in making program 

adjustments. In addition, approximately one-third of the states routinely 

develop information on their local areas’ performance. Labor does not 

Most States Find TAA 

Performance Data Useful, 

but Many Would Like 

Additional Information 

0

5

10

15

20

25

Moderatel

Little or no

y

Greatly

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.

Reported usefulness

15

22

8
Page 30 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

provide analysis of local area performance to states because it does not 

collect this type of information in the TAPR. 

While many states provide the performance information of their own state 

and that of other states to their local area TAA staff, few states provide 

information on their local areas’ performance to local TAA staff. Only 27 of 

the 46 states in our survey reported that they share information from 

Labor with local area staff on how their state’s performance compares to 

national TAA performance goals. In addition, only 7 of the 16 states that 

generate additional performance information for local areas reported that 

they share this information with local TAA staff. One expert we spoke with 

told us that regularly sharing performance information with local program 

staff enables them to understand how the data they collect are being used 

and the importance of complete and accurate data for producing reliable 

performance information. Our recent report on performance measurement 

also noted that frequent and routine communication of performance 

information helps program staff and stakeholders use such information to 

accomplish program goals as they pursue day-to-day activities.19 These 

practices could lead to better program management and produce more 

reliable performance data to assess TAA performance in the future. 

States said that they would like to receive additional performance 

information from Labor to help manage their TAA program. Thirty-four 

states would like more information than they currently receive on their 

own state’s performance, and 39 states reported they would like 

information comparing their states’ TAA performance to their WIA 

Dislocated Worker performance (see fig. 8).20 According to one state 

official we spoke with, receiving additional TAA performance information 

that is displayed by type of service and by state would enable officials to 

respond more effectively to performance problems and to learn what 

strategies states with similar TAA populations are using to achieve 

different performance outcomes. 

 19See GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information 

for Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005), and 

GAO, Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help 

Build Agency Capacity, GAO-03-454 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2003). 

20The WIA Dislocated Worker program serves dislocated workers in general and is not 

reserved for those affected by international trade. States and local areas are required to 

monitor the outcomes of WIA Dislocated Worker program participants on measures 

including job placement, job retention, and earnings change. 
Page 31 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Figure 8: Most States Reported That Additional Performance Information from 

Labor Would Be Useful for Program Management 

While it has limited authority to hold states accountable, Labor has taken 

steps to improve the quality of TAA data states submit, but these steps do 

not fully address all issues. Labor has no mechanism to sanction states for 

poor performance or poor-quality data because the law and current 

regulations do not provide one. However, Labor has begun an initiative 

that requires states to review a sample of their data for accuracy. It is too 

soon to fully assess whether Labor’s efforts have improved data quality, 

but most states reported on our survey that Labor’s new requirements 

have increased awareness of data quality at the state and local levels. 

States also report that they would like more opportunities to share lessons 

learned about issues related to data quality. Labor is requiring changes in 

some TAA performance measures to align them with measures for other 

federally funded job training programs. Many states reported that the 

Labor Has Taken 

Steps to Improve the 

Quality of 

Performance Data, 

but Issues Remain 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

States outside of

the region

Local areas

Additional state

analysis

Other states in

the region

Comparing TAA to WIA

dislocated worker 

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.

Type of performance information

39

35 34 33 33
Page 32 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

changes are burdensome, and some states are experiencing delays in 

implementing the changes. 

To address data quality concerns, Labor developed a process for states to 

use to validate the TAPR data they submitted to Labor. Starting with data 

submitted in fiscal year 2003, Labor required states to review a sample of 

participants’ records and compare what was reported for certain data 

elements to data in source files. State staff review the source files and 

record whether each data element is supported by source documentation 

and, therefore, passed data validation. If the source files show a data 

element was incorrect or was not supported with documentation, the data 

element fails. States use Labor’s software to calculate error rates, and they 

submit the results to Labor. 

