July 2000 Bulletin Number 871

Evaluating the Social and Economic FactorsRelated to Successful Labor Force Development

for the Value-added Forest Products Industryin Northwestern Louisiana

Pamela A. Monroe, Lydia B. Blalock and Richard P. Vlosky

2

Louisiana State University Agricultural CenterWilliam B. Richardson, Chancellor

Louisiana Agricultural Experiment StationR. Larry Rogers, Vice Chancellor and Director

The Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station providesequal opportunities in programs and employment.

This research was made possible by grantsfrom the U.S. Department of Commerce,Economic Development Administration,

The Coordinating & Development Corporationin Shreveport, Louisiana,

and the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station.

3

The authors are, respectively, Professor, School of Human Ecology; Instructor and DoctoralCandidate, School of Human Ecology; and Associate Professor, Louisiana Forest ProductsLaboratory, School of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, Louisiana State University AgriculturalCenter, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Evaluating the Social and Economic FactorsRelated to Successful Labor Force Development

for the Value-added Forest Products Industryin Northwestern Louisiana

Pamela A. MonroeLydia B. Blalock

Richard P. Vlosky

4

Table of Contents

Introduction ..........................................................................................5

Methods of Investigation ...................................................................8

Socio-economic Profile of the Study Parishes

and the Region ............................................................................. 11

Pool of Eligible Workers ...................................................................19

Industry Labor Skill Needs ..............................................................19

Recommendations .............................................................................23

Summary .............................................................................................26

References ...........................................................................................29

5

IntroductionAn innovative approach has been developed at the Louisiana

Forest Products Laboratory to alleviate chronic long-term eco-nomic deterioration and to stimulate economic development inrural resource-based regions (Vlosky, Chance, Monroe, Hughesand Blalock, 1998a; 1998b). Targeting the secondary forest prod-ucts industry as a driver for economic development, the method-ology addresses a number of areas including markets for value-added products, potential economic outcomes based on variousindustry development scenarios, industry labor skill require-ments, training needs and socioeconomic factors that have animpact on or influence the labor market. The goal is to developthe secondary forest products industry while adding value toexisting resources, creating employment opportunities withtransferable skills and maintaining the stewardship of renewableresources in rural communities.

Many states and regions in the United States are diversifyingrural economic opportunities through forest resource basedindustry sector development. Kentucky, Maine, Oregon, Pennsyl-vania and Washington are examples of states taking advantage offorest resources to improve economic conditions within theirborders (Jones and Koester, 1989). In this study, industry develop-ment opportunities specific to northwest Louisiana were exam-ined. The study region included the parishes of Bienville, Bossier,Caddo, Claiborne, DeSoto, Lincoln, Natchitoches, Red River,Sabine and Webster. The area chronically lags behind the rest ofthe country with regard to employment and other economicindicators. In addition, forest resource depletion exceeds sustain-able levels for some key species. All parishes in the contiguous10-parish region conform to Long-Term Economically Depressed(LTED) eligibility as defined by the U.S. Department of Com-merce, Economic Development Administration.

6

ObjectivesThe larger study had several general objectives (see Vlosky et

al., 1998a), the following of which were the focus here:

1. Determine social and economic profiles for the studyregion.

2. Describe the pool of eligible workers in the area to supportindustry development.

3. Identify labor skill needs of the value-added secondaryforest products industry.

4. Generate information that can help policymakers formulatestrategies for implementation of rural economic develop-ment efforts designed to capitalize on defensible market-driven opportunities in forest products industry sectors.

5. Assess the suitability of introducing value-added industriesto economically depressed areas as adjuncts to welfarereform policies.

