FISCAL YEAR 2015 

ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS 

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS 

PROGRAM 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 

Page 2 of 48

“...firms reported that from the time of petition certification to one year after completing 

the program (FY 2014), on average, sales increased by 42.6 percent, productivity 

increased by 28 percent and employment increased by 11.4 percent.”

Executive Summary 

This annual report is submitted in accordance with Section 255A of chapter 3 of title II of 

the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq.) (commonly referred to as 

the Trade Act)1. 

TAAF Program Authorization

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (TAAF) program is authorized by Chapters 3 

and 5 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. 93-618, 19 U.S.C. § 2341 

et seq.), and as further amended by P.L. 97-35, 98-120, 98-369, 99-272, 99-514, 100-418, 

103-66, 105-277, 107-210, 111-5, 111-344, 112-40, 113-203, and 114-27. The 

responsibility for administering the TAAF program is delegated to the Economic 

Development Administration (EDA) by the Secretary of Commerce. The TAAF program 

provides technical assistance to U.S. manufacturing, production, and service firms 

affected by import competition in order to help them develop and implement projects to 

regain global competitiveness, increase profitability and create jobs. 

On June 29, 2015, the President signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act (P.L. 

114-27). Title IV of that Act, entitled the “Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization 

Act of 2015” and referred to herein as the “TAA Reauthorization Act,” effectively 

reinstated the expanded TAAF program that was authorized as part of the Trade and 

Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 (TGAAA)2

 and retroactively restored 

by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (TAAEA)3. The TAA 

Reauthorization Act authorized TAAF until June 30, 2022. 

On September 24, 2015, EDA held a TAAF funding competition through a Federal 

Funding Opportunity (FFO) published on Grants.gov that solicited applications from 

organizations to operate as Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs). Through this 

competition, EDA aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the TAAF program 

through enhanced program performance measurement, decreased program administrative 

costs, coordination with other complementary Federal programs, closer alignment of 

 

1

 For the purposes of this report, data are reported only for firms for which all data were available. 2

 The TGAAA was included as subtitle I within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 

111-5). 

3

 The Omnibus Trade Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-344), enacted on December 29, 2010, extended the TAAF 

program through February 12, 2012, but eliminated some of the expanded provisions of the TGAAA. On 

October 21, 2011, the TAAEA (Title II of P.L. 112-40) was signed into law and reauthorized the TAAF 

program through December 31, 2014. It retroactively extended the enhanced provisions of the TGAAA 

through December 31, 2013. On January 1, 2014, the TAAF program reverted back to the more limited 

program that existed as of February 13, 2011. 
 

Page 3 of 48

geographic service areas of TAACs with the service areas of EDA’s six regional offices, 

and a more equitable distribution of services across all U.S. States and territories4. 

One of the key components of the FFO was that selected organizations included a strategy 

that increases coordination with EDA Regional Offices and complementary Federal 

programs that provide, or could provide, comprehensive assistance to import-impacted 

firms and communities in order to avoid duplicative effort and maximize Federal dollars. 

Examples of such Federal programs include, but are not limited to, the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology’s Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 

Centers, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers 

program, U.S. Export Assistance Centers, Regional DOL Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA) offices, Workforce Investment Boards, and relevant private 

industry groups. 

Based on applications received, merit review scores, and the applicants’ proposed 

geographic coverage areas (which align with those of EDA Regional Offices), EDA 

selected the current 11 incumbent TAACs and made geographic re-assignments to 

facilitate more equitable geographic coverage and allow for continuity of services to 

existing and future firms receiving TAAF technical assistance. Additionally, program 

administration costs (indirect costs of grantees) will be lowered by decreasing the agreed 

upon grantee indirect cost rates by 25% as compared to the maximum allowable rates used 

in previous years. The new award period began May 1, 2016. 

Key Findings of this Report 

Firms assisted by EDA’s TAAF program over the last several years have performed more 

successfully than the manufacturing industry as a whole, demonstrating a significant 

return on Federal investment. These findings follow similar positive findings in EDA’s FY 

20145

 Annual Report, along with a positive report by the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office in FY 20126. Overall, the program is effective in helping firms overcome negative 

trade impacts and become more globally competitive. Examples of TAAF program 

benefits to manufacturing firms can be found in the supplement at the end of this report.

In order to assess the effectiveness of the TAAF program, EDA evaluates the extent to 

which client firms increased their sales, productivity7, and employment levels following 

the implementation of TAAF-supported projects (program completion). To measure these 

outcomes, EDA compares average sales, average productivity, and average employment 

of all firms completing the program in a particular year (known as the “base year”) to 

these same figures for the same firms at one and two years following program 

completion. The base year used for this report is FY 2013, as this allows EDA to compare 

these measures looking back both one and two years from the date of this FY 2015 report. 

 

4

 See http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=279141 

5

 See EDA’s FY 2014 TAAF Annual Report, available at www.eda.gov. 6

 See http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-930 

7

 Since the certified firms are in various industries, which have a variety of ways to measure productivity, 

sales per employee was chosen as the productivity measure. This measure is used because it can be 

generally applied to all certified firms. 
 

Page 4 of 48

One year after completing the program, firms participating in the TAAF program reported 

that average sales had increased by 20.8 percent, average productivity had increased by 

18.1 percent, and average employment had increased by 2.3 percent from the prior year. 

By comparison, the U.S. Bureau of the Census Annual Survey of Manufacturers (Census) 

reported that, during the same time period, the national manufacturing industry in 

aggregate experienced an average sales increase of 1.2 percent and an average 

productivity decrease of .09 percent, while the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

reported an average employment increase of 1.3 percent. Therefore, TAAF-assisted firms 

performed better in all three measures than the manufacturing industry as a whole during 

this time period. 

Two years after completing the program, these same firms reported average sales had 

increased by 13.6 percent, average productivity had increased by 9.7 percent, and average 

employment had increased by 3.5 percent from 2013. Meanwhile, BLS reported that the 

manufacturing industry experienced an average employment increase of 2.5 percent from 

20138

. 

Additionally, these same firms reported that from the time of petition certification to one 

year after completing the program (a period of six years, on average9), sales increased by 

42.6 percent, productivity increased by 28 percent, and employment increased by 11.4 

percent. By comparison, Census reported that, during the same time period, the national 

manufacturing industry in aggregate experienced an average sales increase of 10 percent 

and an average productivity increase of 25 percent, while the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) reported an average employment decrease of 12 percent. Therefore, 

TAAF-assisted firms performed better in all three measures than the manufacturing 

industry as a whole during this time period. 

Furthermore, all TAAF-assisted firms that completed the program in FY 2013 were in 

operation at the end of FY 2015, indicating strong survival rates for TAAF-assisted firms 

in the face of import pressures. 

Summary of the TAAF Program

The mission of the TAAF program is to help import-impacted U.S. manufacturing, 

production and service firms develop and implement projects to regain global 

competitiveness, expand markets, strengthen operations, increase profitability, and create 

jobs. Import-impacted U.S. manufacturing, production, and service firms can receive 

direct technical assistance to help expand markets, strengthen operations and increase 

competitiveness through the TAAF program. The program provides assistance to support 

the development of business recovery plans, commonly referred to as “Adjustment 

Proposals” or “APs,” under Section 252 of the Trade Act, and matching funds to 

implement projects outlined in the APs. 

 

8

 Only employment data – not sales or productivity data – are available for 2015 at the time of this report for 

the manufacturing industry. 

9

 Firms average six years from the time of certification to complete the program. Therefore, manufacturing 

industry data are used for the period of 2007 to 2014, as firms completing the program in 2013 would have 

been certified, on average, in 2007. 
 

Page 5 of 48

The TAAF program supports a national network of 11 independent non-profit or 

university-affiliated Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs) to help U.S. 

manufacturing and production firms in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Firms work with the TAACs in a public-private 

collaborative framework to apply for certification of eligibility for TAAF assistance, and 

prepare and implement strategies to guide their economic recovery. EDA’s partnership 

with the TAACs allows firms to receive customized assistance from highly qualified 

experts who are knowledgeable about the needs, challenges and opportunities facing the 

industries in their region. 

Adjustment Proposals may cover a range of functional areas to improve a firm’s market 

position and increase its overall competitiveness including engineering, information 

technology, management process improvement, marketing and sales growth, new product 

development, export expansion, enhanced support systems, staff capacity building, and 

manufacturing quality improvement. 

The most common types of assistance provided to participating firms in FY 2015 were 

marketing/sales improvement and production/engineering projects, which comprised over 

half of all projects supported throughout the year. TAACs reported that 35 percent of all 

AP projects approved included projects explicitly for the purpose of assisting the firm with 

developing or increasing export opportunities. 

As of September 30, 2015, 841 active firms with combined sales of $12 billion and a 

workforce of 66,625 participated in the TAAF program. In FY 2015, TAACs provided 

technical assistance to 295 firms in preparing petitions, 128 firms in preparing APs, and 

729 firms in implementing projects within their APs. Meanwhile, EDA certified 113 

petitions and approved 120 APs. 

EDA successfully met both the 40-day processing deadline (to make a final determination 

for petitions accepted for filing) and the 60-day processing deadline for approval of APs, 

as required by statute. In FY 2015, the average processing time for petitions was 16 

business days, and the average processing time for APs was 12 business days. 
 

Page 6 of 48

Table of Contents 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................7 

Program Description .....................................................................................................................9 

Results/Findings ..........................................................................................................................13 

Data for This Report ....................................................................................................................13 

(1) The number of firms that inquired about the program. .............................................................13 

(2) The number of petitions filed under section 251. .....................................................................13 

(3) The number of petitions certified and denied by the Secretary. ................................................13 

(4) The average time for processing petitions after the petitions are filed. ......................................13 

(5) The number of petitions filed and firms certified for each Congressional District in the 

 United States. .......................................................................................................................18 

(6) Of the number of petitions filed, the number of firms that entered the program and received 

 benefits. ...............................................................................................................................22 

(7) The number of firms that received assistance in preparing their petitions. .................................23 

(8) The number of firms that received assistance developing business recovery plans. ....................24 

(9) The number of business recovery plans approved and denied by the Secretary. .........................25 

(10) Average duration of benefits received under the program nationally and in each region served 

 by an intermediary organization (the TAAC) referred to in section 253(b)(1) of the Trade Act. ..27 

(11) Sales, employment, and productivity at each firm participating in the TAAF program at the 

 time of certification. .............................................................................................................28 

(12) Sales, employment, and productivity at each firm upon completion of the program and each 

 year for the two-year period following completion. .................................................................30 

(13) The number of firms in operation as of the date of this report and the number of firms that 

 ceased operations after completing the program in each year during the two-year period 

 following completion of the program. ....................................................................................30 

(14) The financial assistance received by each firm participating in the program. .............................36 

(15) The financial contribution made by each firm participating in the program. ..............................36 

(16) The types of technical assistance included in the business recovery plans of firms participating 

 in the program. .....................................................................................................................36 

(17) The number of firms leaving the program before completing the project or projects in their 

 business recovery plans and the reason the project or projects were not completed. ...................38 

(18) The total amount expended by all intermediary organizations referred to in Section 253(b)(1) 

 and by each organization to administer the program. ...............................................................39 

(19) The total amount expended by intermediary organizations to provide technical assistance to 

 firms under the program nationally and in each region served by such an organization ..............40

Conclusion........................................................................................................... 42

Examples of TAAF Program Benefits to Manufacturing Firms ..........................................43
 

Page 7 of 48

Introduction 

his report is provided in compliance with Section 255A of chapter 3 of title II of the 

Trade Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq.). Section 255A of the Trade Act 

directs the Secretary of Commerce to provide an annual report on the Trade 

Adjustment Assistance for Firms (TAAF) program. Section 255 of the Trade Act 

states: 

IN GENERAL. — Not later than December 15, 2012, and annually thereafter, 

the Secretary shall prepare a report containing data regarding the trade 

adjustment assistance for firms program under this chapter for the preceding 

fiscal year. The data shall include the following: 

This report will provide findings and results classified by intermediary 

organization10, state, and national totals11, to the extent that the data are available on 

the following 19 measures: 

1. The number of firms that inquired about the program. 

2. The number of petitions filed under Section 251. 

3. The number of petitions certified and denied by the Secretary. 

4. The average time for processing petitions after the petitions are filed. 

5. The number of petitions filed and firms certified for each Congressional district 

of the United States. 