While it is too soon to assess whether Labor’s data validation efforts have 

improved data quality, many states said that the efforts are having a 

positive effect. Thirty-five states reported that efforts have improved the 

accuracy of the data. Thirty-seven of the 46 states told us they have helped 

increase the awareness of data quality at the state level, and 25 states told 

us they have improved awareness at the local level (see fig. 9). 

Figure 9: States’ View of How Labor’s Data Validation Efforts Have Helped Them 

Until recently, Labor has not had a standard process for ensuring that 

states performed data validation correctly. Labor officials tell us, however, 

that beginning in 2006, regional offices are conducting data validation 

compliance reviews of a subsample of validated records to ensure that the 

Data Validation Is Having 

Positive Effects but Does 

Not Address All Concerns 

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Local's awareness of

data quality

Data collection process

Data accuracy

State's awareness of

data quality

25

28

35

37
Page 33 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

records were accurately validated and the files contained all required 

source documents. 

While states report that Labor’s data validation requirements are having 

some positive effects, Labor’s data validation efforts do not address two 

key problems. First, guidance for data validation defined for the first time 

the type of source documents needed to validate TAPR data elements, 

including exit dates. However, the guidance does not specify that the 

source documents for training completion dates should show that 

participants actually completed training. Second, data validation does not 

provide for assessing whether TAPR submissions are complete. Because 

the data validation process only covers participant records included in 

states’ TAPR submissions for the year, it does not look beyond those 

records to determine whether all exiting participants were included. 

In addition to implementing data validation, Labor has taken various 

actions to better instruct states and to provide tools for improving the data 

they submit to Labor. 

Technical assistance and training: In 2005 and 2006, Labor 

brought together state TAA staff for training conferences on the 

new data requirements for implementing common measures. 

According to Labor officials, Labor’s regional offices periodically 

hold roundtables with states to discuss issues that sometimes 

include data quality. Labor provides technical assistance, as 

needed, to states through telephone calls and e-mails. According to 

Labor officials, Labor is planning to start holding quarterly 

conference calls with states about TAA issues, including data 

quality. 

Guidance on data reporting: Labor issued guidance and 

instructions for TAA data reporting, such as instructions defining 

how “date of exit” is to be determined under common measures. In 

May 2005, Labor issued a guidance letter to states addressing 

several issues with data quality, such as the use of WRIS and 

supplemental data to determine employment outcomes. In general, 

states reported that the guidance and training they had received 

from Labor provided a clear understanding of certain data 

requirements, such as the requirements for data validation and for 

using UI wage records. States were somewhat less likely to say that 

Labor had provided a clear understanding of the documentation 

Labor Has Taken Several 

Other Steps to Help 

Improve TAA Data, but 

States Want More 

Opportunities to Share 

Lessons Learned 
Page 34 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

needed for the date of exit and how supplemental data could be 

used to document TAA employment outcomes. 

Monitoring: Labor’s regional offices conduct monitoring visits to 

review states’ TAA programs. In the past, Labor did not have a 

standard protocol for these monitoring visits, and the monitoring 

did not always cover the quality of the TAA data being submitted 

by states. However, as of March 2006, Labor was developing a 

standard monitoring guide for its regional staff. 

Pilot project on federal employment data: Labor collaborated with 

the Office of Personnel Management, the U.S. Postal Service, and 

the Department of Defense to create a pilot data exchange system 

to provide states access to wage record information on federal and 

military employment. The system that began operating in 

November 2003 can help states obtain more complete employment 

outcome data on participants who exited job training programs 

because it provides information on federal employment that is not 

available in state UI wage records. Many states are using the 

system to help determine employment outcomes for job training 

programs, such as those funded under the Workforce Investment 

Act. However, only 3 of the 46 states we surveyed reported that 

they were routinely using this system to obtain employment 

outcomes for the TAA program. 