The economic development plan proposed as a result of ourlarger study risks becoming a house of cards without examiningthe communities and people who will directly affect its success orfailure. Research has confirmed the importance of industry’sexamining the social structure of a community where jobs may becreated. The social structure of a community allows for an under-standing of education constraints, social stratification, economyand the knowledge base that already exists there. The decision tolocate an industry in a particular location may not be based asmuch on the quality of the labor pool but on the natural resourceswithin the particular area. Often, when high tech industries areintroduced in a new location, the competence level of the resi-dents is inadequate. In these instances, the industry is forced tolook outside the immediate area and community for skilledworkers during the early phases of development. Understandingthe social and cultural aspects of the target communities helpsmove the proposed plan from an abstraction to reality, thus

7

facilitating implementation. In the long run, this plan should bedesigned so that it is good for the industry and good for thecommunities and residents of the region. Little is gained for theregion’s people if new industry must look outside the immediatearea and community for skilled workers.

The major idea that guided the development of this portion ofthe plan was the concept of work readiness. Most of the literature inthis area focuses on education, training, skill development andworker incentives (Cohen, 1990; Johnson and Provan, 1995;Johnson and Ray, 1993; Rieger, 1995; Wright, 1992). We took thisconcept and asked a different question: Before a person everenters the labor pool, what are the forces that shape that person’scommitment and attitude toward work? Skills can be taught, buta willingness to work will determine whether or not the acquiredskills will be used.

The backdrop for our examination of the labor pool in thisregion is the “welfare reform” plan now being implemented inLouisiana and the nation. Because of the attention focused onwelfare-to-work programs, we believe it is timely to investigatethe suitability of introducing value-added industries to economi-cally depressed areas as adjuncts to welfare reform policies.Women are the most common adult recipients of welfare, andmany will be pushed into the labor force when their eligibilitycomes to an end. Jobs and workers are often scarce in rural areas,so we wanted to explore the suitability of employment in theforest products industry for (soon-to-be) former welfare recipi-ents.

We begin with a macro-level profile of the socioeconomiccharacteristics of the study parishes and the region, identifyingany unique characteristics in the social structure that may chal-lenge successful implementation of the proposed plan. We alsowill describe the pool of eligible workers for the value-addedforest products industry in the target area. Then, using a micro-level qualitative approach, we will describe the labor skill needsof existing companies in this industry.

8

Methods of InvestigationDescriptive Statistics

Secondary data were collected and analyzed for appropriateindicators of parish socio-economic characteristics. Descriptivestatistics gathered for each of the 10 parishes in the region in-cluded poverty rates, income levels, unemployment rates andeducation levels. Where appropriate, means were calculated forthe composite region. Data sources included the U.S. Bureau ofthe Census, the Current Population Survey, the Center for Busi-ness and Economic Research, the Louisiana State of the StateProject and previous research.

Employer InterviewsTo answer questions pertaining to the skill needs of the sec-

ondary-wood products industry, it was necessary to interviewmanagers or owners who employ individuals in their companiesor who are interested in expanding their business. We compiled alist of business owners who had participated in the earlier phaseof this research. Then, with some input from an industry repre-sentative (Diana Simek, administrator for The Coordinating &Development Corporation), we identified about 24 businessowners in the northwest region. A letter was mailed to the em-ployers outlining this portion of the project and notifying them ofour plans to call and schedule appointments. Employers werethen contacted by phone to schedule interviews at their place ofbusiness.

Eleven employers, from six of the 10 parishes in the region,agreed to be interviewed (see Table 1). Of the 13 companies notinterviewed, nine could not be located or were out of business;three employers declined to be interviewed, saying they hadnothing to add to their previous comments to researchers; andone employer was not interviewed because we were unable tokeep the appointment.

Personal interviews were conducted with the owners ormanagers of the participating secondary wood products manufac-turing firms. All were assured of the confidentiality of theirresponses. Employers were asked fixed-response and open-ended

9

Table 1. Participating EmployersCompany Contact Address Type of

Business

AAA Woodcraft James Vaughan 4108 Metro Drive Pallets, stakesOwner Shreveport, LA 71109

(318) 636-5817Caddo Parish

Allen Millwork B. J. Wheless 6505 St. Vincent Doors, Cabinets,Owner Shreveport, LA 71136 etc.

