1330 Broadway, Suite 1426 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Tel: (510) 763-1499 

Fax: (510) 763-1599 

www.spra.com 

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

S O CIA L P O L ICY R ESEA R C H

A S S O CIATE S

Linkages Between TAA, OneStop Career Center Partners, 

and Economic Development 

Agencies 

An Occasional Paper Prepared as Part of the 

Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program 

Final Report

July 2009 

Prepared by: 

Kate Dunham 

Social Policy Research Associates 

in Conjunction with Research Team Members from: 

Social Policy Research Associates 

and 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Prepared for: 

The U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Office of Policy Development 

Evaluation and Research 

200 Constitution Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20210 

DOL Contract No. 

AK-13690000430

SPR Project No. 1147
This page is deliberately 

left blank
CONTENTS 

LINKAGES BETWEEN TAA, ONE-STOP CAREER CENTER 

PARTNERS, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES............................... 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................1

Extent of Linkages with Other Workforce Programs .........................................................3

Linkages with the Employment Service ........................................................................4

Linkages with State Unemployment Insurance Programs ............................................5

Linkages with WIA Dislocated Worker Programs .........................................................5

Linkages with Other One-Stop Career Center Partners ...............................................9

Extent of Linkages with Economic Development Agencies.............................................11 

Employer-Based Training ...........................................................................................13

Requiring Training in Demand Occupations...............................................................14

Factors that Support Linkages ........................................................................................15

Administrative Arrangements......................................................................................15

State and Local Policy Initiatives Supporting Linkages ..............................................16

Workforce Development Coordinating Structures ......................................................17

Combined Management Information Systems............................................................21

Challenges to Developing and Maintaining Linkages .....................................................22

Challenges Related to Linkages with Any Workforce Program ..................................22

Challenges Specific to Developing Linkages between TAA and WIA ........................23

Conclusions.....................................................................................................................25

Appendix: List of Site Visits Conducted ..........................................................................27
This page is deliberately 

left blank 
LINKAGES BETWEEN TAA, ONE-STOP CAREER CENTER 

PARTNERS, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES 

In January of 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) awarded Social Policy Research 

Associates (SPR) and its subcontractor Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) a contract for a 

national Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Program. The evaluation consists 

of an implementation study, which is examining how the TAA program operates, and a net 

impact study, which is gauging how receiving program services affects participants’ employment 

and other outcomes. This briefing paper, one in a series being produced as part of the 

implementation study, focuses on the linkages that the TAA program has established with its 

One-Stop Career Center partners and economic development agencies. 

This paper is based on data drawn from site visits to 41 local One-Stop Career Centers where 

TAA services were being provided and the state-level offices of the 19 states in which those 

local offices are located (for a list, see the Appendix). Field staff conducted these site visits from 

mid-2005 through the summer of 2006. The site visits entailed interviews with state and local 

TAA program administrators, representatives from One-Stop Career Center partner programs, 

fiscal and management information system (MIS) staff, One-Stop Career Center directors, and 

case managers. 

After a brief introduction, the paper will examine the extent to which the TAA program is linked 

with other workforce development programs and economic development efforts and agencies. It 

will then discuss a number of key factors that support the development and maintenance of linkages 

between TAA and workforce and economic development partners, followed by an examination of 

some key challenges to linkages and the implications of linkages for the TAA program. 

Introduction 

It has long been recognized that the expansion of international trade harms some firms and 

individuals even though it may be beneficial to the economy as a whole. The concept of “injury 

from trade” first appeared formally in U.S. government policy as part of the Trade Agreements 

program of the 1930s. In the 1940s, “escape clause” provisions in U.S. trade laws and in the 

1
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade further formalized and refined this concept. These 

provisions allowed trade barriers to be created if trade-related injuries could be demonstrated 

clearly. Thus, they surrendered some of the potential gains from trade and made extensive trade 

liberalization more difficult. 

TAA represents an alternative strategy. Rather than blocking or reversing trade liberalization, TAA 

seeks to compensate workers and firms that have suffered trade-related injuries and to provide them 

with services that help them adjust to changes in market circumstances. Such a program was first 

instituted in the United States as part of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which offered financial 

payments and other adjustment services to affected workers. However, strict eligibility 

requirements kept take-up rates low. In subsequent years, ensuing legislation and amendments—

including the Trade Act of 1974 and the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (1988), among 

others—expanded eligibility guidelines and changed the program’s orientation from financial 

compensation to adjustment through training and reemployment services. 

The Trade Act of 2002, which amended the program most recently, was enacted just before this 

evaluation commenced and constitutes the backdrop for the study.1 This legislation and DOL’s 

accompanying guidance changed the TAA program in several notable ways: 

• The number of workers eligible to receive trade benefits was expanded by opening access 

to some “upstream” suppliers of components to primary certified firms and to 

“downstream” firms performing finishing operations. 

• Collaboration among programs and partner organizations in the One-Stop delivery 

systems was promoted. 

• New benefits were offered to trade-affected workers, including: 

 A Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) to partially cover health 

insurance costs, and 

 Alternative TAA (ATAA) to provide payments to older TAA 

participants who become re-employed at wages lower than their 

previous job’s wages and who do not pursue training. 

• Fiscal integrity and performance accountability were promoted. 

• The program’s focus on achieving “rapid, suitable and long-term employment for 

adversely affected workers”2

 was intensified by emphasizing early intervention services, 

improved assessment and reemployment services, and enhanced benefits during training. 

 

1

 The TAA program has been amended yet again, in the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act 

of 2009 (TGAAA), a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. TGAAA expands TAA eligibility to 

service workers, relaxes deadlines for enrollment in training, and increases income support, among other notable 

changes. TGAAA was enacted well after data collection for this study occurred and is not referenced further. 

2
With respect to promoting collaboration among partners, the Trade Act of 2002 provided new 

support for efforts that had already begun at least as far back as the development of the One-Stop 

delivery systems during the 1990s and the passage of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 

1998. The WIA legislation in particular had a strong impact on TAA as it made the TAA program 

a mandatory One-Stop Career Center partner and identified One-Stop Career Centers as the locus 

of state and local workforce investment systems. The Trade Act of 2002 built upon these efforts 

by requiring that core and intensive services, as defined by WIA, be made available to workers 

whenever a petition for TAA was filed. Further, in its operating instructions for implementing the 

Act, DOL declared that, in order to “encourage coordination among programs” and thereby “better 

serve workers and promote efficiencies in the workforce system,”3

 One-Stop Career Centers 

should be the main point of participant intake and delivery of TAA benefits and services. 

In addition to promoting linkages with other workforce development partners in the One-Stop 

delivery system, the Trade Act of 2002 also strengthened the TAA program’s emphasis on 

working with employers by authorizing employer-based training and relaxing restrictions on the 

use of on-the-job training (OJT). These changes are in keeping with DOL’s emphasis on 

promoting a “demand-driven” workforce investment system. 

The pages that follow describe the progress that the TAA program has made in fostering strong 

relationships with other One-Stop delivery system partners and employers. As will be discussed, 

much has thus far been accomplished, though substantial challenges remain. 

Extent of Linkages with Other Workforce Programs 

The TAA program has very tight restrictions on the use of program funding to cover non-training 

costs.4 Consequently, even were it not for the legislative and other Federal guidance promoting 

system coordination, the TAA program in most states would have needed to develop very strong 

linkages with certain other workforce development programs to overcome the TAA program’s 

funding limitations and effectively deliver services. 