Despite Labor’s efforts to improve data quality, most states would like 

more help. Most states reported that they do not currently have 

opportunities to share lessons learned with other states on topics related 

to TAA data quality, such as how to use supplemental data, and they 

expressed interest in having such opportunities. For example, 29 states 

told us they do not currently have opportunities to share lessons learned 

on data validation, and 44 states told us more opportunities to do so would 

be helpful (see fig. 10). 
Page 35 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Figure 10: Most State Expressed Interest in Having More Opportunities to Share 

Lessons Learned on Data Issues 

In response to an OMB initiative, Labor made changes to some of the TAA 

performance measures and to TAA reporting requirements in order to 

implement common measures (see table 3). OMB established a set of 

common performance measures to be applied to most federally funded job 

training programs that share similar goals. Labor further defined the 

common measures for all of its Employment and Training Administration 

programs and required states to start reporting TAA data under the revised 

requirements in fiscal year 2006. 

Labor’s Common Measures 

May Address Some 

Concerns, but States Are 

Still Struggling to 

Implement Changes 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Use of Use of WRIS

supplemental

data

Data validation

Number of states

Issues for sharing lessons learned

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.

Do not currently have opportunities

More opportunities would be helpful

29

44

38

40

33

29
Page 36 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Table 3: How TAA Performance Measures Changed under Common Measures 

Past measure Common measure 

Wage replacement: earnings in the 

second and third quarters after exit divided 

by earnings in the second and third 

quarters prior to dislocation 

Average earnings: total earnings in the 

second and third quarters after exit divided 

by the number of exiting participants 

Reemployment rate: percentage of 

program exiters employed in first quarter 

after exit 

Entered employment rate: same as the 

past reemployment rate measure 

Retention rate: percentage of exiters 

employed in the first quarter after exit that 

are still employed in third quarter after exit 

Retention rate: percentage of exiters 

employed in the first quarter after exit that 

are still employed in both the second and 

third quarters after exit 

Source: Department of Labor guidance. 

Moving to common measures may increase the comparability of outcome 

information across programs and make it easier for states and local areas 

to collect and report performance information across the full range of 

programs that provide services in a one-stop system. Prior to common 

measures, many federal job training programs had performance measures 

that tracked similar outcomes but had variation in the terms used and the 

way the measures were calculated. For example, the programs used 

different time periods to assess whether participants got jobs. Under 

common measures, the time period used to assess employment outcomes 

is uniform across all covered programs. 

Implementation of common measures involved some changes in the data 

states collect for the TAPR: 

Standardized exit definitions: Labor’s guidance on common 

measures provides for a clearer understanding of when TAA 

participants should be exited from the program than did earlier 

TAA guidance. Under Labor’s guidance, states must wait 90 days 

after participants receive their last service or benefit—from TAA, 

WIA, or other related programs—to record them as exiters. Prior to 

this change, states could exit participants without waiting 90 days. 

Most states reported that the guidance and training they received 

from Labor provided a clear understanding of the definition of exit 

under common measures, but 7 states disagreed. 

Coordination of exit dates: Under common measures, states are 

encouraged to establish a common exit date for each participant 

who is co-enrolled in more than one program. For example, if a 
Page 37 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

participant receives services under TAA and under WIA, then the 

two programs should use the same exit date for the participant. 

Coordinating exit dates improves data quality by avoiding the 

problem of counting a participant as unemployed in the program’s 

performance measures when, in fact, the participant is still 

receiving services in another program and is not ready to be 

counted in the performance measures. 

Changes in IT systems: A number of data fields were added or 

changed in the TAPR as part of the new common measures policy, 

requiring states to add or change data fields in their IT systems and 

to instruct staff on changes in data to be collected on participants 

and employment outcomes. Most states reported that the guidance 

and training they received from Labor provided a clear 

understanding of the changes needed in the TAPR to implement 

common measures; however, 7 states disagreed. 

Although moving to common measures may ultimately make it easier for 

states to collect and report performance information across programs, 

most states reported that making changes to implement common 

measures had been a burden in terms of time and cost (see fig. 11), and 

often viewed coordinating exit dates as burdensome. States were nearly 

evenly divided in their views, however, on whether they had been given 

sufficient time by Labor to complete the changes. Nineteen states said they 

had not been given sufficient time, while 18 states said they had. Twentysix states reported that they will have provided guidance to staff or 

changed data elements in their IT systems by the time the first quarterly 

TAPR is due in fiscal year 2006 (see fig. 12). Other states reported that they 

would have these changes completed sometime later in 2006, while some 

states said they could not estimate when they will complete the changes. 