(318) 868-6541Caddo Parish

B and C Wood Edgar Cason Rural Route 3, Box 228 LogsCompany Owner Coushatta, LA 71019

(318) 935-6705Red River Parish

Bolinger Millwork Coy Cooper 2570 East Texas Street Cabinets, doorsand Supply, Inc. Owner Bossier City, LA 71111 assembly shop,

(318) 747-3000 building suppliesBossier Parish

Cooper Chair Factory James Cooper 217 Pine Street Chairs, swingsOwner Minden, LA 71055

(318) 377-4648Webster Parish

Custom Components Barbara Toliver PO Box 610 Furniture, particleOwner Ruston, LA 71273 board, runners

(318) 255-1553Lincoln Parish

Dura Oak Cabinets Jeff Mills 863 Texas Avenue CabinetsOwner Shreveport, LA 71101

(318) 227-9610Caddo Parish

LaBorde’s Custom Randall LaBorde 1052 Pearl Drive CabinetsCabinets Owner Bossier City, LA 71111

(318) 747-0458Bossier Parish

Sabine Wood Ronny Broadway 5340 Texas Highway TimberProducts Owner Many, LA 71449

(318) 256-5951Sabine Parish

Shreveport Pallet Joyce Donaldson 1454 Hawn Palletsand Clint Fontenot Shreveport, LA 71137Owners (318) 424-7218

Bossier Parish

The Woodchuck Patti Mitten 504 East Colorado ReproductionOwner Ruston, LA 71270 architecturalMitch Mitten (318) 255-7927 productsManager Lincoln Parish

10

questions. The interview format allowed us to explain and clarifyquestions and to expand upon issues of relatively greater impor-tance. The employer interviews lasted about 45 minutes, rangingfrom about 15 minutes to about 3 hours. At the conclusion of fouremployer interviews, we asked if we could conduct focus groupswith a handful of employees for 45 minutes to an hour, to askthem similar questions. No employer who was asked refused ourrequest to conduct these focus groups. The businesses selected forfocus groups were diverse in size and products.

Focus Group DiscussionsFocus group discussion is a useful method for gathering in-

depth information from those most closely acquainted with theissue being explored. It is more efficient than one-on-one inter-views and has the added advantage of stimulating a greaterdepth of thought as the group participants listen to one another.Focus groups were used for discussing work-related issues withemployees of four of the businesses we visited. We targeted low-to mid-level skilled workers, assuming them to be most represen-tative of the potential labor pool for this industry. We hoped togain information that might influence recruitment and retentionstrategies for the industry, and reveal micro level impediments tolabor force participation. We also wanted to probe for informationon how to motivate and reward employee commitment to entry-level, minimum wage jobs. The focus group discussions wereheld on-site but without observation by the employer. Partici-pants were asked fixed response and open-ended questions. Theemployee focus groups lasted from 45 minutes to an hour andinvolved three to four workers each.

Interviews with Non-employed WomenEighty-four women in seven parishes participated in qualita-

tive interviews at the sites where they were participating in GEDclasses or training programs (see Monroe and Tiller, 2001). All ofthe women we interviewed were receiving welfare payments butfaced the termination of their eligibility for welfare programparticipation over the next 12-24 months. Participants wereinterviewed individually. Interview items included fixed responseand open-ended questions.

11

Socio-economic Profile of the StudyParishes and the Region

Louisiana has 64 parishes (counties). The region under consid-eration is in the northwest corner of the state and includes 10parishes (Figure 1). Table 2 provides summary information for thestudy region, and Table 3 compares the northwest Louisianaregion to the southern region of the United States on certainsocio-economic indicators.