6. Of the number of petitions filed, the number of firms that entered the program 

and received benefits. 

7. The number of firms that received assistance in preparing their petitions. 

8. The number of firms that received assistance developing business recovery 

plans. 

9. The number of business recovery plans approved and denied by the Secretary. 

10. The average duration of benefits received under the program nationally and in 

each region served by an intermediary organization referred to in Section 

253(b)(1) of the Trade Act. 

11. Sales, employment, and productivity at each firm participating in the TAAF 

program at the time of certification. 

12. Sales, employment, and productivity at each firm upon completion of the 

program and each year for the two-year period following completion. 

 

10 “Intermediary Organization” referred to in Section 253(b)(1) are the Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers 

(TAACs). 

11 See Chapter 3 of Title II of the Trade Act, Section 255A (b) Classification of Data. 

T 
 

Page 8 of 48

13. The number of firms in operation as the date of the report and the number of 

firms that ceased operations after completing the program and in each year 

during the two-year period following completion of the program. 

14. The financial assistance received by each firm participating in the program. 

15. The financial contribution made by each firm participating in the program. 

16. The types of technical assistance included in the business recovery plans of 

firms participating in the program. 

17. The number of firms leaving the program before completing the project or 

projects in their business recovery plans and the reason the project was not 

completed. 

18. The total amount expended by all intermediary organizations referred to in 

Section 253(b)(1) and by each organization to administer the program. 

19. The total amount expended by intermediary organizations to provide technical 

assistance to firms under the program nationally and in each region served by 

such an organization. 

 
 

Page 9 of 48

Program Description 

The TAAF program is authorized by Chapters 3 and 5 of Title II of the Trade Act, and is one 

of four distinct programs authorized under the Trade Act. The other TAA programs are TAA 

for Workers and TAA for Community College and Career Training, which are both 

administered by DOL, and TAA for Farmers, which is administered by USDA. 

Exhibit 1: TAA Programs 

The responsibility for administering the TAAF program is delegated to EDA by the Secretary 

of Commerce. 

The mission of the TAAF program is to help import-impacted U.S. manufacturing, 

production and service firms develop and implement projects to regain global 

competitiveness, expand markets, strengthen operations, increase profitability, and create 

jobs. 

Import-impacted U.S. manufacturing, production, and service firms can receive direct 

technical assistance through matching funds provided to Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Centers (TAACs), which the TAACs then use to match the costs for third-party consultants 

to help firms expand markets, strengthen operations and increase competitiveness. Funds are 

not provided directly to firms. 

The program provides assistance to support the development of business recovery plans, 

commonly referred to as “Adjustment Proposals” or “APs,” under Section 252 of the Trade 

Act, and matching funds to implement projects outlined in the APs. These projects may 

cover a range of functional areas to improve a firm’s market position and increase its overall 

competitiveness, including engineering, information technology, management, market 

development, marketing, new product development, quality improvement and sales. 

The national network of 11 independent non-profit or university-affiliated TAACs serve U.S. 

manufacturing, production firms, and service firms in all 50 States, the District of Columbia 
 

Page 10 of 48

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico12. Firms work with the TAACs in a public-private 

collaborative framework to apply for certification of eligibility for TAAF assistance, and 

prepare and implement strategies to guide their economic recovery. 

Exhibit 2: TAACs and their Respective Service Areas13 

TAAC Service Areas 

Great Lakes Indiana, Michigan and Ohio 

Mid-America Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska 

MidAtlantic 

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and 

West Virginia 

Midwest Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin 

New England 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and 

Vermont 

New York, New Jersey and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico New York, New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

Northwest Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington 

Rocky Mountain Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming 

Southeastern 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee 

Southwest Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas 

Western Arizona, California, Hawaii and Nevada 

 

 

12 On September 25, 2015, through Grants.Gov, EDA published a Federal Funding Opportunity Notice 

announcing the availability of funding for the TAAF program. The competition closed on November 24, 2015. 

Through this competition, EDA aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the TAAF program through 

enhanced program performance measurement, decreased program administrative costs, closer alignment of 

geographic service areas of TAACs with the service areas of EDA’s six regional offices, and a more equitable 

distribution of services across all U.S. states and territories. The applicants selected to serve as a TAAC will 

work closely with both EDA and import-impacted firms. EDA started new awards on May 1, 2016. 

13 Ibid. Footnote 12. 
 

Page 11 of 48

Exhibit 3: Program Phases 

There are three main phases to receiving technical assistance under the TAAF program: 

(1) petitioning for certification, (2) recovery planning and (3) AP implementation. 

Phase I - Petitioning for Certification14

The first step to receiving assistance is the submission of a petition to EDA to be certified as 

a trade-impacted firm. A petition is comprised of Form ED-840P, titled Petition by a Firm 

for Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance, and required 

supporting documentation. Generally, certification specialists in the TAACs work with the 

firm at no cost to the firm to complete and submit a petition to EDA. 

Upon receipt of the petition, EDA performs an analysis of the petition and supporting 

documents to determine if the petition is complete and may be accepted. EDA is required to 

make a final determination on the petition within 40 days15 of accepting a petition. 

To certify a firm as eligible to apply for adjustment assistance, the Secretary must determine 

that the following three conditions are met: 

1. A significant number or proportion of the workers in the firm have been or are threatened 

to be totally or partially separated; 

2. Sales and/or production of the firm have decreased absolutely, or sales and/or production 

of an article or service that accounted for at least 25 percent of total production or sales of 

 

14 Upon the enactment of the TAA Reauthorization Act, service sector firms again became eligible for 

assistance. Pursuant to the statute, on June 29, 2015, the TAAF program reverted back to the expanded 

program made effective by TAAEA. This means that as of June 29, 2015, among other things (included but not 

limited to): 

1. Service sector firms are eligible for assistance, 

2. Applicant firms may use a 12-month, 24- or 36-month “look back” period to demonstrate their eligibility, 

and 

3. EDA must make a determination on a petition under the program within 40 days. 15 EDA defines “days” as business days. 
 

Page 12 of 48

the firm during the 12, 24, or 36 months preceding the most recent 12-, 24-, or 36-month 

period for which data are available have decreased absolutely; and 

3. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced or 

services provided by the firm have “contributed importantly” to both the layoffs and the 

decline in sales and/or production. 

Phase II - Recovery Planning 

Certified firms then work with TAAC staff to develop a customized AP for submission to 

EDA for approval. Once an AP has been submitted, EDA is required to make a final 

determination within 60 days16. 

Phase III - AP Implementation 

The firm works with consultants to implement projects in an approved AP. For an AP in 

which proposed tasks total $30,000 or less, EDA provides up to 75 percent of the cost and 

the firm is responsible for the balance. For an AP in which proposed tasks total over 

$30,000, EDA pays 50 percent of the total cost and the firm pays the remaining 50 percent. 

In order to most efficiently and effectively utilize limited program funds, EDA limits its 

share of technical assistance to a certified firm to no more than $75,000. After a competitive 

procurement process, the TAAC and the firm generally contract with private consultants to 

implement the AP. 

As projects are implemented and if the firm is satisfied with the work, the firm will first pay 

their match to the consultant, and then send a notice to the TAAC stating that they are 

satisfied with the work and that they have paid their matching share. The TAAC will then 

pay the Federal matching share. Firms have up to five years from the date of an AP’s 

approval to implement the approved business recovery strategy contained therein, unless they 

receive EDA approval for an extension. Generally, firms complete the implementation of 

their respective APs over a two-year period. 

In general, the TAACs provide an array of services to assist import-impacted firms 

throughout this process, including: 

 Assisting firms in preparing petitions for TAAF. Firms are not charged for any 

assistance related to the preparation of a petition. 

 Once a petition has been approved, TAACs work closely with a firm’s management 

to identify the firm’s strengths and weaknesses and develop a customized business 

strategy (AP) designed to foster competitiveness. The program pays up to 75 percent 

of the cost of developing an AP and the firm must pay the balance. EDA must 

approve all APs to ensure they conform to statutory and regulatory requirements. 

 After an AP has been approved, company management and TAAC staff jointly 

identify consultants with the specific expertise required to assist the firm in 

implementing their competitiveness strategy. 

 

16 Ibid. Footnote 15. 
 

Page 13 of 48

Results/Findings 

Data for This Report 

For the purposes of this report, data are reported only for firms for which all data were 

available. The data used in this report were collected from the TAACs as part of their 

reporting requirements, petitions for certification, and the APs submitted by the TAACs on 

behalf of firms. Eligibility Reviewers at EDA recorded data from these sources into a central 

database. The data presented in this report has been verified by the TAACs. Results for 

average processing times were derived by EDA. Data in this report reflect data as of the end 

of FY 2015. Therefore, data in this Annual Report may differ from previously published data 

that were based on different periods. 

(1) The number of firms that inquired about the program. 

In FY 2015, the TAACs received 1,418 inquiries about the program. 

Exhibit 4: Inquiries about the TAAF program by TAAC 

TAAC 

No. of Firms that 

Inquired about the 

TAAF program 

Great Lakes 74 

Mid-America 200 

Mid-Atlantic 67 

Midwest 67 

New England 44 

New York State 57 

Northwest 59 

Rocky Mountain 90 

Southeastern 80 

Southwest 219 

Western 461 

Total 1,418 

(2) The number of petitions filed under Section 251. 