Coordinating exit dates was the change that states considered the most 

burdensome. Seventeen states were unable to estimate when they would 

be able to coordinate exit dates across programs. 
Page 38 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Figure 11: Most States Viewed Changes Needed for Common Measures to Be a 

Burden 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Providing guidance to staff

IT system changes

Coordinating exit dates

Number of states

Great or very great burden

Moderate burden

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.

27

15

16

16

18

9
Page 39 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Figure 12: Coordinating Exit Dates Was Change States Were Least Likely to Expect 

to Have Completed in 2006 

In a previous study, we cautioned that rushed implementation of reporting 

changes may not allow states and local areas enough time to fully meet the 

requirements and could negatively affect the data quality of the 

information reported.21

Since the passage of the TAA Reform Act of 2002, the TAA program has 

evolved to become one of the most important means to help the workers 

affected by our nation’s trade policies rejoin our nation’s workforce. The 

program has seen substantial increases in the population it serves and in 

the funds available to serve them. Unfortunately, efforts to monitor the 

program’s performance have not kept pace with the program’s 

 21GAO-05-539. 

Conclusions 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Providing

guidance

IT system

changes

Coordinating

exit dates

Number of States

Types of changes to implement common measures

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.

By first quarterly report in fiscal year 2006

Later in 2006

Unable to estimate

13

10

17

26

12

8

26

7

19
Page 40 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

development. Four years after the passage of the reforms, we still do not 

know whether the program is achieving what lawmakers intended. 

The TAA program has suffered a history of problems with its performance 

data that have undermined the data’s credibility and limited their 

usefulness. And while we see that Labor has taken some steps aimed at 

improving the performance data, the data remain suspect. They fail to 

capture outcomes for some of the program’s participants, and many 

participants are not included in the final outcomes at all. These failures 

may have contributed to the program’s poor performance in achieving its 

national goals. Labor lacks the authority to hold states accountable for 

their outcomes or for the quality of their data, and as a result, some states 

may not see the value of investing more effort to ensure their data are 

complete and accurate. In truth, officials tell us the funding to support 

their efforts is small, and it fluctuates from year to year, making such an 

investment difficult to sustain. But the success of the program is being 

judged by the outcomes the program achieves and whether or not it meets 

its goals. The current budgetary environment makes it risky not to take all 

necessary steps to ensure that the outcomes are an accurate and credible 

reflection of the program’s performance. 

Labor has taken a major step toward improving the quality of its 

performance data through its new data validation requirements. States 

report that these requirements have significantly raised the awareness of 

data quality at the state and local levels–an essential component in any 

effort to improve the accuracy of the data. But these efforts do not fully 

address all issues. No steps have been taken to ensure that all participants 

are included in the TAA performance data or that exit dates are adequately 

documented. Monitoring can help address data issues, but Labor is just 

now developing a standard monitoring guide that would help ensure that 

key problems are identified during monitoring visits. Until these steps are 

complete, the data can not be verified and may remain incomplete. 

Providing opportunities for states to share lessons learned may make 

states more aware of effective approaches for ensuring data quality, and 

several states expressed an interest in more such opportunities. 

Labor has recently improved the availability of TAA performance 

information by posting the information on its Web site and by making 

some state-by-state performance data available. However, the 

performance data are not as informative as they could be because they 

aggregate all participants and do not show the outcomes of participants 

based on the types of services they received. As a result, policymakers 
Page 41 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

lack the information they need to understand program participation and 

performance and to assess future needs. 

While Labor has taken steps to share information with states and to 

improve data quality, more work is needed. 

To help ensure that TAA participant data reported by states are consistent, 

complete, and accurate, Labor should 

• clarify through guidance and other communications with states 

• that all participants who exit the program should be included in the 

TAPR and 

• the documentation needed to verify the training completion date; 

• ensure that the core monitoring guide currently under development for 

regional office site visits includes guidance for assessing whether 

states’ data collection processes for performance reporting capture all 

participants; and 

• provide states with opportunities to share lessons learned with other 

states on issues that may affect data quality. 