Figure 1. Northwest Region

Louisiana

12

Tab

le 2

. N

ort

hw

est

Par

ish

es S

um

mar

y D

ata

Cha

ract

eris

ticLo

uisi

ana

Nor

thw

est

Bie

nvill

eB

ossi

erC

addo

Cla

ibor

neD

e So

toLi

ncol

nN

atch

itoch

esR

ed R

iver

Sabi

neW

ebst

er

Reg

ion

Tota

l4,

206,

116

545,

527

15,9

7986

,088

248,

253

17,4

0525

,346

41,7

4536

,689

9,38

722

,646

41,9

89

Po

pu

latio

n(1

990)

(13%

of

stat

e p

op

.)

Urb

an2,

860,

159

349,

419

3,07

961

,829

207,

541

7,00

65,

389

25,5

1116

,609

03,

126

19,3

29

%

of t

ota

l68

%64

%19

%72

%84

%40

%21

%61

%45

%0%

14%

46%

Ru

ral

1,34

5,95

719

6,10

812

,900

24,2

5940

,712

10,3

9919

,957

16,2

3420

,080

9,38

719

,520

22,6

60

%

of t

ota

l32

%35

%81

%28

%16

%60

%79

%39

%55

%10

0%86

%54

%

Farm

po

pu

lati

on

42,0

615,

149

498

481

565

356

554

478

753

217

655

592

%

of t

ota

l1%

1%3%

1%0.

2%2%

2%1%

2%2%

3%1%

Gen

der (

1990

)M

ale

2,03

1,38

625

9,13

17,

618

41,8

3111

5,93

48,

826

12,0

1420

,231

17,3

594,

440

11,0

0819

,870

48%

48%

48%

49%

47%

51%

47%

48%

47%

47%

49%

47%

Fem

ale

2,18

8,58

728

6,39

68,

361

44,2

5713

2,31

98,

579

13,3

3221

,514

19,3

304,

947

11,6

3822

,119

52%

52%

52%

51%

53%

49%

53%

52%

53%

53%

51%

53%

Rac

e (1

990)

Wh

ite2,

839,

138

345,

130

8,98

667

,030

146,

580

9,31

314

,003

24,6

2022

,357

5,75

217

,939

28,5

50

67%

63%

56%

78%

59%

54%

55%

59%

61%

61%

77%

68%

Bla

ck1,

229,

281

194,

242

6,94

917

,381

99,5

118,

041

11,1

4116

,590

13,7

793,

589

3,98

413

,277

31%

36%

44%

20%

40%

46%

44%

40%

38%

38%

18%

32%

13

Cha

ract

eris

ticLo

uisi

ana

Nor

thw

est

Bie

nvill

eB

ossi

erC

addo

Cla

ibor

neD

e So

toLi

ncol

nN

atch

itoch

esR

ed R

iver

Sabi

neW

ebst

er

Reg

ion

His

pan

ic93

,044

7,08

181

1,79

92,

595

4037

738

148

761

1,03

122

9

2%1%

0.5%

2%1%

0.2%

1.5%

1%1%

1%5%

0.5%

Ag

e (1

990)

Med

ian

31 y

ears

32 y

ears

35 y

ears

31 y

ears

33 y

ears

35 y

ears

32 y

ears

25 y

ears

29 y

ears

32

year

s35

yea

rs35

yea

rs

Un

der

18

1,22

7,26

915

6,01

44,

513

25,1

8470

,899

4,44

67,

550

9,59

410

,976

2,92

56,

454

13,4

73

29%

28%

28%

29%

29%

26%

30%

23%

30%

31%

29%

27%

Labo

r For

ce (1

995)

Civ

ilian

1,93

9,00

024

9,67

06,

240

43,0

0011

5,70

05,

930

11,8

9018

,250

16,9

003,

880

8,88

019

,000

Un

emp

loym

ent r

ate

8.0%

8.3%

9.7%

6.6%

6.0%

10.7

%7.

7%3.

1%8.