(3) The number of petitions certified and denied by the Secretary. 

(4) The average time for processing petitions after the petitions are filed. 

EDA received 117 petitions, a 6 percent increase, compared to the number of petitions 

received in FY 2014. EDA filed (accepted for investigation) 117 petitions under Section 251 

of the Trade Act, a 15 percent increase, compared to the number of petitions accepted in FY 

2014. EDA certified 113 petitions, an 8 percent increase, compared to the number of 
 

Page 14 of 48

certifications in FY 2014. Petitions are certified on a rolling basis throughout the year. 

Petitions certified in FY 2015 may be the result of those received or filed (accepted) in FY 

2014, while petitions received or filed (accepted) in FY 2015 may not result in certification in 

FY 2015. 

EDA’s average processing time for petitions (from acceptance to certification) was 16 

business days, a 6 percent decrease compared to the average processing time for petitions in 

FY 2014. EDA is required to process petitions for certification within 40 days of acceptance. 

All petitions certified under the TAAF program were submitted by firms in the 

manufacturing sector. Service sector firms, were not eligible for TAAF assistance between 

January 1, 2014 through June 28, 201517. 

Exhibit 5: Petition Activity: FY 2009 – FY 201518

FY 

No. of 

Petitions 

Received 

No. of 

Petitions 

Accepted 

for Filing 

No. of 

Petitions 

Certified 

No. of 

Petitions 

Denied or 

Withdrawn 

Average 

Days 

Between 

Receipt and 

Acceptance 

(Filing) 

Average 

Days 

Between 

Acceptance 

(Filing) and 

Certification 

Average 

Days 

Between 

Receipt and 

Certification 

2009 276 243 216 1 28 45 70 

2010 311 329 330 0 61 31 74 

2011 128 129 149 22 16 21 36 

2012 85 83 79 3 29 29 58 

2013 104 105 105 1 13 25 37 

2014 110 102 105 1 10 17 26 

2015 117 117 113 1 11 16 26 

+ Change 

(2014 to 

2015) 6% 15% 8% 0% 10% (6%) 0% 

 

17 Ibid. Footnote 14. 

18 Petitions are certified on a rolling basis throughout the year; therefore, activity in these categories may not 

result in certification within the same FY. These totals represent the activity under each category within FY 

2015. 
 

Page 15 of 48

Exhibit 6: Petitions Received by TAAC: FY 2009 – FY 2015 

Exhibit 7: Petitions Accepted by TAAC: FY 2009 – FY 2015 

Exhibit 8: Petitions Certified by TAAC: FY 2009 – FY 2015 

 
 

Page 16 of 48

Exhibit 9: Petitions Received, Accepted, and Certified by TAAC: FY 2015 

Exhibit 10: Petitions Received, Accepted, and Certified by TAAC/State: FY 2015 

TAAC/State 

Petitions 

Received 

Petitions 

Accepted 

Petitions 

Certified 

 

Great Lakes 11 11 10 

IN 2 2 2 

MI 6 6 5 

OH 3 3 3 

Mid-America 13 12 12 

AR 2 1 1 

KS 1 1 2 

MO 10 10 9 

MidAtlantic 18 18 16 

DC 0 0 0 

DE 0 0 0 

MD 1 1 1 

NJ 0 0 0 

PA 16 16 14 

VA 1 1 1 

WV 0 0 0 

Midwest 11 13 12 

IA 0 0 0 

IL 10 10 10 

MN 1 2 1 

WI 0 1 1 

New England 17 16 16 

CT 8 9 9 

MA 5 3 3 

ME 0 0 0 
 

Page 17 of 48

TAAC/State 

Petitions 

Received 

Petitions 

Accepted 

Petitions 

Certified 

NH 1 1 1 

RI 2 2 2 

VT 1 1 1 

New York State 2 2 2 

NY 2 2 2 

Northwest 10 10 10 

AK 1 0 1 

ID 0 0 0 

MT 1 1 1 

OR 4 4 4 

WA 4 5 4 

Rocky Mountain 14 14 16 

CO 7 6 9 

ND 0 1 1 

NE 3 3 2 

NM 2 2 2 

SD 0 0 0 

UT 1 1 1 

WY 1 1 1 

Southeastern 11 11 10 

AL 1 1 1 

FL 1 1 1 

GA 5 5 4 

KY 0 0 0 

MS 0 0 0 

NC 2 2 2 

SC 2 2 2 

TN 0 0 0 

PR 0 0 0 

Southwest 7 8 7 

LA 1 2 2 

OK 1 1 1 

TX 5 5 4 

Western 2 2 2 

AZ 0 0 0 

CA 3 2 2 

NV 0 0 0 

Total 117 117 113 
 

Page 18 of 48

(5) The number of petitions filed and firms certified for each Congressional District in 

the United States. 

Exhibit 11: Petitions Filed (Accepted) and Certified by Congressional District: FY 2015 

TAAC/State 

Congressional 

District 

Petitions 

Accepted 

Petitions 

Certified 

 

Great Lakes 11 10 

IN 2 2 

2 2 2 

MI 6 5 

1 1 1 

2 1 1 

4 1 1 

7 1 1 

10 1 0 

11 1 1 

OH 3 3 

1 1 1 

5 1 1 

10 1 1 

Mid-America 12 12 

AR 1 1 

3 1 1 

KS 1 2 

1 0 1 

4 1 1 

MO 10 9 

1 2 2 

2 1 0 

4 1 1 

5 1 1 

7 2 2 

8 3 3 

MidAtlantic 18 16 

DC 0 0 

DE 0 0 

MD 1 1 

2 1 1 
 

Page 19 of 48

TAAC/State 

Congressional 

District 

Petitions 

Accepted 

Petitions 

Certified 

NJ 0 0 

PA 16 14 

3 6 6 

5 4 3 

8 1 0 

9 1 1 

15 3 3 

18 1 1 

VA 1 1 

5 1 1 

WV 0 0 

Midwest 13 12 

IA 0 0 

IL 10 10 

3 1 1 

4 1 1 

6 2 2 

8 2 2 

12 1 1 

13 1 1 

14 1 1 

17 1 1 

MN 2 1 

1 1 0 

8 1 1 

WI 1 1 

4 1 1 

New England 16 16 

CT 9 9 

1 4 4 

2 1 1 

3 3 3 

5 1 1 

MA 3 3 

2 1 1 

3 1 1 

9 1 1 
 

Page 20 of 48

TAAC/State 

Congressional 

District 

Petitions 

Accepted 

Petitions 

Certified 

ME 0 0 

NH 1 1 

1 1 1 

RI 2 2 

1 2 2 

VT 1 1 

1 1 1 

New York State 2 2 

NY 2 2 

23 1 1 

25 1 1 

Northwest 10 10 

AK 0 1 

At-Large 0 1 

ID 0 0 

MT 1 1 

At-Large 1 1 

OR 4 4 

2 2 2 

4 1 1 

5 1 1 

WA 5 4 

1 1 1 

3 1 0 

8 1 1 

9 2 2 

Rocky Mountain 14 16 

CO 6 9 

1 1 2 

2 1 1 

4 1 1 

5 1 2 

6 0 1 

7 2 2 

ND 1 1 

At-Large 1 1 

NE 3 2 
 

Page 21 of 48

TAAC/State 

Congressional 

District 

Petitions 

Accepted 

Petitions 

Certified 

1 1 1 

3 2 1 

NM 2 2 

1 2 2 

SD 0 0 

UT 1 1 

1 1 1 

WY 1 1 

At-Large 1 1 

Southeastern 11 10 

AL 1 1 

4 1 1 

FL 1 1 

18 1 1 

GA 5 4 

4 1 0 

5 1 1 

9 1 1 

11 2 2 

KY 0 0 

MS 0 0 

NC 2 2 

10 1 1 

12 1 1 

PR 0 0 

SC 2 2 

3 1 1 

4 1 1 

TN 0 0 

Southwest 8 7 

LA 2 2 

1 1 1 

3 1 1 

OK 1 1 

5 1 1 

TX 5 4 

15 1 1 
 

Page 22 of 48

TAAC/State 

Congressional 

District 

Petitions 

Accepted 

Petitions 

Certified 

31 3 2 

32 1 1 

Western 2 2 

AZ 0 0 

CA 2 2 

30 1 1 

45 1 1 

NV 0 0 

Total 117 113 

(6) Of the number of petitions filed, the number of firms that entered the program and received 

benefits19. 

In FY 2015, 117 petitions were accepted (filed) for certification, and 113 were certified. Of the 

113 firms certified in FY 2015, 79 firms submitted and were approved for an AP in the same 

fiscal year20. An additional 41 firms that were certified for TAAF in previous fiscal years were 

also approved for an AP in FY 2015. 

Exhibit 12: Petitions Certified and APs Approved: FY 2015 

TAAC 

No. of Petitions 

Accepted 

No. of Petitions 

Certified 

No. of APs 

Approved for 

Firms Certified 

in same Fiscal 

Year (2015) 

Great Lakes 11 10 5 

Mid-America 12 12 9 

MidAtlantic 18 16 6 

Midwest 13 12 11 

New England 16 16 14 

New York State 2 2 0 

Northwest 10 10 9 

Rocky Mountain 14 16 15 

Southeastern 11 10 6 

Southwest 8 7 3 

Western 2 2 1 

Total 117 113 79 

 

19 Benefits are defined as technical assistance provided to TAAF-certified firms in preparing and implementing 

business recovery plans (APs). 

20 Firms have up to two years from the date of TAAF certification to submit a business recovery plan (AP). 

These totals represent the firms certified for TAAF in FY 2015 that also submitted and received an approved 

business recovery plan in the same fiscal year. The total number of APs approved in FY 2015 is reported in 

Exhibits 17, 18 and 19. 
 

Page 23 of 48

Exhibit 13: TAAF Assistance to Firms: FY 2015 

In FY 2015, 1,062 unique firms received TAAF technical assistance in preparing petitions, 

developing APs, and/or implementing projects in these plans. Although firms may receive 

assistance in all phases of the TAAF program more than once in a single fiscal year, firms 

were counted once in this table. 

 

TAAC TAAF Assistance 

Great Lakes 97 

Mid-America 49 

MidAtlantic 151 

Midwest 222 

New England 81 

New York State 74 

Northwest 73 

Rocky Mountain 111 

Southeastern 115 

Southwest 56 

Western 33 

Total 1,062 

(7) The number of firms that received assistance in preparing their petitions. 

In FY 2015, 295 firms received assistance in preparing petitions. Firms may receive 

assistance in all phases of preparing petitions more than once in a single year. Petition 

assistance rendered may not result in the submission of a petition in the fiscal year. 