To make TAA performance information more useful for program 

management, Labor should provide this information by the type of 

services received by TAA participants. 

We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment. In its 

comments, Labor did not disagree with our findings and recommendations 

and said the report will be helpful in its continuing efforts to improve the 

quality of TAA performance data. Labor noted that the issues raised in the 

report about administrative costs and the burden of new reporting 

requirements are compounded by having a workforce investment system 

that is duplicative in its service delivery design, resulting in separate 

record-keeping and reporting systems. Labor also identified a number of 

actions that it is taking to ensure that performance accountability is an 

expectation of the program. A copy of Labor’s response is in appendix IV. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 

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 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 
Page 42 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

upon request. The report is also available on GAO’s home page at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or members of your staff have any questions about this report, 

please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix V. 

Sigurd R. Nilsen 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 43 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

We examined (1) whether the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 

performance data provide a credible picture of the program’s 

performance, (2) what TAA performance data Labor makes available to 

the public and states and the usefulness of the data for managing the 

program, and (3) what Labor is doing to address issues with the quality of 

TAA data submitted by states. 

To learn more about the factors that affect TAA data quality and to learn 

what states are doing to ensure data quality, we conducted a Web-based 

survey of state TAA officials and conducted site visits in five states, where 

we interviewed state officials and visited local areas or one-stop centers. 

We also collected information on the quality of TAA data through 

interviews with Department of Labor officials in headquarters and all six 

regional offices, nationally recognized experts, and reviewed relevant 

literature. Our work was conducted between December 2004 and 

March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

To determine the factors that affect the quality of TAA performance data, 

we conducted a Web-based survey of workforce officials in the 46 states1

that were allocated TAA funds in fiscal year 2005, and we obtained a 

100 percent response rate. These officials were identified using Labor’s list 

of state TAA officials. We e-mailed the contacts, and they confirmed that 

they were the appropriate contact for our survey or identified and referred 

us to another person at the state level. Survey topics included 

(1) the current status of TAA data collection and reporting systems, 

(2) implementation of the U.S. Department of Labor’s data validation 

requirements, (3) state and local efforts to ensure the quality of TAA data, 

and (4) the implementation of common measures. The survey was 

conducted using a self-administered electronic questionnaire posted on 

the Web. We contacted respondents via e-mail announcing the survey, and 

sent follow-up e-mails to encourage responses. The survey data were 

collected between November 2005 and January 2006. We received 

completed surveys from all 46 states that were allocated TAA funding in 

fiscal year 2005 (a 100 percent response rate). We did not include 

Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories in our survey. 

 1

Delaware, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Wyoming were not included in our survey because 

they were not allocated TAA funds in fiscal year 2005. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 44 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

We worked to develop the questionnaire with social science survey 

specialists. Because this was not a sample survey, there is no sampling 

error. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may 

introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For 

example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted or in the 

sources of information that are available to respondents can introduce 

unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the 

development of the questionnaire, the data collection, and data analysis to 

minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, prior to administering 

the survey, we pretested the content and format of the questionnaire with 

four states to determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear, 

(2) the terms used were precise, (3) respondents were able to provide the 

information we were seeking, and (4) the questions were unbiased. We 

made changes to the content and format of the final questionnaire based 

on pretest results. We also performed computer analyses to identify 

inconsistencies in responses and other indications of error. In addition, a 

second independent analyst verified that the computer programs used to 

analyze the data were written correctly. 

We visited five states—California, Iowa, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia—and 

traveled to local areas or one-stop centers in each of these states. We 

selected these states because they represent different TAA data collection 

approaches (that is, states where data are entered into information 

technology [IT] systems at the local level and those where data are entered 

at the state level), received a relatively large share of TAA funds in fiscal 

year 2005, and are geographically dispersed. From within each state, we 

judgmentally selected local areas to visit (see table 4). In each state, we 

interviewed state TAA officials about their collection and use of TAA data, 

IT systems used to compile TAA performance data, and efforts to ensure 

the data are complete and accurate. Similarly, we interviewed local area 

officials about their collection and use of TAA data. 