 

2

 DOL Employment and Training Administration, Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 

11-02 (October 10, 2002), page 2. 

3

 TEGL 11-02, page 3. 

4

 Only 15 percent of a state’s TAA funding can be spent on administration. Administrative funding must be 

used to cover the cost of all non-training expenses (exclusive of stipends), including all staffing costs, even those 

related to case management, assistance in developing training plans and filling out required paperwork, and 

placement services. WIA also severely limits what its funded programs can charge to administrative activities; 

however, direct service activities, such as case management, assessment, and placement, are considered program 

activities under WIA rather than administrative expenses. 

3
In keeping with this underlying structural limitation, site-visit data reveal that TAA’s One-Stop 

delivery system partner programs supervise and fund—partly or completely—state or local staff 

who provide services to TAA participants. These workforce development partners also provide 

additional services needed by TAA participants, such as support services or adult basic education. 

However, the strength of these linkages varies greatly by partner, state, and local office. 

This section of the paper will explore the extent of linkages between TAA and other workforce 

development programs and organizations, including the Employment Service (ES), 

Unemployment Insurance (UI), WIA Dislocated Worker (DW) programs, adult education, 

community colleges, Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), and veterans’ workforce services. 

Linkages with the Employment Service 

TAA typically has very extensive linkages with ES. The linkages between TAA and ES exist at 

both the state and local levels, but are usually particularly strong at the local level. The main 

reason for these strong local-level linkages is that, in 13 of the 19 states visited for this study, 

local ES staff, typically funded largely by Wagner-Peyser but also partly with TAA 

administrative funds, administer much or all of the TAA program at the local level. Although 

staff from other programs, most commonly the WIA DW program, also provide some services to 

TAA participants in these states, local ES staff, supervised by local ES managers, typically have 

primary responsibility for the program at the local level and assist TAA participants with 

completing and submitting all paperwork required for receiving training. They also often assist 

participants with completing some requirements associated with their receiving Trade 

Readjustment Allowances (TRA), such as applying for and renewing waivers.5

 Usually these ES 

staff provide Wagner-Peyser services6

 to other customers when TAA activity is slow. 

Although the TAA program often has strong overall linkages with ES, not all ES staff are as 

strongly involved in the partnership. For example, in Oregon, only certain ES staff are trained in 

how to administer the TAA program, while other ES staff receive little or no training or 

information on TAA. One reason for this specialization is the complexity of the TAA program; 

 

5

 TRA represents income support available to TAA participants who have exhausted their UI benefits, and is 

of two types, basic TRA and additional TRA. Workers can typically receive TRA for up to 26 weeks following 

their exhaustion of UI benefits, and additional TRA for the subsequent 52 weeks (and longer if the worker received 

remedial training). To receive basic TRA, the worker must be participating in approved training or have received a 

waiver from the training participation requirement. Waivers may be issued for a six-month period, but must be 

reviewed every 30 days. To receive additional TRA, the worker must be participating in approved training; i.e., no 

waivers from the training requirement can be granted. 

6

 Wagner-Peyser services typically consist of assisting customers with the use of the state’s electronic jobmatching system and providing them with job search assistance and local labor market information. 

4
state TAA staff said they tried cross-training all ES staff to enable them to provide TAA services, 

but found that the TAA program was too complicated for this generalist approach to be successful. 

Nonetheless, ES staff who are not the primary local staff administering TAA services almost 

always can provide TAA participants with core services, as all of the states visited except Maine 

require TAA participants to register with ES to receive TRA. These core services typically 

consist of assisting TAA participants with use of the state’s electronic job-matching system and 

providing them with job search assistance and local labor market information. 

Besides their extensive linkages at the local level, TAA and ES are also commonly linked at the 

state level. For example, in nine of the states visited State Workforce Agencies (SWA) house 

TAA and ES, as well as WIA and other workforce investment programs. Furthermore, often ES 

and TAA are in the same unit within the agency, and staff for both programs report to the same 

manager. In the remaining half of the states, ES and TAA are typically still administered by the 

same agency, but WIA is separate, or sometimes UI and the TRA portion of the TAA program are. 

Linkages with State Unemployment Insurance Programs 

In addition to its well-developed connections with ES, TAA has strong connections with state 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs. In every state visited, the TRA portion of the TAA 

program is administered by the staff of the state’s UI agency. Often, TRA is administered by 

staff from a “special programs” unit of UI. States have chosen this organizational arrangement 

because of the similarities between TRA and UI. 

This close connection, however, is usually only between the TRA portion of the TAA program and 

UI, since the non-TRA portions of the program (training, waiver approval, etc.) are often separated 

from TRA and are administered elsewhere, which can create distant or even strained relationships. 

Linkages with WIA Dislocated Worker Programs 

Although linkages between WIA DW programs and TAA are less developed than between TAA 

and ES, they have become much stronger in the several years leading up to this project’s data 

collection. Beginning with the development of One-Stop delivery systems and the passage of 

WIA in the 1990s, and spurred by DOL guidance7

 and the passage of the Trade Act of 2002, 

linkages between the TAA and WIA DW programs have been steadily increasing, particularly at 

the local level, although there is a great deal of variation by state. 

 

7

 See TEGL 21-00 (May 2, 2001). 

5
Connections at the State Level 

Eleven of the states visited administer the WIA DW and TAA programs within the same state 

division or department; in these cases, the programs share the same supervisor and their managers 

often hold regular meetings. In Michigan, the linkages between the WIA DW program and TAA 

are particularly close, as the same state staff work on both the TAA and WIA programs. 

By contrast, in the remaining states the TAA program is administered in a separate agency from 

the WIA DW program. In these states, the TAA and WIA DW programs continue to operate 

quite separately, and, in at least one of these states, staff reported some coordination problems 

between the two. 

Local Provision of Services 

Although ES staff play a dominant role in the local provision of TAA services in most states, 

WIA DW program staff play at least some role in providing services to TAA participants in all 

of the states visited. WIA staff’s role ranges from being very modest (in four states) to dominant 

(in five states), with the latter group including Kentucky, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and 

Texas. In Kentucky, Illinois and Texas, the state has also shifted much of the responsibility for 

the TAA program to the organizations that administer local workforce investment areas 

(LWIAs). These LWIAs have passed on the responsibility for providing TAA services to the 

organizations they contract with to provide WIA DW services. 

While in most states and local offices the role of WIA DW programs in serving TAA participants 

is extensive enough to require formal co-enrollment for some or many clients, a few respondents 

noted that the WIA program sometimes provides only core services (such as initial or basic 

assessments) to TAA customers who do not require formal enrollment. Respondents in at least 

one local office also mentioned that WIA provides workshops on topics (such as interviewing) 

that are also considered activities that do not require formal WIA enrollment. 

To receive more than these limited core services, however, TAA participants must be formally 

co-enrolled in WIA. All but one of the states visited have a policy of encouraging the coenrollment of TAA participants in WIA, and nine of the 19 states require it. However, despite 

state encouragement, co-enrollment rates in the states and local offices visited were mixed, with 

estimates ranging from less than 10 percent up to 100 percent. These state policies, as well as 

figures on the extent of co-enrollment, are reported in Exhibit 1. 