2%12

.5%

8.3%

9.8%

Edu

catio

n Le

vel

Per

sons

25+

(199

0)<h

igh

sch

oo

l80

3,87

295

,678

3,75

311

,004

41,0

114,

424

5,57

15,

239

7,12

72,

395

5,44

39,

711

dip

lom

a32

%34

%37

%21

%27

%39

%36

%26

%35

%43

%38

%36

%

Hig

h s

cho

ol

1,70

8,22

823

2,30

66,

390

41,1

6711

0,88

26,

896

9,89

514

,911

13,2

442,

844

8,85

417

,223

dip

lom

a68

%67

%63

%79

%73

%61

%64

%74

%65

%57

%62

%67

%

So

me

colle

ge

520,

671

72,3

651,

574

15,6

8934

,365

1,88

22,

536

5,12

33,

585

706

1,96

44,

941

or A

sso

ciat

e d

egre

e20

%19

%16

%30

%25

%16

%16

%24

%18

%13

%14

%18

%

Bac

hel

or’

s d

egre

e26

7,05

534

,377

650

5,64

718

,600

777

977

2,88

01,

894

352

710

1,89

0

11%

8%6%

11%

12%

7%6%

14%

9%6%

5%7%

Gra

du

ate

or

142,

068

18,4

7828

72,

449

9,48

237

149

62,

520

1,44

113

648

381

3

pro

fess

ion

al d

egre

e6%

5%3%

5%6%

3%3%

12%

7%2%

3%3%

14

Cha

ract

eris

ticLo

uisi

ana

Nor

thw

est

Bie

nvill

eB

ossi

erC

addo

Cla

ibor

neD

e So

toLi

ncol

nN

atch

itoch

esR

ed R

iver

Sabi

neW

ebst

er

Reg

ion

Hou

seho

lds

1,49

9,26

919

8,88

65,

852

30,7

1893

,248

6,06

59,

129

13,6

6912

,644

3,32

18,

361

15,8

79

Fam

ily h

ou

seh

old

s1,

089,

882

142,

208

4,21

923

,334

65,1

224,

314

6,81

990

199,

095

2,50

56,

225

11,5

56

73%

72%

72%

76%

70%

71%

75%

66%

72%

75%

74%

73%

Sin

gle

mal

e h

ead

52,4

716,

318

200

924

2,94

922

534

639

542

412

724

448

4

of h

ou

seh

old

5%4%

5%4%

5%5%

5%4%

5%5%

4%4%

Sin

gle

fem

ale

hea

d23

4,12

932

,525

907

3,92

317

,049

910

1,64

41,

869

2,28

855

21,

007

2,37

6

of h

ou

seh

old

21%

23%

21%

17%

26%

15%

24%

21%

25%

22%

16%

21%

Inco

me

Per

cap

ita

inco

me

$18,

997

$14,

766

$14,

418

$18,

886

$21,

420

$14,

617

$17,

829

$17,

736

$14,

687

$15,

092

$15,

470

$16,

165

(199

5)

Ho

use

ho

ld in

com

e

(199

0 C

ensu

s)

< $5

,000

188,

156

25,9

801,

058

2,53

310

,951

972

1,68

32,

330

2,18

564

31,

369

2,25

6

13%

16%

18%

8%12

%16

%18

%17

%17

%19

%16

%14

%

$5,0

00-1

4,99

935

5,17

551

,349

1,74

56,

044

22,0

641,

909

2,62

53,

464

5,60

11,

041

2,44

44,

412

23%

29%

30%

20%

24%

32%

29%

25%

44%

31%

29%

28%

$15,

000-

24,9

9928

2,50

437

,900

1,19

46,

224

17,4

841,

142

1,74

02,

277

2,27

664

91,

728

3,18

6

19%

19%

20%

20%

19%

19%

19%

16%

18%

19%

21%

20%

$25,

000-

49,9

9944

1,18

257

,813

1,34

7 1

0,94

027

,695

1,48

42,

212

3,76

12,

966

811

2,14

14,

456

30%

27%

23%

35%

30%

25%

24%

28%

24%

24%

26%

28%

$50,

000-

74,9

9915

3,86

518

,799

395

3,87

99,

497

422

659

1,23

685

114

851

91,

193

10%

8%7%

13%

10%

7%7%

9%7%

4%6%

8%

$75,

000

and

up

77,4

898,

655

160

1,22

85,

267

111

246

625

439

4917

435

6

5%3%

3%4%

6%1.