Information that we gathered on our site visits represents only the 

conditions present in the states and local areas at the time of our site 

visits, from January 2005 through October 2005. We cannot comment on 

any changes that may have occurred after our fieldwork was completed. 

Furthermore, we cannot generalize the findings from our site visits beyond 

the states and local areas we visited. 

Web-Based Survey 

Site Visits 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 45 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Table 4: Site Visit States and Local Areas 

State Local area 

California Alameda County 

 Orange County 

Iowa Newton 

 Burlington 

Ohio Franklin County 

Texas San Antonio 

 Dallas 

Virginia Harrisonburg 

 Danville 

Source: GAO. 
Appendix II: Program Information in State 

TAA IT Systems 

Page 46 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In our survey, states were asked whether the IT system they use to 

compile data for the Trade Act Participant Report (TAPR) currently 

captures program information for certain other Labor programs or 

benefits. 

Table 5: Program Information for Other U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration Programs 

Contained in State IT Systems Used to Compile TAPR Submissions 

State 

Trade 

Readjustment 

Allowance 

(TRA) 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

(WIA) 

Employment 

Services (ES) 

National 

Emergency 

Grant (NEG) 

Veterans 

Employment and 

Training 

Program (VETS) 

Unemployment 

Insurance (UI) 

Program 

Alabama X X X X X 

Alaska X X X 

Arizona X X X X 

California X X X X 

Colorado X X X X X X 

Florida X X X X X X 

Georgia X X X X X 

Idaho X X 

Illinois X X 

Indiana X X X X X 

Iowa X X X X X 

Kansas X X X X X 

Kentucky X X X X X X 

Maine X X X X X 

Maryland X X X X 

Massachusetts X X X X X X 

Michigan X X X 

Minnesota X 

Mississippi X X X X X X 

Missouri X X X X X 

Montana 

North Carolina X X X X X X 

New Hampshire X 

New Jersey X X X X X 

New York X X X X X X 

Oklahoma X 

Oregon X X X X X 

South Carolina X X X 

Appendix II: Program Information in State 

TAA IT Systems 
Appendix II: Program Information in State 

TAA IT Systems 

Page 47 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

State 

Trade 

Readjustment 

Allowance 

(TRA) 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

(WIA) 

Employment 

Services (ES) 

National 

Emergency 

Grant (NEG) 

Veterans 

Employment and 

Training 

Program (VETS) 

Unemployment 

Insurance (UI) 

Program 

South Dakota X X X X X 

Tennessee X X X X X X 

Texas X X X X X X 

Utah X X X X X X 

Vermont X X X X X X 

Virginia X X 

Washington X X X X X 

West Virginia X X X X X X 

Wisconsin X X X X X X 

Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials. 

Note: Nine states that reported compiling their TAPR manually were excluded from the table: 

Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode 

Island. 
Appendix III: State TAA Administrative 

Allocations, Fiscal Years 2005-2006 

Page 48 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

The TAA Reform Act authorizes up to $220 million per year for training 

under the TAA Program. Labor allocates 75 percent of the 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 training under the TAA program, Labor allocates to each 

state additional administrative funds equal to 15 percent of its training 

allocation. Table 6 shows Labor’s initial 75 percent allocation for training 

and associated administrative expenses. States also receive an additional 

15 percent of any reserve (25 percent) funding and job search/relocation 

allowances for program administration. 