Exhibit 14: Petition Assistance Activity: FY 2015 

TAAC Petition Assistance 

Great Lakes 30 

Mid-America 14 

MidAtlantic 28 

Midwest 87 

New England 19 

New York State 35 

Northwest 14 

Rocky Mountain 29 

Southeastern 27 

Southwest 5 

Western 7 

Total 295 
 

Page 24 of 48

(8) The number of firms that received assistance developing business recovery plans. 

In FY 2015, 128 firms received assistance in developing APs and 729 firms received 

assistance in implementing projects in these plans. Firms may receive assistance in 

developing and implementing APs more than once in a single year. AP assistance rendered 

may not result in the submission or implementation of an AP in the current fiscal year. 

Exhibit 15: AP Development Activity: FY 2015 

TAAC 

AP Development 

Assistance 

Great Lakes 17 

Mid-America 11 

MidAtlantic 13 

Midwest 15 

New England 16 

New York State 4 

Northwest 14 

Rocky Mountain 20 

Southeastern 12 

Southwest 2 

Western 4 

Total 128 

Exhibit 16: AP Implementation Activity: FY 2015 

TAAC 

AP Implementation 

Assistance 

Great Lakes 71 

Mid-America 40 

MidAtlantic 62 

Midwest 142 

New England 81 

New York State 37 

Northwest 65 

Rocky Mountain 97 

Southeastern 60 

Southwest 44 

Western 30 

Total 729 
 

Page 25 of 48

(9) The number of business recovery plans approved and denied by the Secretary. 

In FY 2015, EDA approved 120 APs, an increase of 11 percent compared to FY 2014. EDA 

did not deny any AP submitted in FY 2015. EDA successfully met the 60-day processing 

deadline for approval of APs. The average processing time for APs was 12 business days, a 

40 percent increase compared to FY 2014. 

Exhibit 17: Summary of APs Approved: FY 2009 – FY 2015 

FY 

No. of APs 

Approved 

Total 

Government 

Share 

Total Firm 

Share 

Total 

Projected AP 

Costs 

Average 

Government 

Assistance 

Per Firm 

Average 

Days 

Between 

Submission 

and 

Approval 

2009 177 $10,393,639 $9,888,201 $20,281,840 $60,428 20 

2010 265 $16,448,946 $15,743,946 $32,192,892 $62,307 24 

2011 185 $11,075,545 $10,580,545 $21,656,090 $60,522 16 

2012 102 $5,437,455 $5,033,455 $10,470,910 $53,308 21 

2013 114 $6,192,998 $5,775,497 $11,968,495 $54,325 15 

2014 108 $5,354,065 $4,955,057 $10,309,092 $50,038 20 

2015 120 $6,334,449 $5,794,449 $12,128,898 $52,787 12 

Total 1,071 $61,237,097 $57,771,150 $119,008,217 $57,662 1821

% Change 

(2014 to 

2015) 11% 18% 17% 18% 5% (40)% 

Exhibit 18: APs Approved by TAAC: FY 2009 – FY 2015 

 

 

21 Unweighted average. 
 

Page 26 of 48

Exhibit 19: APs Approved by TAAC/State: FY 2015 

TAAC/State 

No. of APs 

Approved 

Government 

Share of 

Approved AP 

Projects 

Firm Share of 

Approved AP 

Projects 

Total 

Approved AP 

Projects 

 

Great Lakes 11 $615,000 $555,000 $1,170,000 

IN 1 $22,500 $7,500 $30,000 

MI 7 $420,000 $390,000 $810,000 

OH 3 $172,500 $157,500 $330,000 

Mid-America 9 $412,500 $337,500 $750,000 

AR 1 $22,500 $7,500 $30,000 

KS 1 $22,500 $7,500 $30,000 

MO 7 $367,500 $322,500 $690,000 

MidAtlantic 9 $522,500 $492,500 $1,015,000 

MD 1 $75,000 $75,000 $150,000 

PA 7 $425,000 $410,000 $835,000 

VA 1 $22,500 $7,500 $30,000 

Midwest 15 $641,774 $521,774 $1,163,548 

IL 14 $619,274 $514,274 $1,133,548 

WI 1 $22,500 $7,500 $30,000 

New England 17 $892,500 $817,500 $1,710,000 

CT 8 $450,000 $420,000 $870,000 

MA 4 $197,500 $182,500 $380,000 

ME 1 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 

NH 1 $22,500 $7,500 $30,000 

RI 2 $97,500 $82,500 $180,000 

VT 1 $75,000 $75,000 $150,000 

New York State 2 $121,750 $121,750 $243,500 

NY 2 $121,750 $121,750 $243,500 

Northwest 11 $594,425 $519,425 $1,113,850 

AK 1 $22,500 $7,500 $30,000 

OR 5 $372,500 $357,500 $730,000 

WA 5 $199,425 $154,425 $353,850 

Rocky Mountain 23 $1,280,000 $1,280,000 $2,560,000 

CO 11 $605,000 $605,000 $1,210,000 

ND 3 $110,000 $110,000 $220,000 

NE 3 $170,000 $170,000 $340,000 

NM 2 $180,000 $180,000 $360,000 

SD 2 $85,000 $85,000 $170,000 

UT 1 $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 
 

Page 27 of 48

TAAC/State 

No. of APs 

Approved 

Government 

Share of 

Approved AP 

Projects 

Firm Share of 

Approved AP 

Projects 

Total 

Approved AP 

Projects 

WY 1 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 

Southeastern 11 $579,000 $534,000 $1,113,000 

AL 1 $14,000 $14,000 $28,000 

FL 1 $22,500 $7,500 $30,000 

GA 6 $347,500 $317,500 $665,000 

NC 3 $195,000 $195,000 $390,000 

Southwest 8 $495,000 $465,000 $960,000 

OK 1 $75,000 $75,000 $150,000 

TX 7 $420,000 $390,000 $810,000 

Western 4 $180,000 $150,000 $330,000 

CA 4 $180,000 $150,000 $330,000 

Total 120 $6,334,449 $5,794,449 $12,128,898 

(10) Average duration of benefits received under the program nationally and in each 

region served by an intermediary organization (the TAAC) referred to in Section 

253(b)(1) of the Trade Act. 

In FY 2015, 153 firms exited the TAAF program after completing the achievable number of 

project or projects in their business recovery plans within the five-year implementation 

period. Nationally, firms receive on average 58 months22 of benefits under the TAAF 

program. 

Exhibit 20: Average Duration of Benefits Received – Firms that Completed Program: 

FY 2015 by TAAC (Region)/Firm 

TAAC 

Average No. of Months Firms 

Received Benefits Under TAAF 

program by TAAC 

Great Lakes 64 

Mid-America 47 

MidAtlantic 52 

Midwest 72 

New England 66 

New York State 57 

Northwest 49 

Rocky Mountain 68 

 

22 Prior to 2008, firms were allowed in excess of five years to complete projects, resulting in a longer than 

average duration of benefits. Currently, firms have five years from the date of AP approval to complete their 

projects. 
 

Page 28 of 48

TAAC 

Average No. of Months Firms 

Received Benefits Under TAAF 

program by TAAC 

Southeastern 37 

Southwest 68 

Western 62 

Total 5823

(11) Sales, employment, and productivity at each firm participating in the TAAF 

program at the time of certification. 

As of the end of FY 2015, 841 active firms with combined sales of $12 billion and a 

workforce of 66,625 are participating in the TAAF program. (See exhibit 21 below for 

figures for each TAAC/State at the time of certification). A firm that has an approved AP, 

has not completed all projects in their AP, and is still engaged in the TAAF program is 

considered “active.” For the purposes of this report, productivity is defined as sales per 

employee. Since the certified firms are in various industries, which have a variety of ways to 

measure productivity, sales per employee is utilized as a standardized measure for assessing 

productivity across all firms assisted. 

Exhibit 21: Sales, Employment, and Productivity24 at the time of Certification for All Firms 

Participating in the TAAF Program in FY 2015 by TAAC and State: 

TAAC/State 

Total No. of 

Active Firms in 

FY 2015 

Total Sales at 

Certification 

Total 

Employment at 

Certification 

Total Average 

Productivity at 

Certification 

Great Lakes 77 $1,597,371,611 9,131 $174,939 

IN 20 $258,227,625 2,189 $117,966 

MI 34 $531,985,145 2,525 $210,687 

OH 23 $807,158,841 4,417 $182,739 

Mid-America 47 $358,238,473 2,793 $128,263 

AR 4 $11,047,751 214 $51,625 

KS 9 $46,869,337 505 $92,811 

MO 34 $300,321,385 2,074 $144,803 

MidAtlantic 116 $1,206,878,428 7,887 $153,021 

MD 5 $18,645,830 162 $115,098 

NJ 4 $26,775,770 218 $122,825 

 

23 Ibid. Footnote 21. 

24 The total productivity as presented across TAACs, States and the summary line of Exhibit 21 represents the 

actual total average productivity in FY 2015. This total, derived by calculating the mean horizontally (not 

vertically), is based on raw data and provides the most accurate representation of productivity for all TAACs 

and States. While this figure is provided in the table, it should be noted that calculating total productivity 

vertically introduces additional degrees of error as it represents the average of averages. 
 

Page 29 of 48

TAAC/State 

Total No. of 

Active Firms in 

FY 2015 

Total Sales at 

Certification 

Total 

Employment at 

Certification 

Total Average 

Productivity at 

Certification 

PA 104 $1,148,372,407 7,320 $156,881 

VA 3 $13,084,421 187 $69,970 

Midwest 142 $2,091,500,939 11,022 $189,757 

IA 5 $114,371,360 471 $242,827 

IL 92 $957,953,284 5,504 $174,047 

MN 18 $147,323,889 1,080 $136,411 

WI 27 $871,852,406 3,967 $219,776 

New England 96 $604,474,386 4,293 $140,805 

CT 20 $172,602,626 982 $175,766 

MA 42 $198,364,020 1,455 $136,333 

ME 10 $88,308,282 664 $132,994 

NH 10 $76,681,303 436 $175,875 

RI 11 $37,241,690 383 $97,237 

VT 3 $31,276,465 373 $83,851 

New York State 40 $362,722,190 2,333 $155,475 

NY 40 $362,722,190 2,333 $155,475 

Northwest 68 $564,164,578 2,795 $201,848 

AK 4 $21,394,284 80 $267,429 

ID 9 $71,868,087 652 $110,227 

MT 7 $36,164,211 253 $142,942 

OR 16 $265,673,016 751 $353,759 

WA 32 $169,064,980 1,059 $159,646 

Rocky Mountain 98 $3,445,648,011 16,548 $208,221 

CO 41 $756,096,429 3,416 $221,340 

ND 10 $210,037,082 999 $210,247 

NE 8 $63,293,370 497 $127,351 

NM 4 $37,182,171 284 $130,923 

SD 11 $797,760,817 3,808 $209,496 

UT 21 $1,456,200,238 7,018 $207,495 

WY 3 $125,077,904 526 $237,791 

Southeastern 53 $471,578,479 4,208 $112,067 

AL 4 $31,642,952 261 $121,237 

FL 4 $2,118,362 16 $132,398 

GA 14 $48,379,663 959 $50,448 

KY 2 $51,085,164 310 $164,791 

MS 2 $20,223,322 208 $97,228 

NC 17 $96,656,560 904 $106,921 

SC 8 $190,837,901 1,393 $136,998 

TN 2 $30,634,555 157 $195,125 
 

Page 30 of 48

TAAC/State 

Total No. of 

Active Firms in 

FY 2015 

Total Sales at 

Certification 

Total 

Employment at 

Certification 

Total Average 

Productivity at 

Certification 

Southwest 71 $367,448,767 3,150 $116,650 

LA 20 $111,742,825 481 $232,314 

OK 20 $125,448,009 1,267 $99,012 

TX 31 $130,257,933 1,402 $92,909 

Western 33 $553,071,960 2,465 $224,370 

AZ 4 $42,071,508 284 $148,139 

CA 25 $481,154,765 1,983 $242,640 

HI 2 $23,068,866 126 $183,086 

NV 2 $6,776,821 72 $94,123 

Total (Nationwide) 841 $11,623,097,822 66,625 $174,45625

(12) Sales, employment, and productivity at each firm upon completion of the program 

and each year for the two-year period following completion. 