6
Exhibit 1: 

Co-Enrollment with WIA Dislocated Worker Programs 

Data Collected from Site Visits Conducted 2005–2006 

Percent 

Co-Enrolled 

State Policy on CoEnrollment with WIA State First Local 

Office 

Second Local 

Office 

Alabama 69.0% Requires No data 100% Currently little 

California 22.2% Requires, but does not 

enforce 20%-50% 100% 100% 

Georgia 34.7% Substantial commitment 50% FY 05 No data No data 

Illinois 24.0% 

Participates in DOL pilot 

project requiring 100% coenrollment 

43% (includes 

waivers) 

100% (in 

training) 

100% (in 

training) 

Indiana 36.1% 

Strongly encourages; 

requiring local areas to 

develop co-enrollment 

plans 

8%-30% 100% 35% 

Kentucky 50.4% 

Participates in DOL pilot 

project requiring 100% coenrollment 

100% 

(includes 

waivers) 

100% (in 

training) 

100% (in 

training) 

Maine 36.1% Encourages 60% No data No data 

Maryland 6.5% No policy Limited No data No data 

Massachusetts 2.8% Requires co-enrollment in 

at least one program 90% 100% Not Visited 

Michigan 68.5% Encourages 53% 33% Under 10% 

Missouri 21.5% 

Participates in DOL pilot 

project requiring 100% coenrollment 

65% (includes 

waivers) 90% 95% 

New Jersey 6.5% 

Participates in DOL pilot 

project requiring 100% coenrollment 

No data No data No data 

North Carolina 17.2% 

Encourages; mandated 

local offices to set up 

referral agreements 

between TAA and WIA 

23% 43% Less than 3% 

Ohio 7.7% Encourages; has state pilot 

project to increase Limited No data No data 

Oregon 76.4% Encourages Varies widely 85%-95% 85%-95% 

Pennsylvania 0.1% 

Participates in DOL pilot 

project requiring 100% coenrollment 

55% (includes 

waivers) 61% 75% 

Tennessee 7.9% Requires, but does not 

enforce Varies widely 98% 99% 

Texas 38.4% 

Participates in DOL pilot 

project requiring 100% coenrollment 

95% 100% 100% 

Washington 16.2% Strongly encourages 67% 20% 20% 

__________________ 

Note: Data on Percent Co-Enrolled shown in the second column are drawn from the FY 2004 Trade Act Participant 

Report (TAPR). Co-enrollment rates based on data collected from site visits conducted 2005–2006 are shown in the 

final three columns and do not include TAA participants on waivers, unless specifically noted. 

7
WIA typically provides a wide variety of services to co-enrolled TAA participants, depending on 

the state, LWIA, and local One-Stop Career Center office. One of the most common services 

provided by WIA for TAA participants is assessment. The types of assessments provided by 

WIA range from informal assessments involving only a conversation between the staff member 

and the participant, to multi-day processes involving the application of several assessment 

instruments. The aim of WIA-provided assessments also varies; in most offices, they are geared 

towards helping participants chose a training program or provider, while in others they assess 

barriers or help participants choose whether or not to pursue training. 

Other services provided by WIA to TAA participants include support services, case 

management, workshops, and job placement and follow-up services. In at least three states 

(Kentucky, Illinois, and Texas), WIA staff also assist TAA participants with completing required 

TAA paperwork (such as that involved in approving training and issuing and renewing waivers). 

State and local respondents gave a number of reasons for co-enrolling TAA participants in WIA. 

One of the most common reasons was to comply with state and DOL policies encouraging or 

requiring co-enrollment. Another reason cited—reflecting more directly the benefits that coenrollment could bring—was the belief that co-enrollment would to lead to better and more 

comprehensive services for TAA participants. For example, several respondents noted that they 

co-enroll participants in WIA who need more support services or training funds than TAA can 

offer, while respondents in another local office reported that they co-enroll those participants 

who need extra help finding a job after training. A temporary lack of TAA funding was another 

reason for co-enrollment that was cited, and others mentioned that co-enrolling participants was 

necessary for those served by a dual enrollment National Emergency Grant (NEG). 

The timing of the co-enrollment of TAA participants in WIA DW programs also varied by state 

and local office. Most commonly, the co-enrollment of TAA participants in the WIA DW 

program occurred shortly after participants indicated an interest in training. By contrast, only a 

few local offices typically co-enroll either earlier than this or much later—that is, either before 

the participant decides to enroll in training or, at the other extreme, near the conclusion of a 

training program so that WIA can help with placement and follow-up services. 

Since serving co-enrolled participants involves both greater complexity and shared 

accountability, co-enrollment partnerships have often resulted in changes in the way line staff 

work together. Examples of such changes include pairing a WIA case manager with an ES/TAA 

staff person, and appointing a WIA staff person in each One-Stop Career Center to take charge 

of coordinating services for co-enrolled participants. 

8
Linkages with Other One-Stop Career Center Partners 

Although linkages between TAA and other One-Stop Career Center partners—such as adult 

education (WIA Title II recipients), community colleges, Vocational Rehabilitation, and 

Veterans’ Employment and Training programs—are not as strong as with ES, UI, or WIA, they 

are critical to providing certain groups of TAA participants with the services they need to be 

successful. Linkages between each of these partners and TAA are discussed below. 

Extent of Linkages with Community and Technical Colleges 

Other than ES, UI, and WIA, TAA has the most extensive linkages with community and 

technical colleges. These institutions are linked to the TAA program in three primary ways: (1) 

as the primary provider of vocational or occupational training to TAA participants; (2) as a 

partner in local One-Stop delivery systems; and (3) as a provider of remedial education services 

for TAA participants. 

Community and technical colleges are most commonly linked to the TAA program in the first of 

these ways. In nearly all of the states visited, respondents said that the most common provider of 

occupational training for TAA participants is the local community or technical college. In fact, 

in some rural areas, community and technical colleges are nearly the only local training provider 

and, consequently, provide the vast majority of training for TAA participants. As part of their 

role as training provider, many community colleges also offer their students placement services, 

usually via a campus career center, and access to college career counselors. 

In some areas, especially where the local community college provides nearly all training for 

TAA participants, local TAA staff sometimes develop a particularly close relationship with the 

college. In such cases, local college staff may become so knowledgeable about TAA and have 

such strong linkages with local TAA staff that they routinely complete certain required TAA 

forms on behalf of their customers. These college staff members, usually located in the college’s 

financial aid office, often also regularly notify TAA staff about participants’ attendance 

problems. In addition, when participants lack a clear idea of what career objective or training 

program they should pursue, the college’s counselors may provide participants with assistance in 

choosing a training program. 

In areas where the local community college has a particularly close relationship with the local 

One-Stop delivery system, TAA and WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker program representatives 

may also work with the college to develop short-term vocational programs targeted particularly 

to TAA and WIA participants. For example, in Spokane, Washington, the TAA manager is 

working with the local community college to establish a Vocational English-as-a-Second 

Language (VESL) training course specifically for TAA participants. 

9
Another way that the TAA program and community and technical colleges are linked is through 

their partnerships in local One-Stop delivery systems. Since they typically receive funding from 

the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, community and technical colleges 

are often required One-Stop Career Center partners. Consequently, there is often some 

systematic interaction between the TAA program and community college staff related to the 

partnership function. For example, local colleges sometimes locate their staff at One-Stop 

Career Centers or even provide classes on-site. When they do so, TAA and college staff have 

more opportunities to interact, which deepens relationships between the two programs. 

A final way that community and technical colleges are linked to the TAA program is that the 

colleges are sometimes providers of adult education services to One-Stop Career Center 

customers. This linkage is discussed in the next section. 