5%3%

5%3%

1.5%

2%2%

15

Cha

ract

eris

ticLo

uisi

ana

Nor

thw

est

Bie

nvill

eB

ossi

erC

addo

Cla

ibor

neD

e So

toLi

ncol

nN

atch

itoch

esR

ed R

iver

Sabi

neW

ebst

er

Reg

ion

Pov

erty

(199

0)To

tal i

n p

ove

rty

967,

002

130,

002

4,82

413

,592

58,5

395,

096

7,45

49,

310

11,5

943,

216

6,04

110

,336

24%

28%

31%

16%

24%

32%

30%

27%

34%

35%

27%

25%

18 a

nd

ove

r58

6,06

079

,178

3,03

78,

115

34,2

603,

393

4,63

56,

608

6,81

51,

961

3,74

36,

611

20%

26%

28%

14%

20%

29%

26%

26%

39%

31%

24%

22%

Ch

ildre

n <

18

377,

143

50,2

821,

768

5,41

523

,986

1,70

32,

795

2,68

84,

755

1,25

02,

256

3,66

6

31%

36%

40%

22%

34%

40%

38%

28%

45%

44%

36%

33%

Fam

ilies

213,

030

28,2

191,

102

2,98

712

,505

1,11

91,

691

1,81

82,

556

743

1,34

32,

355

19%

23%

26%

13%

19%

26%

25%

20%

28%

29%

21%

20%

W

/ch

ild <

18

162,

199

21,1

6076

72,

379

9,57

875

21,

232

1,25

11,

986

564

960

1,69

1

26%

31%

36%

17%

27%

33%

32%

25%

38%

40%

30%

28%

W

/ch

ild <

579

,191

10,6

1834

91,

282

4,74

635

762

565

21,

033

314

487

773

30%

37%

38%

22%

33%

42%

41%

32%

46%

50%

34%

33%

Fem

ale

hea

ded

114,

006

16,4

1645

51,

645

8,16

851

993

41,

023

1,36

337

759

61,

336

ho

use

ho

lds

50%

56%

58%

43%

49%

56%

58%

54%

63%

65%

62%

54%

W

/ch

ild <

18

98,5

2513

,981

384

1,43

56,

967

444

787

802

1,19

534

851

01,

109

60%

66%

70%

50%

59%

66%

68%

60%

75%

78%

74%

63%

W

/ch

ild <

547

,330

7,05

317

179

13,

382

226

426

398

652

202

268

537

73%

78%

74%

64%

74%

78%

85%

74%

84%

87%

79%

76%

16

Cha

ract

eris

ticLo

uisi

ana

Nor

thw

est

Bie

nvill

eB

ossi

erC

addo

Cla

ibor

neD

e So

toLi

ncol

nN

atch

itoch

esR

ed R

iver

Sabi

neW

ebst

er

Reg

ion

Tran

sfer

pay

men

ts(t

hous

ands

of d

olla

rs 1

994)