(13) The number of firms in operation as of the date of this report and the number of 

firms that ceased operations after completing the program in each year during the 

two-year period following completion of the program. 

Exhibit 22: Summary of Average Sales, Employment, and Productivity at Firms upon 

Completion of the Program, the One-Year and Two-Year Period Following Completion, and 

from Certification to Two-Years Following Completion. 

Certification 

(Firms that 

completed in 

FY 2013) 

Completion 

(FY 2013) 

1st Year 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2014) 

2nd Year 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2015) 

% Change 

1st Year 

after 

Completion 

% Change 

2nd Year 

after 

Completion 

% Change 

Certification 

to 2nd Year 

after 

Completion 

Average 

Sales $9,852,925 $11,627,710 $14,048,005 $13,204,977 21% 14% 34% 

Average 

Employment 79 86 88 89 2% 3% 13% 

Average 

Productivity $124,721 $135,206 $159,636 $148,371 18% 10% 19% 

In order to assess the effectiveness of the TAAF program, EDA evaluates the extent to which 

client firms increased their sales, productivity26, and employment levels following the 

implementation of TAAF-supported projects (program completion). To measure these 

 

25 Ibid. Footnote 24. 

26 Since the certified firms are in various industries, which have a variety of ways to measure productivity, sales 

per employee was chosen as the productivity measure. This measure is used because it can be generally applied 

to all certified firms. 
 

Page 31 of 48

outcomes, EDA compares average sales, average productivity, and average employment of 

all firms completing the program in a particular year (known as the “base year”) to these 

same figures for the same firms at one and two years following program completion. The 

base year used for this report is FY 2013, as this allows EDA to compare these measures 

looking back both one and two years from the date of this FY 2015 report. 

One year after completing the program, firms participating in the TAAF program reported 

that average sales had increased by 20.8 percent, average productivity had increased by 18.1 

percent, and average employment had increased by 2.3 percent from the prior year. By 

comparison, the U.S. Bureau of the Census Annual Survey of Manufacturers (Census) 

reported that, during the same time period, the national manufacturing industry in aggregate 

experienced an average sales increase of 1.2 percent and an average productivity decrease of 

.09 percent, while the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported an average 

employment increase of 1.3 percent. Therefore, TAAF-assisted firms performed better in all 

three measures than the manufacturing industry as a whole during this time period. 

Two years after completing the program, these same firms reported average sales had 

increased by 13.6 percent, average productivity had increased by 9.7 percent, and average 

employment had increased by 3.5 percent from 2013. Meanwhile, BLS reported that the 

manufacturing industry experienced an average employment increase of 2.5 percent from 

201327. 

Additionally, these same firms reported that from the time of petition certification to one 

year after completing the program (a period of six years, on average28), sales increased by 

42.6 percent, productivity increased by 28 percent and employment increased by 11.4 

percent. By comparison, Census reported that, during the same time period, the national 

manufacturing industry in aggregate experienced an average sales increase of 10 percent and 

an average productivity increase of 25 percent, while the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS) reported an average employment decrease of 12 percent. Therefore, TAAF-assisted 

firms performed better in all three measures than the manufacturing industry as a whole 

during this time period. 

Furthermore, all TAAF-assisted firms that completed the program in FY 2013 were in 

operation at the end of FY 2015, indicating strong survival rates for TAAF-assisted firms in 

the face of import pressures. 

 

27 Only employment data – not sales or productivity data – are available for 2015 at the time of this report for 

the manufacturing industry. 

28 Firms average six years from the time of certification to complete the program. Therefore, manufacturing 

industry data are used for the period of 2007 to 2014, as firms completing the program in 2013 would have been 

certified, on average, in 2007. 
Page 32 of 48

Exhibit 23: Sales, Employment, and Productivity at Each Firm at Certification, Completion of the Program 

Following Completion. 

Firm ID 

Average Sales 

at 

Certification 

Average Sales 

at Completion 

(FY 2013) 

Average Sales 

1st Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2014) 

Average Sales 

2nd Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2015) 

Average 

Employment 

at 

Certification 

Average 

Employment 

at 

Completion 

(FY 2013) 

Average 

Employment 

1st Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2014) 

Average 

Employment 

2nd Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2015) 

Average 

Productivity 

at 

Certification 

Avera

Productiv

Completi

(FY 20

GLTAACCMP-001 $773,680 $564,000 $496,000 $430,192 12 8 8 6 $64,473 $70,5GLTAACCMP-002 $7,800,000 $7,868,744 $7,000,000 $8,500,000 39 46 40 43 $200,000 $171,0GLTAACCMP-003 $2,462,235 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 21 10 8 7 $117,249 $150,0MamTAACCMP-001 $16,895,000 $24,433,731 $24,154,744 $21,416,689 152 160 141 110 $111,151 $152,7MamTAACCMP-002 $1,291,000 $2,366,044 $2,780,000 $1,835,650 11 13 11 10 $117,364 $182,0MamTAACCMP-003 $311,000 $400,000 $596,000 $999,650 8 11 12 10 $38,875 $36,3MamTAACCMP-006 $392,000 $160,000 $167,700 $159,000 3 2 3 3 $130,667 $80,0MamTAACCMP-007 $26,340,000 $44,809,000 $47,359,777 $57,745,000 140 111 111 139 $188,143 $403,6MamTAACCMP-008 $2,290,000 $7,351,856 $8,006,000 $10,170,773 24 48 43 46 $95,417 $153,1MamTAACCMP-009 $10,956,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 63 40 33 34 $173,905 $250,0MamTAACCMP-010 $14,759,000 $25,917,000 $27,760,476 $28,974,696 108 127 135 150 $136,657 $204,0MATAACCMP-001 $23,282,141 $34,010,000 $38,855,739 $39,800,000 184 247 271 263 $126,533 $137,6MATAACCMP-002 $9,976,653 $20,230,757 $21,620,000 $15,224,306 62 102 108 106 $160,914 $198,3MATAACCMP-003 $12,369,379 $18,045,997 $20,550,828 $18,694,797 78 106 112 113 $158,582 $170,2MATAACCMP-004 $8,194,926 $9,813,000 $9,129,526 $8,021,208 82 84 76 80 $99,938 $116,8MATAACCMP-005 $1,056,240 $1,740,332 $1,615,000 $1,175,209 20 18 16 17 $52,812 $96,6MWTAACCMP-001 $6,335,000 $7,899,023 $7,906,366 $8,240,000 48 46 47 43 $131,979 $171,7MWTAACCMP-002 $2,491,096 $3,452,782 $2,722,452 $2,800,000 20 24 24 23 $124,555 $143,8MWTAACCMP-003 $7,901,062 $4,800,000 $5,300,000 $5,500,000 25 22 25 30 $316,042 $218,1
Page 33 of 48

Firm ID 

Average Sales 

at 

Certification 

Average Sales 

at Completion 

(FY 2013) 

Average Sales 

1st Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2014) 

Average Sales 

2nd Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2015) 

Average 

Employment 

at 

Certification 

Average 

Employment 

at 

Completion 

(FY 2013) 

Average 

Employment 

1st Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2014) 

Average 

Employment 

2nd Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2015) 

Average 

Productivity 

at 

Certification 

Avera

Productiv

Completi

(FY 20

MWTAACCMP-006 $3,289,000 $4,000,000 $4,600,000 $4,710,000 22 28 29 31 $149,500 $142,8MWTAACCMP-007 $2,823,473 $2,940,000 $2,680,079 $2,700,000 33 26 25 25 $85,560 $113,0MWTAACCMP-008 $54,220,000 $80,000,000 $94,000,000 $101,000,000 320 500 587 604 $169,438 $160,0NWTAACCMP-001 $45,487,000 $60,000,000 $75,891,000 $75,000,000 363 440 534 497 $125,309 $136,3NWTAACCMP-002 $1,051,000 $780,000 $738,000 $750,000 14 10 7 10 $75,071 $78,0NWTAACCMP-003 $3,433,000 $5,900,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 34 41 33 32 $100,971 $143,9NWTAACCMP-004 $764,000 $16,115,000 $19,000,000 $24,000,000 6 35 45 50 $127,333 $460,4NWTAACCMP-005 $42,406,000 $42,000,000 $42,000,000 $44,978,069 243 325 325 325 $174,510 $129,2NWTAACCMP-006 $24,614,000 $8,450,000 $8,324,117 $8,660,000 120 56 58 57 $205,117 $150,8NWTAACCMP-007 $911,000 $854,000 $773,852 $1,094,521 11 10 10 8 $82,818 $85,4NWTAACCMP-008 $1,454,000 $3,500,000 $4,900,000 $5,538,705 18 147 160 48 $80,778 $23,8NWTAACCMP-009 $5,347,000 $13,368,000 $11,705,311 $14,268,000 43 78 57 77 $124,349 $171,3NWTAACCMP-010 $2,918,000 $2,200,000 $2,000,000 $2,350,000 41 33 28 28 $71,171 $66,6NWTAACCMP-011 $990,000 $2,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 35 25 24 21 $28,286 $100,0NWTAACCMP-012 $6,390,000 $18,800,000 $122,275,000 $17,186,000 71 88 88 93 $90,000 $213,6NWTAACCMP-013 $1,099,000 $2,130,000 $3,315,000 $4,633,909 17 20 24 30 $64,647 $106,5NWTAACCMP-014 $728,000 $1,048,544 $1,013,303 $1,194,428 12 15 16 19 $60,667 $69,9NWTAACCMP-015 $4,270,000 $7,623,000 $8,504,437 $9,841,414 52 70 61 79 $82,115 $108,9NWTAACCMP-016 $3,015,000 $1,740,000 $1,609,910 $1,490,870 27 15 15 14 $111,667 $116,0NWTAACCMP-017 $629,000 $645,000 $1,064,109 $2,181,677 5 11 10 15 $125,800 $58,6NWTAACCMP-018 $13,874,000 $17,500,000 $16,700,000 $13,400,000 100 94 94 91 $138,740 $186,1NWTAACCMP-019 $108,000 $135,572 $95,913 $107,149 1 2 2 1 $108,000 $67,7
Page 34 of 48