Extent of Linkages with Adult Education (WIA Title II Providers) 

Another set of organizations with moderately extensive linkages with TAA is made up of adult 

education providers (recipients of WIA Title II funding). These adult education providers—local 

school districts, nonprofits, and sometimes community colleges—are required One-Stop Career 

Center partners. As such, there is often at least the basic measure of coordination that One-Stop 

Career Center partnerships bring. These relationships are deepened at some One-Stop Career 

Centers where local adult education providers have located staff on-site or even offer on-site 

classes in Adult Basic Education (ABE), General Equivalency Diploma (GED), and English-asa-Second Language (ESL). For example, Baltimore Community College in Baltimore, 

Maryland, offers remedial classes and services on-site at One-Stop Career Centers. 

Beyond this basic type of connection, stronger linkages between TAA and adult education 

providers often come about because a substantial minority of TAA participants need ABE, GED 

preparation, or ESL to be successful in completing occupational training and finding 

employment. Although precise statistics are hard to come by, estimates from TAA respondents 

of the size of this population range from a low of about 10 percent in some local offices to a high 

of 80 percent in other local offices. This remedial education is typically provided by an adult 

education provider, either separately prior to enrollment in occupational training or as a part of a 

participant’s broader training plan. In One-Stop Career Centers where adult education staff 

provide remedial education to TAA participants on-site, the linkages between TAA and adult 

education are likely to be particularly strong. Sometimes, too, TAA programs partner with local 

adult education providers to administer basic skills assessment tests to TAA participants prior to 

the beginning of training to determine whether remedial education is necessary. This is the case, 

for example, with the TAA program in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. 

10
Extent of Linkages with Vocational Rehabilitation 

TAA programs typically have limited involvement with Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) 

programs. In fact, with one exception, respondents all reported minimal co-enrollment rates 

between these programs. They gave several reasons for this. First, they noted that typically few 

TAA participants also qualify for VR (although they pointed out that this varies by layoff). 

Second, respondents mentioned that VR programs often have very limited funding and this often 

generates a long waiting list for services among those eligible. In Maine, for example, TAA 

respondents pointed to a six-month to one-year waiting list for VR services. Finally, despite 

being a mandatory One-Stop Career Center partner, VR is often not well integrated into local 

One-Stop Career Centers. For example, VR staff are often not co-located at One-Stop Career 

Centers or are available only limited hours. Consequently, TAA staff at these One-Stop Career 

Centers have only limited opportunities for interacting or developing relationships with VR staff. 

Extent of Linkages with Veteran’s Employment and Training Services 

Finally, TAA programs also have some linkages with veterans’ workforce services, primarily 

programs funded by DOL’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service. These services 

include job search assistance and training for qualified veterans. Typically, if TAA participants 

are eligible, they are co-enrolled in a veterans’ program and receive services from Local 

Veterans’ Employment Representatives (LVER) or Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program 

(DVOP) specialists. 

Some states have become very aggressive in ensuring that eligible TAA participants receive 

services from veterans’ programs. For example, Kentucky requires that all eligible veterans be 

co-enrolled and receive training from the veterans’ state grant program rather than TAA. 

However, in most states and local offices, linkages with veterans’ workforce services are fairly 

limited for several reasons. First, as with VR, relatively few TAA participants are eligible for 

veterans’ workforce services, although this again varies by layoff. In addition, many DVOP and 

LVER staff serve multiple One-Stop Career Centers and, consequently, are on-site for relatively 

few hours, limiting the potential for interaction between TAA staff and veterans’ services staff. 

Extent of Linkages with Economic Development Agencies 

Generally, the TAA program does not have the staffing or resources, particularly at the local 

level, to have direct linkages with economic development efforts. Instead, it generally relies on 

its major partners for these linkages, particularly those partners that also provide services to TAA 

participants, usually ES or WIA. Consequently, the better these partner programs are linked with 

economic development, the more the TAA program is also linked. 

11
Although the evaluation did not explore the nature of the relationships that ES and WIA have 

established with economic development agencies, other research has shown that these efforts 

vary extensively by state and local office or LWIA. In addition, past research also indicates that 

some Local Workforce Investment Boards (LWIBs) have developed extensive linkages with 

local economic development partners.8 For example, a number of local areas have invited 

representatives from local economic development agencies to join their LWIBs. In addition, 

some local ES and WIA programs have begun working with local economic development 

agencies to better identify and access new local employment opportunities, particularly in 

emerging and high growth areas. 

In addition to this connection via the activities of local ES and WIA programs, many TAA programs 

are also indirectly connected to economic development via Rapid Response programs. Although 

Rapid Response initiatives are typically not directly managed by TAA, TAA staff are usually 

involved in all Rapid Response efforts that involve layoffs due to the impact of foreign trade. 

There are a number of ways in which Rapid Response programs are linked to economic 

development. One common linkage is for states to include representatives from economic 

development agencies on their Rapid Response teams—or at least inform those agencies of 

impending layoffs or closings. In addition, states also have aversion programs as part of their 

Rapid Response efforts. These programs assist employers in averting layoffs or closings by 

providing funding for buyout feasibility studies or incumbent worker training, and through loans 

and tax relief. For example, in Maine, staff from the Tri-County Workforce Investment Board 

connect interested firms with the New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (NETAAC), 

a non-profit organization located in Lowell, Massachusetts, that administers a diagnostic survey 

for affected firms and uses the information to assist companies in becoming more profitable. 

NETAAC also conducts skill assessments to facilitate the movement of employees from 

untenable or unprofitable roles within a company to other positions. 

Another way that some state and local Rapid Response programs are connected to economic 

development is through their efforts to immediately connect laid-off workers with growing 

companies in the same area that are looking for employees. For example, Massachusetts’s Rapid 

Response staff has become very aggressive in developing relationships with the human resources 

departments of growing firms so that they can market newly laid-off workers to them. Similarly, 

in Texas, LWIAs try to involve their job developers in Rapid Response efforts so that those staff 

can be well prepared to market laid-off workers to businesses with hiring needs. 

 

8

 See Social Policy Research Associates, Business as Partner and Customer under WIA: A Study of 

Innovative Practices (June 2004), prepared for DOL, as part of SPR’s National Evaluation of the Implementation of 

WIA. 

12
In addition to the indirect connection between the TAA program and economic development via 

LWIA or Rapid Response efforts, certain TAA training practices are also related to economic 

development efforts. These practices are discussed in the remainder of this section, beginning 

with TAA’s use of employer-based training and followed by the requirement that TAA training 

be in occupations with strong local demand. 

Employer-Based Training 

TAA can be better connected with employer needs and economic development through the use 

of employer-based training (EBT), which may include on-the-job training (OJT) and customized 

training. Prior to the Trade Act of 2002, the TAA program had already prioritized the use of 

OJT. The Act then attempted to make EBT an even more viable option for TAA participants by 

specifically allowing customized training and removing the requirement that employers must 

employ OJT recipients for at least 26 weeks after completion of training. 

Despite these changes, the use of EBT still appears to be very limited. Based on TAPR results 

from July 1999 through June 2003, the use of OJT appears to have declined slightly following 

enactment of the Trade Act of 2002 (see Exhibit 2, below). Furthermore, during the site visits, 

states and local offices reported only a handful of participants in OJT and no respondents said 

they had provided customized training for TAA participants. 