Table 6: State TAA Training and Administrative Allocations, Fiscal Years 2005-2006 

2005 Allocation 2006 Allocation 

States Training Administration Training Administration

Alabama $2,468,374 $370,256 $2,642,640 $396,396

Alaska 398,625 59,794 429,982 64,497

Arizona 2,358,372 353,756 2,440,988 366,148

Arkansas 2,059,660 308,949 1,750,711 262,607

California 6,180,645 927,097 6,642,537 996,380

Colorado 1,678,693 251,804 1,426,889 214,033

Connecticut 1,765,584 264,838 1,500,746 225,112

Delaware 0 0 0 0

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0

Florida 3,941,816 591,272 3,350,544 502,582

Georgia 854,284 128,143 1,559,104 233,866

Hawaii 0 0 0 0

Idaho 2,332,696 349,904 2,390,380 358,557

Illinois 4,294,247 644,137 4,696,350 704,452

Indiana 4,432,026 664,804 4,780,198 717,030

Iowa 3,336,400 500,460 2,835,940 425,391

Kansas 3,265,572 489,836 2,775,736 416,360

Kentucky 2,998,984 449,848 3,705,162 555,774

Louisiana 594,658 89,199 612,573 91,886

Maine 3,674,863 551,229 4,021,621 603,243

Maryland 482,983 72,447 525,184 78,778

Massachusetts 5,473,152 820,973 5,600,876 840,131

Michigan 5,559,171 833,876 5,774,380 866,157

Appendix III: State TAA Administrative 

Allocations, Fiscal Years 2005-2006 
Appendix III: State TAA Administrative 

Allocations, Fiscal Years 2005-2006 

Page 49 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

2005 Allocation 2006 Allocation 

States Training Administration Training Administration

Minnesota 3,824,119 573,618 4,005,739 600,861

Mississippi 1,909,216 286,382 2,076,016 311,402

Missouri 4,993,894 749,084 4,244,810 636,721

Montana 1,054,844 158,227 1,109,440 166,416

Nebraska 469,538 70,431 480,298 72,045

Nevada 298,265 44,740 253,525 38,029

New Hampshire 600,301 90,045 510,256 76,538

New Jersey 1,545,011 231,752 1,698,502 254,775

New Mexico 444,554 66,683 377,871 56,681

New York 2,496,152 374,423 2,642,798 396,420

North Carolina 8,174,834 1,226,225 9,918,421 1,487,763

North Dakota 0 0 0 0

Ohio 4,226,657 633,998 4,579,676 686,951

Oklahoma 1,440,538 216,081 1,523,960 228,594

Oregon 5,116,592 767,489 5,242,514 786,377

Pennsylvania 17,538,533 2,630,779 14,907,751 2,236,165

Rhode Island 690,084 103,513 734,856 110,228

South Carolina 5,137,159 770,574 4,366,585 654,988

South Dakota 341,148 51,172 371,610 55,741

Tennessee 2,464,473 369,671 2,681,734 402,260

Texas 10,638,355 1,595,753 11,149,519 1,672,428

Utah 2,134,549 320,182 1,814,367 272,155

Vermont 287,696 43,154 296,965 44,545

Virginia 5,222,843 783,426 5,712,451 856,868

Washington 13,920,774 2,088,116 14,357,300 2,153,595

West Virginia 770,639 115,596 1,038,332 155,750

Wisconsin 11,108,427 1,666,264 9,442,163 1,416,324

Wyoming 0 0 0 0

Total $165,000,000 $24,750,000 $165,000,000 $24,750,000

Source: Department of Labor. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 50 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 51 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 52 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 53 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director (202) 512-7215 

Dianne Blank, Assistant Director 

Kathy Peyman, Analyst-in-Charge 

In addition, the following staff made major contributions to this report: 

Vidhya Ananthakrishnan, Melinda Cordero, Laura Heald, Adam Roye, and 

Leslie Sarapu served as team members; Amanda Miller and Carolyn Boyce 

advised on design and methodology issues; Rachael Valliere advised on 

report preparation; Jessica Botsford advised on legal issues; Lise Levie 

verified our findings. 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 
GAO Related Products 

Page 54 GAO-06-496 Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received 

Services, but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits. GAO-06-43. 

Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2006. 

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: Labor Should Consider Alternative 

Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting 

Requirements. GAO-05-539. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005. 

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: 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. 

GAO Related Products 

(130437) 
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 

GAO’s Mission 

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