Firm ID 

Average Sales 

at 

Certification 

Average Sales 

at Completion 

(FY 2013) 

Average Sales 

1st Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2014) 

Average Sales 

2nd Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2015) 

Average 

Employment 

at 

Certification 

Average 

Employment 

at 

Completion 

(FY 2013) 

Average 

Employment 

1st Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2014) 

Average 

Employment 

2nd Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2015) 

Average 

Productivity 

at 

Certification 

Avera

Productiv

Completi

(FY 20

NWTAACCMP-020 $1,766,000 $2,043,000 $1,820,000 $1,840,000 21 31 22 24 $84,095 $65,9NWTAACCMP-021 $10,210,000 $15,000,000 $25,000,000 $35,000,000 90 110 100 109 $113,444 $136,3NWTAACCMP-022 $3,187,000 $2,832,382 $2,863,623 $2,769,813 45 49 38 39 $70,822 $57,8NYSTAACCMP-001 $8,650,171 $7,500,000 $7,750,000 $7,850,000 167 155 157 162 $51,797 $48,3NYSTAACCMP-002 $1,855,202 $1,500,000 $1,550,000 $1,650,000 19 15 17 20 $97,642 $100,0NYSTAACCMP-003 $39,632,756 $40,000,000 $41,000,000 $42,000,000 451 450 460 465 $87,878 $88,8NYSTAACCMP-004 $5,870,008 $4,900,000 $5,000,000 $5,100,000 156 150 150 156 $37,628 $32,6NYSTAACCMP-005 $3,379,076 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,750,000 29 27 29 30 $116,520 $111,1NYSTAACCMP-006 $10,578,429 $9,500,000 $10,000,000 $10,500,000 104 99 102 105 $101,716 $95,9NYSTAACCMP-007 $8,662,992 $8,600,000 $9,000,000 $9,100,000 115 115 120 120 $75,330 $74,7NYSTAACCMP-008 $15,690,666 $21,000,000 $25,343,000 $18,999,000 102 144 140 125 $153,830 $145,8NYSTAACCMP-009 $130,195 $136,000 $140,000 $142,000 8 6 6 6 $16,274 $22,6NYSTAACCMP-010 $22,665,739 $9,000,000 $5,100,000 $10,300,000 160 70 72 72 $141,661 $128,5NYSTAACCMP-011 $2,282,162 $2,400,000 $2,500,000 $2,600,000 26 26 27 27 $87,775 $92,3NYSTAACCMP-012 $12,800,000 $16,000,000 $16,200,000 $16,250,000 119 155 155 156 $107,563 $103,2RMTAACCMP-001 $2,441,865 $5,800,000 $6,771,135 $7,224,462 10 23 26 21 $244,187 $252,1RMTAACCMP-002 $1,354,620 $3,158,638 $3,874,210 $3,579,787 10 16 18 17 $135,462 $197,4RMTAACCMP-003 $2,740,402 $8,219,172 $10,143,694 $9,135,193 17 27 26 29 $161,200 $304,4RMTAACCMP-004 $24,766,900 $17,923,031 $14,242,300 $21,500,000 89 62 60 64 $278,280 $289,0RMTAACCMP-005 $9,384,554 $8,300,000 $13,151,000 $13,954,000 68 75 133 137 $138,008 $110,6SETAACCMP-001 $102,461,573 $93,000,000 $101,000,000 $100,200,000 738 660 630 650 $138,837 $140,9SETAACCMP-002 $943,348 $1,138,766 $1,407,000 $1,632,597 10 9 13 12 $94,335 $126,5
Page 35 of 48

Firm ID 

Average Sales 

at 

Certification 

Average Sales 

at Completion 

(FY 2013) 

Average Sales 

1st Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2014) 

Average Sales 

2nd Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2015) 

Average 

Employment 

at 

Certification 

Average 

Employment 

at 

Completion 

(FY 2013) 

Average 

Employment 

1st Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2014) 

Average 

Employment 

2nd Yr. 

Following 

Completion 

(FY 2015) 

Average 

Productivity 

at 

Certification 

Avera

Productiv

Completi

(FY 20

SETAACCMP-003 $12,641,957 $13,702,872 $13,750,000 $15,582,000 68 101 101 115 $185,911 $135,6SETAACCMP-004 $4,321,781 $7,440,417 $8,500,000 $10,000,000 76 75 95 120 $56,866 $99,2SETAACCMP-005 $8,596,576 $7,332,800 $6,739,200 $6,700,000 115 80 77 73 $74,753 $91,6SETAACCMP-006 $15,967,259 $7,923,431 $8,383,164 $9,696,430 145 97 76 82 $110,119 $81,6SETAACCMP-007 $265,252 $867,000 $1,093,946 $2,100,000 6 12 14 19 $44,209 $72,2SETAACCMP-008 $834,971 $2,017,149 $2,134,611 $2,211,099 9 12 11 12 $92,775 $168,0SETAACCMP-009 $3,905,677 $6,439,574 $7,911,851 $8,000,000 74 61 70 77 $52,779 $105,5SETAACCMP-010 $801,585 $807,232 $750,000 $550,000 10 14 14 10 $80,159 $57,6Total Average $9,852,925 $11,627,710 $14,048,005 $13,204,977 79 86 88 89 $124,721 $135,2
 

Page 36 of 48

(14) The financial assistance received by each firm participating in the program. 

(15) The financial contribution made by each firm participating in the program. 

In FY 2015, firms received $9 million worth of technical assistance provided to prepare petitions 

and to develop and implement APs (often through business consultants and other experts). Funds 

are not provided directly to firms; instead, EDA funds the TAACs, who either provide technical 

assistance themselves or pay a portion of the cost to secure specialized business consultants, for 

which firms pay a matching share. The firms represented in this report paid nearly $6 million to 

match TAAF funds towards the development and implementation of APs. 

Exhibit 24: Summary of TAAC Financial Assistance and Matching Firm Contributions: FY 2015 

TAAC 

Total TAAC 

Assistance29

Financial 

Contribution by 

the Firms 

Great Lakes $810,019 $405,843 

Mid-America $643,375 $431,881 

MidAtlantic $961,631 $871,272 

Midwest $1,095,196 $772,292 

New England $1,285,243 $1,100,207 

New York State $472,330 $309,811 

Northwest $1,119,608 $484,859 

Rocky Mountain $1,385,604 $848,071 

Southeastern $657,789 $267,468 

Southwest $352,865 $202,486 

Western $688,038 $151,278 

Total $9,471,698 $5,845,468 

(16) The types of technical assistance included in the business recovery plans of firms participating 

in the program. 

TAACs reported that Marketing/Sales projects accounted for 39 percent of all projects. 

Marketing/Sales projects are geared toward increasing revenue, whereas Production projects tend 

to be geared toward cutting costs. Support Systems projects can provide a competitive advantage 

by either cutting costs or creating new sales channels. Management and Financial projects are 

designed to improve management’s decision making ability and business control. 

Additionally, 19 percent of all projects focused on developing or increasing export opportunities 

for TAAF-assisted firms. 

Sample projects are listed in Exhibit 25. 

 

 

29 This does not include the amount expended by the TAACs for outreach to potential new firms. 
 

Page 37 of 48

Exhibit 25: Characteristics of Technical Assistance in APs: FY 2015 

Project 

Classification Sample Types of Projects 

Number of AP 

Projects30

AP Project 

Costs 

Financial 

 Accounting systems upgrade 

 Cost Control tracking system 

 Automatic Data Processing development 17 $195,000 

Management 

 Strategic business planning 

 Succession management 

 Management development 43 $564,500 

Marketing/Sales 

 Sales process training 

 Market expansion and feasibility 

 Website design and upgrade 167 $4,825,198 

Production 

 Lean manufacturing and certification 

 New Product Development 

 Production and Warehouse automation 111 $3,770,700 

Support Systems 

 Enterprise Resource Planning 

 Management Information Systems upgrades 

 Computer Aided Design software 90 $2,773,500 

Exhibit 26: APs by Project Classification: FY 2015 

 

30 A firm may have up to five projects in an approved AP. 
 

Page 38 of 48

(17) The number of firms leaving the program before completing the project or projects in 

their business recovery plans and the reason the project or projects were not 

completed. 

In FY 2015, 23 firms left the TAAF program before completing the project or projects in their 

business recovery plans for the other reasons listed below in Exhibit 27. 

Exhibit 27: Summary of Firms Leaving the TAAF program: FY 2015 

Reason for Leaving Program Number of Firms 

Firm did not move forward with AP implementation 10

Out of business 8

Firm was acquired or sold 2

Bankruptcy 2

Firm did not move forward with AP preparation 1

Total 23 

Exhibit 28: Summary of Firms that Exited the TAAF program for All Reasons: FY 2015 

 
 

Page 39 of 48

(18) The total amount expended by all intermediary organizations referred to in Section 253(b)(1) 

and by each organization to administer the program. 

Exhibit 29: Summary of Expenditures by TAAC Across Budget Categories: FY 2015 

TAAC 

Personnel 

(including 

Fringe 

Benefits) 

Contracts 

(Federal 

Share) Travel 

Equipment 

and Supplies Other 

Indirect 

Costs31

Total TAAC 

Expenditures 

Great Lakes $500,555 $451,026 $7,800 $11,383 $23,196 $287,351 $1,281,311 

Mid-America $473,077 $403,666 $5,562 $2,317 $50,364 $233,492 $1,168,478 

MidAtlantic 32 $420,778 $608,342 $25,391 $32,316 $169,544 $0 $1,256,371 

Midwest 33 $590,870 $841,226 $4,255 $9,753 $133,148 $0 $1,579,252 

New England 34 $379,201 $1,095,227 $8,812 $18,674 $76,499 $0 $1,578,413 

New York State $367,984 $308,564 $1,712 $5,691 $53,563 $75,420 $812,934 

Northwest 35 $503,706 $549,688 $13,874 $16,275 $190,061 $0 $1,273,604 

Rocky Mountain $619,967 $863,772 $7,172 $2,064 $62,866 $166,351 $1,722,192 

Southeastern $637,177 $309,036 $9,005 $4,248 $0 $336,543 $1,296,009 

Southwest $395,218 $229,438 $7,104 $3,175 $10,967 $85,251 $731,153 

Western $389,704 $303,995 $9,533 $4,212 $10,938 $148,586 $866,968 

Total $5,278,237 $5,963,980 $100,220 $110,108 $781,146 $1,332,994 $13,566,685 

 

31 Indirect Costs, referred to as facilities and administrative (F&A) costs, include space rent and utilities, telephone, 

postage, printing, and other administrative costs. University-affiliated TAACs have indirect cost rate agreements that 

cannot exceed the current rate negotiated with their cognizant Federal agency (non EDA/DOC). These costs are 

captured on the indirect cost line item on the Application for Federal Assistance, SF-424 (Form SF-424). 32 Non-profit TAACs do not have indirect cost rate agreements as they do not receive other Federal funds; instead, 

they categorize similar expenditures in their “Other” line item of their Form SF-424. 