Respondents provided a number of reasons for the low use of EBT. A common reason is that 

employers are not interested in EBT due to the cost, the amount of paperwork required, and the 

fact that they often have enough applicants who already have the right skills. Similarly, some 

respondents said that TAA participants are also not interested in OJT because they cannot 

receive TRA while in OJT. Another common reason for the low use of EBT is that TAA staff 

are too busy to nurture the relationships with employers that are needed to develop OJT slots. In 

addition, staff do not know how to set up and monitor OJT contracts. (To remedy the lack of 

knowledge around OJT contracts, Ohio and Pennsylvania are working to train TAA staff on how 

to develop and monitor OJT contracts). Lastly, a few respondents offered other reasons for the 

limited use of OJT, among them that some staff have found it hard to set up OJT contracts prior 

to program deadlines, that OJT is often too short to meet state training guidelines, that the 

selection of workers who are suitable for OJT programs excludes the many low-skilled TAA 

participants, that unions have objected to OJT contracts, and that the retention of OJT 

participants has been disappointingly low. 

13
Exhibit 2: 

TAA Program’s Use of OJT, 1999-2003 

Of All TAA Exiters: 

Number who 

received OJT 

Percentage who 

received OJT 

7/99 to 6/00 1,223 5.31% 

7/00 to 6/01 957 4.24 

7/01 to 6/02 870 3.23 

7/02 to 6/03 1,063 2.73 

Source: DOL Trade Act Participant Report. 

Although current usage is still low, OJT has increased slightly in some states as co-enrollment 

with WIA DW programs has increased. Respondents attributed these small increases to the fact 

that WIA programs typically have much more experience with OJT and often have designated 

staff who conduct outreach to employers and know how to write and monitor OJT contracts. 

However, in many states, WIA makes little use of OJT, so co-enrollment is unlikely to make a 

difference. 

Requiring Training in Demand Occupations 

Another way that TAA programs can ensure that they are meeting the needs of growing 

industries and fostering economic development is to require that TAA participants only enroll in 

training for occupations that are in demand in the local labor market. In fact, the Trade Act of 

2002 includes the requirement that there be “...a reasonable expectation of employment 

following completion of ...training,”9

 mimicking a requirement in place in WIA DW programs.10 

For example, in Baltimore, Maryland, where TAA services are provided by the local WIA 

operator, five major growth clusters have been identified for the city and all training for either 

WIA or TAA participants must be within one of those clusters.11

When WIA and TAA have differing policies in this area, problems can result. At one local 

office, for example, WIA’s strict requirement that participants choose training only in 

occupations in demand combined with TAA’s policy of making exceptions creates a barrier to 

 

9

 19 USC 2296 (a)(1)(C). 

10 WIA Sec. 134 (d)(4)(A)(iii). 

11 These clusters are information technology, health care and bioscience, construction, business services, and 

hospitality and tourism. 

14
co-enrollment. If a TAA participant wants to enter a training program in a non-demand 

occupation, the TAA program will approve the training if the customer obtains a letter from an 

employer stating that the participant will be hired on completion. However, because the local 

WIA program does not make exceptions to allowing training only in demand occupations, the 

TAA participant cannot be co-enrolled in WIA. 

Factors that Support Linkages 

As discussed in a previous section, the TAA program has well-developed linkages with a number 

of other workforce investment programs, but the extent of these linkages varies by program, 

state, local area, and even One-Stop Career Center. This wide variation can be correlated with 

the presence or absence of one or more key factors that support linkages. These factors include 

certain types of administrative arrangements, particular state or local policy initiatives, structures 

coordinating workforce development, and combined workforce development management 

information systems (MIS). Each of these factors is explored in detail in the following section. 

Administrative Arrangements for TAA 

The ways in which states and local areas choose to administer the TAA program has a profound 

effect on the linkages established between TAA and other workforce programs. For example, 

the decision by a state concerning where to locate the TAA program at the state level has 

important consequences for the TAA program’s relationships with other workforce programs. 

When a state chooses to locate the TAA program within the same agency as ES, UI, and WIA, 

relations between those programs are typically closer than if the programs are located in different 

agencies. Alternatively, when TAA is in an agency separate from that of some of its key 

partners, formal interagency structures or agreements can be developed to ensure coordination 

between programs. For example, in Oregon, where TAA is administered by the Oregon 

Employment Department (along with ES and UI) but WIA is administered by the Department of 

Community Colleges and Workforce Development, the WIA and TAA programs completed an 

interagency memorandum of understanding in 1999. In addition, to ensure that partner programs 

work well together, the state has a Workforce Policy Cabinet that includes the heads of all major 

workforce development agencies. 

However, just because a state locates the TAA program in the same agency as that of other 

workforce programs or forges interagency agreements does not guarantee that those programs 

will be well coordinated. Instead, in several states where all of the major workforce programs—

TAA, TRA, UI, ES and WIA—are located in the same agency, numerous state and local 

respondents reported that those programs still do not work together well. Further, unless the 

15
same staff administers partner programs, there is typically still a need for formal coordinating 

structures or arrangements even within the same agencies. For example, in Michigan, to ensure 

coordination between WIA, TAA and ES, the state placed all of those programs under the same 

supervisor, and this supervisor has instituted regular meetings of the programs’ managers. 

At the local level, the administrative arrangement that has the strongest effect on linkages with 

TAA is the decision about which partner program will provide services to local TAA 

participants. For example, as discussed above, ES staff provide local TAA services in 13 of the 

19 states visited. In these states, the relationship between ES and TAA is typically very close, 

particularly in those offices where the same staff provide both TAA and ES services. In those 

situations, the provision of ES and TAA services is seamless to the customer. Similarly, in the 

five states where WIA staff play a dominant role in providing local TAA services, linkages 

between TAA and WIA are also very close. 

Finally, a few states (Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, and Texas) leave the decision about how to 

provide local TAA services to LWIAs. In these states, LWIAs receive allocations from the state 

for TAA and can contract with whichever local provider they deem most suitable. This 

administrative structure, relatively recent and still not widespread, carries with it the potential for 

very tight linkages between TAA and WIA. LWIAs can choose to have the same local 

organization that provides TAA services also provide WIA or other partner program services, 

making possible a truly seamless integration of services at the local level.12

State and Local Policy Initiatives Supporting Linkages 

State or local policy initiatives designed to promote coordination or integration have major 

implications for linkages between TAA and other workforce programs. At the sites visited, two 

such policy initiatives were common: (1) those requiring or supporting better integration in local 

One-Stop delivery systems, and (2) those requiring or encouraging co-enrollment, particularly 

between TAA and WIA DW programs. 

Virtually every state has carried out policy initiatives aimed at strengthening the integration of all 

workforce programs—including TAA—through local One-Stop delivery systems. For example, 

Pennsylvania undertook a large-scale integration effort involving a number of policy initiatives, 

including implementing a TAA cross-training program, establishing a quality review process that 

examined integration, developing a more integrated MIS, and establishing a staff credentialing 

program allowing for more flexible job descriptions to accommodate increased integration. To 

take another example, Washington has issued several policy initiatives related to overall 

16
integration, including upgrading the state’s shared MIS, implementing a cross-training program, 

and requiring that One-Stop Career Centers develop cross-functional teams as part of the state’s 

GMAP process.13

Related to these overall integration efforts, the majority of states also have policies encouraging 

or requiring co-enrollment, particularly between TAA and WIA DW programs. As was 

previously described in Exhibit 1, nine states require co-enrollment, and all but one of the 

remaining 10 at least encourage it. Six states—Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania and Texas—also decided to participate in the DOL WIA and TAA Co-enrollment 

Pilot Project. The pilot project, which was conducted in the fall of 2005 through the end of 

2006, required that participating states agree to enroll all TAA participants in the WIA DW 

program and provided the states with technical assistance to facilitate co-enrollment. In a 

separate effort, Ohio has also implemented its own pilot project involving increased coenrollment in two of its LWIAs. 