33 Ibid. Footnote 32. 

34 Ibid. Footnote 32. 

35 Ibid. Footnote 32. 
 

Page 40 of 48

(19) The total amount expended by intermediary organizations to provide technical assistance to 

firms under the program nationally and in each region served by such an organization. 

In FY 2015, TAACs expended $11 million in outreach and technical assistance to firms for the 

preparation of petitions, and the development and implementation of APs (often through business 

consultants and other experts). Funds are not provided directly to firms; instead, EDA funds the 

TAACs, and TAACs use the funds to provide the cost-shared proportion of the cost to secure 

specialized business consultants. 

Exhibit 30: Summary of Expenditures - Technical Assistance to Firms by TAAC: FY 2015 

TAAC 

TAAC 

Expenditure - 

Outreach 

TAAC 

Expenditures - 

Petitions 

TAAC 

Expenditures - 

APs 

Total TAAC 

Expenditures 

Great Lakes $256,724 $358,993 $451,026 $1,066,743 

Mid-America $19,337 $161,210 $482,165 $662,712 

MidAtlantic $110,317 $756,109 $205,522 $1,071,948 

Midwest $81,021 $253,970 $841,226 $1,176,217 

New England $29,396 $188,529 $1,096,714 $1,314,639 

New York State $20,825 $157,766 $314,564 $493,155 

Northwest $94,893 $569,920 $549,688 $1,214,501 

Rocky Mountain $59,733 $521,832 $863,772 $1,445,337 

Southeastern $168,054 $348,934 $308,855 $825,843 

Southwest $63,148 $123,078 $229,787 $416,013 

Western $163,835 $232,765 $455,273 $851,873 

Total $1,067,283 $3,673,106 $5,798,592 $10,538,981 

 
 

Page 41 of 48

“And we, in both government and business, must choose a path forward that keeps our 

manufacturers a step ahead, keeps our economy globally competitive, and keeps America open 

for business.” 36 – U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker

Conclusion 

EDA’s TAAF program produces strong results: 

 One year after completing the program, firms participating in the TAAF program reported 

that average sales had increased by 20.8 percent, average productivity had increased by 

18.1 percent, and average employment had increased by 2.3 percent from the prior year. 

By comparison, the U.S. Bureau of the Census Annual Survey of Manufacturers (Census) 

reported that, during the same time period, the national manufacturing industry in 

aggregate experienced an average sales increase of 1.2 percent and an average 

productivity decrease of .09 percent, while the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

reported an average employment increase of 1.3 percent. Therefore, TAAF-assisted firms 

performed better in all three measures than the manufacturing industry as a whole during 

this time period. 

 These same firms reported that from the time of petition certification to one year after 

completing the program (a period of six years, on average 37), sales increased by 42.6 

percent, productivity increased by 28 percent, and employment increased by 11.4 percent. 

By comparison, Census reported that, during the same time period, the national 

manufacturing industry in aggregate experienced an average sales increase of 10 percent 

and an average productivity increase of 25 percent, while the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) reported an average employment decrease of 12 percent. Therefore, 

TAAF-assisted firms performed better in all three measures than the manufacturing 

industry as a whole during this time period. 

 Furthermore, all TAAF-assisted firms that completed the program in FY 2013 were in 

operation at the end of FY 2015, indicating strong survival rates for TAAF-assisted firms 

in the face of import pressures. 

The recently completed TAAF funding competition is expected to lead to improved efficiency 

and effectiveness of the TAAF program through enhanced program performance measurement, 

decreased program administrative costs, closer alignment of geographic service areas of TAACs 

with the service areas of EDA’s six regional offices, and a more equitable distribution of services 

across all U.S. States and territories. 

Perhaps most importantly, the terms and conditions of the new grant awards resulting from the 

competition require selected TAACs to better coordinate with EDA Regional Offices and 

complementary Federal programs that provide, or could provide, comprehensive assistance to 

import-impacted firms and communities in order to maximize the impact of Federal dollars and 

avoid duplicative efforts. Examples of such Federal programs include, but are not limited to, the 

 

36 U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker’s speech describing her vision of a path forward for innovation in U.S. 

manufacturing at the American Energy and Manufacturing Competitiveness Summit, hosted by the U.S. Department 

of Energy and the Council on Competitiveness, September 16, 2015. 

37 Ibid. Footnote 9. 
 

Page 42 of 48

National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

(MEP) Centers, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers 

program, U.S. Export Assistance Centers, Regional DOL Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA) offices, Workforce Investment Boards, and relevant private industry 

groups. 

 
 

Page 43 of 48

Supplement 

Examples of TAAF Program Benefits to Manufacturing Firms 

As can be seen in the examples provided, the TAAF service model enables long-term 

engagements, delivers comprehensive assistance, provides great flexibility in the nature, timing, 

and staffing of business improvement projects, and can be agile and responsive, leveraging 

opportunities and modifying priorities. TAACs work with firms with an understanding of their 

unique circumstances integrated into and supporting their competitive strengths, not just trying to 

remedy their internal weaknesses. All of these qualities drive the program’s effectiveness in 

successfully assisting small distressed firms.

Great Lakes Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (GLTAAC) 

A contract manufacturer of cable assemblies in Ohio had long been losing business to low-cost 

imports, when its largest customer abruptly replaced $5 million of purchases from them with 

Chinese products. This led to an almost 20 percent drop in sales at the firm, which in turn forced 

layoffs that reduced the workforce to just over 100. The firm completed nine TAAF projects. 

These included multiple Lean Manufacturing and Lean Six Sigma initiatives. The firm also used 

the program to implement worker training and quality system projects, as well as to prepare itself 

for International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) certification. Results have been impressive. 

Sales and employment have more than doubled since starting TAAF, and the firm has 

significantly increased its high-margin business. 

A Michigan manufacturer of custom packaging was increasingly finding itself on the losing end 

of competitions with manufacturers from China, Mexico, and Canada. To win back business, the 

company needed to improve productivity so that it could reduce its costs and pricing. It also 

needed to increase efficiencies throughout the business to support these efforts and to improve 

customer service. The firm used TAAF funds to complete three projects over the next five years 

to address these issues. This company completed the program in FY15. Its competitiveness is 

greatly improved, and the firm is growing again. The firm even recently won a regional Exporter 

of the Year award. It currently employs 112 workers and generates annual sales of $17 million. 

Mid-America Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (MamTAAC) 

A cellular tower manufacturer in Missouri has been receiving assistance from MamTAAC since 

June 2013 to improve training, marketing, and advertising. The Company’s fortunes had soared 

building cellular towers during the tech boom of the early millennium, but they nosedived when 

wireless communications companies halted construction after 9/11. As the result of TAAF 

assistance and other measures, the vice president reports that the Company is having a record year 

in sales and profit, adding 20 new employees in about a year, bringing the total to about 50. The 

business revenues were $6.8 million when entering the TAAF program. Two years into the 

program, sales have already increased to $8.5 million. 

A Missouri manufacturer of awnings, canopies, tension structures, and exhibit components 

established in 1941 started using the services of MamTAAC in May 2011. This business used 

TAAF funds to implement 19 projects to improve their company in the following areas: 

extensively trained personnel on a new phone technology that integrates their phone system with 

their computers, upgraded training for new programs on their CNC router table, provided monthly 

leadership training for their newly appointed Operation Manager (first time position in their 
 

Page 44 of 48

company), and contracted with a facilitator that provides guidance to the company’s Strategic 

Planning Team. As a result, this business was able to more than double their revenue from $5 

million to $10.7 million and increase employment from 40 to 64 from the time of entering to the 

time of completing the TAAF program. 

MidAtlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (MATAAC) 

A Pennsylvania firm was in its third year of decline when it entered into TAAF through 

MATAAC. The company manufactures precision plastic parts for the electronics, automotive, 

medical device, and defense industries. When growing imports caused sales to drop 20 percent, 

more than 18 percent of the workforce had to be let go. With TAAF assistance, the firm 

implemented a dozen projects covering: strategic planning, marketing, and a variety of 

manufacturing systems training. As a result, sales are up 151 percent, employment has increased 

58 percent, earnings have grown 43 percent, and productivity has improved 59 percent. 

A New Jersey maker of orthopedic, prosthetic and surgical medical devices entered TAAF two 

years into its decline because of imports. At the time the firm entered the program, sales had 

dropped 19 percent, profits were off by 47 percent, and productivity had declined 4 percent. With 

MATAAC’s assistance, the company implemented 20 projects addressing: ISO registration, 

product engineering/design, marketing strategy, information technology, and website 

development. As a result, sales are up more than 20 percent, earnings have improved 81 percent, 

and productivity has grown 83 percent.

Midwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (MWTAAC) 

A 125-year-old Illinois custom food concession and food processing manufacturer was having 

product designs copied and sold at half the cost by firms located in Asia. Multi-year year sales 

for the firm diminished considerably, and the company was forced to reduce its skilled production 

workers as a result. The MWTAAC assisted the firm with technical assistance focusing on new 

product development including design, engineering, testing, and electronic standards certification. 

Once new products were developed, TAAF assistance was used to successfully brand and market 

the products in both domestic and export markets. Further enhancements involving real-time data 

management and integrating production with a Customer Relationship Management system 

allowed the firm to capitalize on the innovation. The results were an $18 million increase in 

annual sales and a 65 percent increase in total workers from the company’s entrance into the 

program. 

A Minnesota-based manufacturer of basic commercial and residential electrostatic air filters had 

been producing these types of products for over 40 years. Producing this product involved lowcomplexity manufacturing operations, and as a result, the company’s entire catalog was easily 

copied and sold for nearly half the cost by competitors based in China. Sales had declined by 15 

percent, and the company had laid off nearly six percent of skilled production workers prior to 

entry into TAAF. The MWTAAC provided technical assistance which allowed the firm to retire 

existing products that were being copied and replace them with innovative, high-tech products 

which were market-specific. Once the product-line was upgraded, the program provided 

assistance with marketing and translation projects in order to expand exports. Production was 

also improved incorporating lean manufacturing methods, systems, and training in order to reduce 

production costs. Lastly, the company used TAAF assistance to enter the expanding 

environmental market with its basic yet efficient air filters by meeting European standards for 

production that Chinese competitors were not able to copy. The firm experienced a 30 percent 

increase in sales, and employment has remained stable. 
 

Page 45 of 48

New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (NETAAC) 

A Maine manufacturer of acoustic guitars expanded from two models to six models that helped 

sales grow to a peak of $1.1 million in 2007. They began seeing a combination of the global 

recession and increasing low-priced foreign competition that had caused a decline in sales to 

approximately $850,000 in 2010, when the firm reached out to NETAAC for assistance. Since 

entering the TAAF program, sales have increased from $850,000 to $1.7 million, and new 

customers have been sold to in eight new states domestically plus Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, 

China, and countries in Europe. Exports account for 30 percent of their production at this time, 

up dramatically from under 20 percent (and 20 percent of approximately half of their current sales 

volume). The company employed ten workers upon entering the program, and they now have 14 

workers, including several key new hires in digital marketing. 

A New Hampshire manufacturer of low-tolerance, precision metal panels, primarily from steel 

and aluminum, produces customer specific products. The firm struggled from import competition 

primarily from China, which has a marked advantage due to low labor rates, and to a lesser degree 

from Mexico. The firm reached out to NETAAC for assistance in 2010 with sales at $2.3 million. 

Since entering the TAAF Program, sales have increased to $3.1 million. The firm worked with a 

financial consultant, who spent many hours formulating their financial structure and explaining 

the importance of ratios and milestones to make the firm financially secure, as well as negotiation 

and restructuring of current loans. They created a marketing plan, and of 20 current accounts, 14 

accounts are new since entering the TAAF program and represent 65 percent of the revenue. 

New York State Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (NYSTAAC)38

One client firm is a privately held, woman owned and operated furniture manufacturer located in 

upstate New York. The firm custom designs “one office at a time” as a shift away from the large 

imports that focus on big project based orders. However, imports have had a significant effect on 

the US furniture market. Two years prior to certification, the firm had 29 employees who 

produced annual sales of $2.2 million. At certification, the competition from imports had caused 

a decline in sales to an annual figure of $1.9 million and employment had shrunk to 23. The 

NYSTAAC in FY 2015 helped implement two very important projects for the client firm to bring 

about improvements to the facility and the production area. This focus on production efficiencies 

has had very positive result for the firm. Annual sales have increased since certification by nearly 

50 percent to $2.9 million, and employment has increased to 34 to keep up with increased sales. 

Sales are increasing at a faster rate than employment due to the effects of more efficient 

manufacturing. 

Another woman-owned corporation, located on Long Island, New York, has over 20 years of 

experience in manufacturing high quality miniature fasteners. For years, the firm has been 

suffering from the adverse effects of foreign competition from China. The combination of foreign 

imports and a less than robust economy led to sharp declines in sales and employment. Two 

years prior to certification, the firm recorded annual sales of $2.6 million and employed 15 

individuals. At certification, sales had decreased to $1.9 million, while employment dropped to 

12. The NYSTAAC and the client firm agreed that it was in the best interest of the firm to seek 

International Organization for Standardization certification, because many of the firm’s potential 

customers were requiring this in order to do business with suppliers. Annual sales have now 

 

38 Effective May 1, 2016, the name of the NYSTAAC changed to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Center Serving 

the States of New York, New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 
 

Page 46 of 48

increased to $4.4 million and total employment has grown to 25 workers. These represent a 132 

percent growth in sales and over a 100 percent increase in employment. 

Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (NWTAAC) 

An Alaskan producer of high quality, wild Alaskan salmon, halibut, rockfish, and cod, and other 

fish products in many forms and varieties for both wholesale and retail markets which has been 

operating for 34 years faced competition from fresh farmed salmon produced by Canada, Norway 

and Chile. Additionally, imports of wild caught Alaskan salmon from Chinese, Korean, or Thai 

processors were increasing. TAAF assistance in the areas of marketing and promotion to build 

name recognition and targeting markets willing to pay for the superior quality of the product had 

dramatic results. Sales have increased by 375 percent, and employment has increased by 360 

percent. The client states the company is now fully realizing the benefits of the projects they 

completed with the funding. 

A Montana firm consisting of a lumber mill and a structural glued lumber plant is the largest 

private employer in the area and had been facing increasing softwood lumber imports from 

Canada for some years. The firm implemented a retrenchment strategy, reducing their operating 

scenario to keep losses at a minimum while retaining critical employees and core customers. 

Increased efficiency, both with their premium products and by-products, was achieved through 

several TAAF funded projects. Information systems upgrades provided for increased efficiency 

in internal operations and tracking, and two projects focused on plant engineering and efficiency 

programs resulted in improved job flow and hard dollar savings in plant operations and 

production. Sales have increased by 51 percent. 

Rocky Mountain Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (RMTAAC) 

A North Dakota manufacturer of specialized agricultural equipment faced increasing foreign 

competition when it entered the TAAF program in 2014. The firm benefited from TAAF 

technical assistance to generate significant improvements in its marketing communications. Since 

entering the TAAF program, the firm has returned to growth, with the marketing investments 

helping it achieve sales growth of 35 percent, with a similar increase in the level of employment. 

The investments in marketing have helped the company smooth the ups and downs of the 

agricultural market by enabling it to pivot its production facility into related fabricated metal 

products. 

An innovative Utah manufacturing firm produces a full line of residential safes, including home, 

gun, office, and commercial safes. Faced with intense foreign competition, primarily from China, 

this Utah area manufacturer entered the TAAF program determined to reduce operating costs, 

eliminate waste, and increase sales to improve productivity and profitability. The firm was 

awarded TAAF funding to implement strategic Lean Manufacturing projects and Kaizen events 

focused on improving operating efficiency. The firm also committed to numerous training events, 

resulting in a reduction in operating costs that actually improved their bottom line. This firm has 

benefited significantly from the TAAF program. Since entering the TAAF program, sales at the 

company are up more than 50 percent, and the company’s employment has doubled to nearly 500 

employees. 

 
 

Page 47 of 48

Southeastern Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (SETAAC) 

A North Carolina metal fabrication and assembly facility turned to SETAAC for assistance when 

it first started experiencing increased import competition in 2013. After entering the TAAF 

program, the firm began working with several consultants in the areas of management, operations, 

and marketing. When the firm first applied for assistance in 2013, it employed ten people, and 

sales hovered at approximately $1.2 million. In three years, and after spending $75,000 of 

Federal funding on cost-share technical assistance, the firm has added 13 full-time employees and 

sales have increased to just over $2.5 million. 

In 2010, a Georgia manufacturer of solid wood counter tops and vanities faced stiff competition 

from foreign imports and from European manufacturers from raw materials. The firm called on 

SETAAC for assistance; together, the firm and SETAAC determined that the company’s 

marketing efforts had fallen out of step with the times in reaching customers who had shifted 

from buying new homes to remodeling their current ones. The firm received $75,000 in costshare technical assistance from SETAAC, and was able to make much needed modifications to its 

website, update its sales and marketing literature, engage in new product design, and hire a 

marketing consultant. The firm completed its work with SETAAC in 2016 and realized an 

increase in annual sales of over $250,000, with employment holding constant at 20. 

Southwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (SWTAAC) 

A Texas manufacturer, founded in 1985, produces premium grade modified bitumen membrane 

and other high performance roofing materials. The top importer into the United States is Canada, 

with 54 percent of international imports followed by Italy and Japan. The SWTAAC’s analysis 

diagnosed the manufacturer as needing assistance in its marketing and support systems areas. The 

company has completed several projects that have positively impacted the firm’s business, 

including updating its website. Its website is now user friendly and more appealing to clients, 

which has increased its customer base. The firm has also used TAA funds for product testing 

certifications, which have allowed the firm to generate new revenue streams, specifically 

penetrating the lucrative Florida roofing market, due to its seasonal hurricane season. The firm’s 

sales were $21.7 million in 2014 compared to $24.7 million at the date of certification. Their 

employee count is 40 compared to 41 at the date of certification. 

A New Orleans, Louisiana, producer of fully cooked, ready to serve food entrees for institutional 

use offers various foods in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 

Tennessee, and their home state of Louisiana. When certified in 2012, the firm was being 

negatively impacted by imports from Canada, Mexico and Japan. The SWTAAC’s analysis 

diagnosed the firm as needing assistance in the areas of marketing and sales methodology and 

support systems. The projects funded by TAAF were designed to improve its production and 

optimize the firm’s operational efficiencies. This Louisiana food producer has completed all its 

outlined projects, and through the process, it discovered some of its foods were Gluten Free, 

something it was previously unaware of. The firm immediately started a marketing/promotional 

campaign for a new product line for “Gluten Free” foods, which now generates 5% of their total 

sales. Also, by implementing the new marketing campaign for the Gluten Free products, it caught 

the attention of Costco, the big box retailer. Currently, the firm is in preliminary discussions with 

Costco about its products and capacities. The firm’s sales were $1.6 million in 2014 compared to 

$1 million at the date of certification. Their employee count is eight versus seven employees at 

certification. 

 
 

Page 48 of 48

Western Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (WTAAC) 

A recent California program graduate and plastic injection mold manufacturer who specializes in 

quality precision plastic parts production and turnkey manufacturing solutions turned to the 

TAAF program for technical assistance. The company is a full service contract manufacturer 

equipped to support prototype, pre-production and plastic production component orders. During 

the two years prior to certification, the company suffered reduced annual sales in key product 

lines due to increasing foreign competition. Annual sales in those product lines decreased 6 

percent to $8.7 million in 2007, with employment decreasing 10 percent to 85 during this period. 

The firm implemented the following projects to become competitive: marketing with website 

upgrades, information technology production software training for staff and quality management 

training to ensure compliance was being met for its customers. As a result of the TAAF’s 

technical assistance, sales increased 92 percent to $16.6 million, employment increased 53 

percent to 130 employees, and productivity improved 25 percent to $128,238 sales per employee. 

A California company specializing in the design and manufacture of packaging supplies suffered 

from continued shrinking market share due to increasing low cost foreign competition, primarily 

from China. As a result, 2007 sales decreased 17 percent, and employment decreased 14 percent 

from 2005. The company became certified as trade impacted in 2007. The company’s 

management, with technical assistance from the TAAF program, developed a strategy to improve 

efficiency, increase productivity, and develop and brand a sustainable, green packaging initiative 

to keep current with increasing customer demand. The company is in its post-implementation 

phase of the TAAF program, and it has successfully implemented eight projects totaling $49,600 

in matching TAAF funds. They include: four information technology projects, two quality 

management system development projects, one general management project, and one marketing 

project. Since beginning its partnership with the TAAF program, sales increased 22 percent to 

$17 million, employment increased by 63 percent to 68, and 18 new jobs were created.