Besides these overall co-enrollment policies, a number of states have also implemented smaller-scale 

policies aimed at making co-enrollment easier. For example, to help ensure that locals are seriously 

implementing co-enrollment, Indiana is requiring its LWIAs to develop formal co-enrollment plans. 

Washington is also revising its TAA manual to make TAA procedures overall more like those of 

WIA. Other examples of state policies that assist co-enrollment include: (1) requiring TAA 

participants to choose training programs on the WIA eligible training provider list, (2) requiring 

participants to choose training programs only for occupations in demand, (3) requiring that WIA 

DW programs and TAA use the same forms for attendance sheets or training plans, and (4) allowing 

local areas to set the same training expenditure caps for TAA as for WIA. 

Workforce Development Coordinating Structures 

Creating workforce development coordinating structures is another way that states and local 

areas facilitate linkages between TAA and other workforce development programs. These 

structures can exist at the state level, the local level, or both; they serve as institutionalized 

channels allowing programs to communicate and work together on a regular basis, thus 

deepening their linkages. State-level structures, such as coordinating bodies and agreements, 

have already been discussed in the section on administrative structures above. Three other 

 

12 Michigan also allows LWIAs control over how local Wagner-Peyser services are provided, as long as the 

chosen provider is a public agency with merit-based staffing, such as a city, county or school district. 

13 GMAP, or Government Management Accountability and Performance, represents a state initiative to have 

state agencies measure and improve their performance and achieve demonstrable results. 

17
structures promoting coordination will be discussed in this section: local One-Stop delivery 

systems, state-local coordinating bodies, and Rapid Response. 

One-Stop Delivery Systems 

When operating as it should, the local One-Stop delivery system links separately funded 

workforce programs and allows them to coordinate service delivery. The One-Stop delivery 

system was codified as Federal law and policy by WIA, which designated 17 Federal programs, 

including TAA, as required One-Stop Career Center partners.14 As required by DOL in TEGL 

11-02, local TAA services are delivered out of One-Stop Career Centers; therefore, the One-Stop 

delivery system serves as an important means for linking TAA with its partners. 15

Since WIA gave states and locals substantial flexibility in designing their One-Stop delivery 

systems to meet local needs, they differ markedly by state and even by local area. One way in 

which these systems vary is in the level of coordination between partners. For example, in some 

One-Stop delivery systems, partners continue to operate their programs quite separately, while in 

others partners have developed seamlessly integrated service delivery systems. These latter 

types of One-Stop delivery systems play a critical role in supporting increased and deeper 

linkages between TAA and other workforce programs. 

One way that programs develop stronger linkages via local One-Stop delivery systems is by colocating TAA and partner staff at local One-Stop Career Centers. Currently, the vast majority of 

staff who provide local TAA services are co-located at One-Stop Career Centers that also have 

staff from other workforce development programs, such as ES or WIA. By contrast, co-location 

with staff from adult education, VR, and veterans’ workforce programs is somewhat less 

common. Respondents noted that co-location improved linkages by helping partners get to know 

each other better, which in turn makes information-sharing, referrals, and co-enrollment easier, 

and provides opportunities for integrated service delivery. By contrast, in the few offices where 

 

14 Other required partners include: WIA Title I.B programs, Job Corps, WIA Native American programs, 

WIA migrant and seasonal farmworker programs, Veterans’ workforce programs, Wagner-Peyser Act programs, 

Adult education and literacy activities authorized under WIA Title II, programs authorized under Parts A and B of 

the Rehabilitation Act (Vocational Rehabilitation), welfare-to-work programs, Senior community service 

employment activities under Title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, postsecondary vocational education 

activities under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, Community Services Block 

Grant employment and training programs, employment and training programs carried out by the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, and state unemployment compensation programs. See Workforce Investment 

Act, Final Rules, 20 CFR Part 662.200, Federal Register, August 11, 2000. 

15 At least some local services are provided out of One-Stop Career Centers in all of the states visited, but in 

some states, certain services, such as contacting potentially eligible workers and determining eligibility, have been 

centralized and are handled out of centralized call centers, typically operated by the state’s UI agency. 

18
TAA staff are not co-located with staff from other programs, respondents noted the difficulties 

TAA staff have in coordinating services. 

However, co-location by itself does not guarantee strong coordination between programs. In a 

few sites, for example, individual workforce programs and staff are located in the same building 

but seldom communicate and still run their programs very separately. The import of this fact is 

clear: co-located One-Stop Career Center partners need to develop ways of linking and working 

together. 

One way they do so is to ensure that there is regular communication, both formal and informal, 

between staff of different programs. To create opportunities for regular informal 

communication, One-Stop Career Centers often locate line staff from different programs near 

each other and encourage staff to work together. Similarly, to provide occasions for formal 

communication, staff from different programs—both line staff and managers—will hold regular 

meetings. For example, in Baltimore, Maryland, the local One-Stop Career Centers hold weekly 

staff meetings, while at the Sheffield CareerLink in Alabama, co-located partner program 

managers hold regular meetings to discuss center management. In addition to these more general 

meetings, One-Stop Career Centers sometimes also hold more formal cross-training sessions for 

staff. For example, in May 2003, all staff at the Millinocket East One-Stop Career Center in 

Maine went through an extensive cross-training process. 

Going one step further, co-location of staff at One-Stop Career Centers also provides programs 

with opportunities to develop coordinated service delivery systems. Many One-Stop Career 

Centers, such as the ones in the Kent/Allegan Workforce Investment Area in Michigan, have 

shared reception and intake for all of their programs. At other One-Stop Career Centers, 

programs share delivery of core services, such as basic workshops or initial assessments. In 

addition, as discussed above, many states and local offices also co-enroll TAA participants in 

partner programs, particularly ES and WIA DW programs. For co-enrolled participants, the staff 

of partner programs are jointly accountable for participant outcomes, typically provide 

participants with substantial services, and work together to ensure that participants’ needs are 

met but that services are not duplicated. In several areas, staff working with co-enrolled 

participants are paired or the One-Stop Career Center holds joint meetings of case managers. 

Beyond this basic kind of coordinated service, co-location and co-enrollment can also lead to 

truly integrated and seamless services. For example, in the Gulf Coast LWIA in Texas, staff 

from ES, WIA, and TAA are organized into functional teams: Employment Counselors, Personal 

Service Specialists, Financial Aid Specialists, Resource Room Specialists, and 

Receptionists/Greeters. In Pennsylvania, several local areas have integrated One-Stop Career 

19
Centers; for example, in the Lehigh Valley area, all staff take turns serving customers “delistyle,” while in the Westmoreland-Fayette area individual staff serve all customers whose names 

start with certain letters of the alphabet, regardless of program. 

There are three limitations to the local One-Stop delivery system’s ability to strengthen linkages 

between the TAA program and other workforce development systems. First, since TAA has 

direct control over few or no local staff and typically no local managers, its involvement in local 

One-Stop delivery systems is usually heavily reliant on the involvement of the partner that 

provides or supervises local TAA services, usually ES or WIA. Second, due primarily to the 

uneven nature of trade-related layoff activity as well as state decisions about how to administer 

local TAA services, not all One-Stop Career Centers offer TAA services. For example, in 

Oregon, local TAA staff are concentrated in only a few One-Stop Career Centers, while, in New 

Jersey, TAA staff are based at the state level but travel around to One-Stop Career Centers as 

needed. One-Stop Career Centers that do not offer TAA services or have TAA staff, as in these 

cases, cannot very well serve as structures in which to develop linkages between TAA and other 

partners. Third, since UI has almost universally withdrawn from involvement in local One-Stop 

Career Centers, the TRA portion of the TAA program (operated by UI) is also no longer present 

in the One-Stop Career Center. As a result, well-integrated One-Stop delivery systems can only 

assist in strengthening linkages with the parts of the TAA program not involved with dispensing 

TRA benefits, rather than with the TAA program overall. 

State-Local Coordination Efforts 

State-local coordination bodies or state-wide cross-training efforts represent other mechanisms 

used to help create and strengthen linkages between TAA and partner programs. One common 

type of state-local coordination body consists of groups of LWIA directors who meet with state 

workforce development staff—including TAA staff—on a regular basis to discuss policy issues. 

These groups serve as formal, institutionalized ways for LWIA managers to communicate with 

state TAA staff. According to state respondents, the TAA program is increasingly on the agenda 

at these types of meetings, as LWIAs, and the WIA programs that they are directly responsible 

for, are becoming more directly involved with TAA. 

Another common type of state-local coordinating effort is temporary committees or workgroups, 

made up of local representatives and state officials, that are designed to accomplish a particular 

task. These groups also often provide opportunities for local WIA staff to work with state TAA 

staff. For example, Kentucky set up a work group related to transitioning control of TAA from 

ES to LWIAs, while Ohio has created a state-local work team to come up with ways to better 

integrate TAA into local One-Stop delivery systems. 

20
State-wide cross-training programs are also used to foster better linkages between TAA and its 

partners. These efforts are similar to the cross-training described earlier in this paper that takes 

place at One-Stop Career Centers but are carried out on a much wider scale. While in some 

states these cross-training efforts have been aimed at staff from all workforce programs, others 

have particularly focused on educating ES or WIA DW staff about the TAA program. For 

example, in preparation for giving LWIAs control of the TAA program at the local level, Illinois 

held a number of training sessions specifically on the TAA program for WIA staff. 

Coordinated Rapid Response 

A third structure that helps to develop linkages between the TAA program and other workforce 

programs is coordinated Rapid Response. In most states, Rapid Response is a team effort staffed 

by representatives from key workforce development partners at both the state and local levels. 

These teams usually involve designated Rapid Response staff, as well as representatives from 

ES, UI, the WIA DW program, and local One-Stop Career Centers. TAA staff are also usually 

involved if a layoff is TAA-certified, or even if trade is only suspected to be involved. 

Sometimes representatives from adult education, economic development, VR, veterans’ 

workforce services, and community colleges are also involved. The involvement of such a broad 

group of workforce development partners makes Rapid Response efforts another structure 

through which the TAA program can develop linkages with its partners.16

Combined Management Information Systems 

Another factor that typically supports the development of strong linkages between the TAA 

program and other workforce development partners is a combined state MIS. During the data 

collection for this study, eight states reported that they used combined MISs for all workforce 

development programs. Having a shared MIS makes it easier for TAA staff to work with other 

partner staff, particularly regarding co-enrolled participants. Sometimes these integrated systems 

have space for client case notes and allow staff from partner programs to view them. For 

example, in Illinois, partner staff have access to partner MIS modules on a read-only basis to 

allow staff to see what services have been provided to co-enrolled participants. 

Some integrated systems also keep track of which participants are co-enrolled and allow staff to 

run detailed co-enrollment reports. For example, the Pennsylvania system enables staff to run 

reports showing co-enrollment by type of participant and WIA enrollment status. 

 

16 For more information on how Rapid Response supports the TAA program, see the companion paper TAA 

and Rapid Response, also produced as part of the Occasional Paper series. 

21
In states where there is no combined workforce MIS, staff at the local level sometimes devise 

ways to improvise the features of a shared MIS so that they can work together better. For 

example, at the Sunnyvale Connect! Job Seeker Center in California, local TAA staff enter 

information about co-enrolled TAA participants into the state’s WIA MIS so that WIA staff can 

view the information and keep up-to-date on the participant’s progress. 

Challenges to Developing and Maintaining Linkages 

Despite the existence of the many factors described above that support the development of 

linkages between TAA and other workforce development programs, there are a number of 

remaining challenges. While some of these challenges are related to the development of linkages 

between TAA and all workforce development partners, others are specific to linkages with WIA. 

Both of these types of challenges are discussed in the following section. 

Challenges Related to Linkages with Any Workforce Program 

Challenges that relate to developing and maintaining linkages between TAA and all other 

workforce and economic development programs have three underlying causes: very limited TAA 

staffing resources at the local level, lack of local support and infrastructure for linkages, and 

difficulties related to linkages between programs with different rules and regulations. 

Lack of Local TAA Staffing 

One of the major challenges to developing and maintaining linkages between TAA and other 

workforce development partners is that TAA has so little administrative funding to pay for 

staffing, particularly at the local level. For this reason, as discussed above, most staff who 

provide local-level TAA services are line staff whose time is either partly or completely funded 

by other programs, which limits their availability to reach out to potential partners as a 

representative of the TAA program. 

The absence of TAA program managers at the local level also hinders the TAA program’s ability 

to develop strong linkages. Often linkages with partners are initiated or developed by local 

managers. But because TAA has almost no dedicated local managers, decisions about whether 

to develop linkages are typically in the hands of local ES or WIA managers, who are likely to 

focus much more on the needs of their own programs than on those of TAA. Consequently, if 

reaching out to economic development efforts is a major local ES or WIA priority, and that 

program provides local TAA services, then TAA may develop good linkages in those areas, but 

only as a byproduct of the partner program’s efforts. 

22
Lack of Infrastructure in the State or Local Area for Linkages 

TAA programs face heavy challenges in trying to effectively reach out and coordinate service 

delivery with other programs when the state or local infrastructure that would support linkages is 

not in place. As discussed in the previous section, several such factors are critical. At the state 

level, these factors include formal coordinating structures (such as regular meetings or 

interagency coordination bodies), coordinated Rapid Response efforts, and a unified MIS; at the 

local level, they include a well-functioning, integrated One-Stop delivery system. 

Dealing with Different Program Rules and Regulations 

Finally, another set of challenges the TAA program faces in developing linkages relates to the 

complex nature of the program and the differences between it and other workforce programs. 

For example, several respondents noted how difficult it is to have partners fully understand the 

complex eligibility requirements and deadlines of the TAA program. This complexity makes it 

very difficult for states and local offices to carry out effective cross-training. This challenge is 

further complicated by the fact that TAA activity is typically spread unevenly around the state, 

so some partner program staff may have little exposure to the TAA program. 

Conversely, TAA staff sometimes have difficulties understanding their partner programs’ 

different rules and requirements. For example, when TAA is working with co-enrolled WIA 

participants, TAA staff have to become familiar with WIA requirements such as the eligible 

training provider list, demand occupations requirements, training caps, and performance 

measures. Several respondents noted that this information can be difficult to master for staff not 

working with these requirements every day. 

Another challenge related to program differences is the fact that local TAA programs may not 

serve the same geographic areas as their partners. Although TAA service boundaries are the 

same as those for ES in the many states where ES staff provide local TAA services, LWIA 

boundaries—which delineate WIA service areas—are often different from ES boundaries. 

Consequently, sometimes even partner staff at the same One-Stop Career Center may not be able 

to serve all of the same participants. This often causes confusion for both co-located staff and 

co-enrolled participants. 

Challenges Specific to Developing Linkages between TAA and WIA 

In addition to the general challenges of developing linkages between TAA and other workforce 

and economic development partners, there are a few challenges that are specific to developing 

linkages between TAA and WIA. These challenges arise from two sources: the difficulty of 

coordinating a state-run program (TAA) with a locally-driven program (WIA), and issues related 

to WIA’s performance measures. 

23
In states where TAA is very state-driven, it can be very challenging for the TAA program to 

develop strong linkages with local WIA programs. One major reason for this is that policy 

decisions for TAA and WIA are made at different levels, so there is often little direct staff 

discussion between the partners regarding these policies before they are implemented. WIA 

policy is often made at the LWIA level, where there is little or no TAA representation. And even 

when TAA is represented—typically by a local ES manager—that TAA representative often 

does not have the authority to speak for the TAA program and may or may not clearly 

understand TAA issues. Conversely, when TAA policy decisions are made at the state level, 

there is almost never an opportunity for review or discussions of such decisions by local WIA 

staff prior to implementation. 

Furthermore, TAA state staff almost never have the time to develop the close relationships with 

all LWIAs or WIA DW program providers that lead to especially strong linkages. Consequently, 

LWIAs often have very different levels of understanding and buy-in related to linkages with the 

TAA program. This has certainly been true in the uneven implementation of the DOL WIA and 

TAA Co-enrollment Pilot Project, discussed earlier. In addition, limited opportunities for 

interaction between state TAA staff and local WIA staff mean that local staff sometimes do not 

clearly understand state TAA policies and do not feel that TAA staff are responsive to questions. 

Another major challenge to linkages between TAA and WIA DW programs is related to WIA’s 

high-stakes performance measures. Due to the setting of both local and state performance 

standards for WIA programs and the tying of incentives and sanctions to those standards, 

achievement of performance goals is very important to local and state WIA program managers. 

Consequently, many WIA programs have been very resistant to co-enrolling TAA customers 

who they feel will hurt their chances of achieving high performance. Numerous WIA 

respondents said that they often will not agree to co-enroll TAA participants because of 

performance concerns, particularly the concern that TAA participants will not be able to achieve 

WIA’s earnings change performance measure goals. However, the national TAA office has 

begun to emphasize performance much more strongly17 and the earnings-change WIA measure 

has been replaced by a simple post-program earnings measure; both of these steps should serve 

to lessen the performance concerns raised by WIA respondents.18

 

17 For example, TEGL 32-04, issued in 2005, made clear that TAA programs were expected to focus on 

achieving high performance. 

18 Under the Common Measures implemented in Program Year 2006, WIA DW programs will be measured 

on participants’ earnings in the second and third quarter after exit, rather than the difference between earnings in the 

second and third quarters prior to participation as compared to the second and third quarters after exit. 

24
Conclusions 

In many states and local One-Stop Career Centers, the TAA program has developed strong and 

extensive linkages with certain workforce development programs, particularly ES, UI, and the 

WIA DW program. Due to both state and Federal encouragement, linkages between TAA and 

the WIA DW program, in particular, appear to be increasing around the country. These linkages 

are in evidence at the state level as well as at local One-Stop Career Centers and in state-local 

efforts such as Rapid Response. 

These strong and—in the case of WIA—growing linkages are likely to have an important effect 

on the TAA program. The hope is that by better coordinating service delivery between TAA, 

WIA, ES, and UI, services to TAA participants will improve and participants will be able to 

receive all of the services and supports they need to succeed. The net impact analysis associated 

with the National TAA Evaluation should provide some insight into the impact of this increased 

coordination on participant outcomes. 

Despite the evidence of strong collaboration between TAA and ES, UI, and WIA, the linkages 

between the TAA program and some other workforce development programs, particularly VR 

and veterans’ workforce services, are relatively weak. However, it may be that these weaker 

linkages are appropriate given that only a few TAA participants need or are eligible for the 

services these partners provide. 

By contrast, negative implications for TAA participants are much more likely to arise from the 

lack of strong linkages between the TAA program and local economic development efforts, 

coupled with the limited usage of demand-focused practices such as EBT or clear policies 

requiring training in demand occupations. Without stronger linkages with economic 

development efforts and a clearer focus on the demand side of the labor market, the TAA 

program is unlikely to be as effective as it could be in assisting participants with finding longterm employment. 

Fortunately, because of the growing emphasis of WIA programs on forging partnerships with 

employers and local economic development efforts, the TAA program may be able to 

simultaneously improve its connections to local employers and economic development efforts 

simply by developing stronger linkages with WIA DW programs. This will likely help the TAA 

program to be more effective in meeting the needs of TAA participants and possibly improve the 

program’s performance. 

This paper has identified a number of important factors that contribute to the TAA program’s 

ability to develop strong linkages with its One-Stop partners. Beyond the extensive Federal 

guidance that has been issued promoting the coordination of services, these include formal 

25
administrative arrangements that bring partners together, state and local-level initiatives that 

strongly promote coordination, the One-Stop delivery system itself (including the co-location of 

partners), and a consolidated MIS that enables partners to track participants’ progress. Factors 

impeding stronger linkages, by contrast, include the TAA program’s limited staffing, constraints 

on the use of funds for non-training services, and program rules and requirements that are not 

aligned across the partners. 

26
Appendix: List of Site Visits Conducted 

The site visits on which the findings in this paper are based were conducted in 2005 and 2006. 

Site visits completed as of the writing of this paper are shown in Exhibit A-1; included for each 

state is the estimated percentage of all TAA participants nationwide that are represented by that 

state. Additional site visits are planned in the evaluation’s subsequent years. 

Exhibit A-1: 

States and Local Offices Visited 

State Office 

Estimated 

Percent of 

TAA 

Participants Local Offices 

Alabama 3.5% Opelika, Sheffield, Tuscaloosa 

California 5.6% Huntington Park, Sunnyvale, Santa Rosa 

Georgia 3.9% Rome 

Illinois 3.7% Arlington, North Aurora 

Indiana 2.4% Auburn, Gary 

Kentucky 2.5% Elizabethtown, Richmond, Somerset/Russell Springs 

Maine 1.0% Bangor, East Millinocket 

Maryland 0.4% Baltimore, Hagerstown 

Massachusetts 1.8% Holyoke 

Michigan 3.6% Allegan, Livingstone, Troy 

Missouri 2.2% Chillocothe, St. Joseph 

New Jersey 2.1% Middlesex 

North Carolina 9.4% Aberdeen, Asheboro, Wilson 

Ohio 4.0% Columbiana, Dayton 

Oregon 2.0% Lane, Portland West 

Pennsylvania 6.7% Lawrence, Montgomery, York 

Tennessee 4.1% Knoxville, Mid-South 

Texas 7.0% Conroe, Richardson 

Washington 2.2% Spokane, Vancouver 

27