Med

ical

pay

men

ts$4

,695

,477

$824

,752

$33,

869

$125

,902

$387

,530

$30,

927

$41,

353

$58,

298

$61,

469

$19,

176

$44,

298

$21,

930

AF

DC

$194

,397

$18,

915

$703

$1,7

86$1

0,22

4$6

97$1

,208

$1,2

15$1

,712

$372

$675

$323

Fo

od

Sta

mp

s$6

76,9

79$7

9,40

8$2

,858

$8,8

27$4

1,57

2$3

,126

$5,3

33$4

,840

$6,7

37$1

,542

$2,9

84$1

,589

# o

f fo

od

sta

mp

779,

149

103,

959

3,66

910

,944

49,3

574,

147

6,91

35,

780

8,95

42,

389

4,29

77,

509

par

ticip

ants

(199

3)18

%21

%23

%13

%20

%24

%27

%14

%24

%25

%19

%18

%

Vita

l Sta

tistic

sM

igra

tio

n (

1989

-90)

-59,

201

-12,

472

-241

-2,1

78-5

,957

-190

-594

-363

-1,2

41-3

64-7

88-5

56

Bir

ths

(199

4)67

,802

8,06

921

61,

291

3,75

322

740

557

554

216

230

459

4

Infa

nt d

eath

s/1,

000

119.

29.

16.

712

.74.

812

.212

.810

.514

.43.

45.

3

b

irth

s (1

993)

Ou

t-o

f-w

edlo

ck B

irth

s28

,893

3,48

310

037

71,

820

116

208

262

167

7611

524

2

(

1994

)43

%43

%46

%29

%48

%51

%51

%46

%31

%47

%38

%41

%

17

Tab

le 3

.

So

uth

ern

Reg

ion

: C

om

par

iso

n o

f S

tate

s w

ith

Val

ue-

add

ed S

eco

nd

ary

Wo

od

Pro

du

cts

Ind

ust

ries

Cha

ract

eris

ticU

.S.

Loui

sian

aTe

xas

Okl

ahom

aA

rkan

sas

Tenn

esse

eM

issi

ssip

piA

laba

ma

Flor

ida

Popu

latio

n (1

995)

262,

755,

270

4,34

2,33

418

,723

,991

3,27

7,68

72,

483,

769

5,25

6,05

12,

697,

243

4,25

2,98

214

,165

,570

Bir

ths

and

Dea

ths

(199

3)B

irths

per

1,0

00 r

esid

ents

15.5

0%16

.20%

17.8

0%14

.30%

14.1

0%14

.30%

16.0

0%14

.80%

14.0

0%

Birt

hs to

wom

en <

20

12.8

0%18

.70%

16.1

0%17

.20%

19.4

0%16

.90%

21.7

0%17

.90%

13.4

0%

Infa

nt d

eath

s pe

r8.

4010

.80

7.50

8.80

10.0

09.

4011

.50

10.3

08.

60

1,0

00 li

ve b

irths

Educ

atio

n (1

990)

% <

hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a4.

50%

15.6

0%7.

60%

7.60

%20

.40%

16.9

0%21

.00%

17.4

0%7.

30%

% h

igh

scho

ol g

radu

ates

75.2

0%68

.30%

72.1

0%74

.60%

66.3

0%67

.10%

64.3

0%66

.90%

74.4

0%

% c

olle

ge g

radu

ates

20.3

0%16

.10%

20.3

0%17

.80%

13.3

0%16

.00%

14.7

0%15

.70%

18.3

0%

Labo

r For

ce (1

994)

Civ

ilian

labo

r fo

rce

131,

056,

000

1,93

9,00

09,

384,

000

1,54

0,00

01,

207,

000

2,66

5,00

01,

255,

000

2,03

1,00

06,

824,

000

% u

nem

ploy

ed6.

10%

8.00

%6.

40%

5.80

%5.

30%

4.80

%6.

60%

6.00

%6.

60%

Per

Cap

ita In

com

e$2

0,80

0$1

6,61

2$1

9,14

5$1

7,02

6$1

5,99

5$1

8,43

9$1

4,74

5$1

7,12

9$2

0,65

0

18

One standard metropolitan area is located in the region, theShreveport-Bossier City Metropolitan Area. It includes Caddo andBossier parishes. Socio-economic indicators for this area (espe-cially Bossier) tended to be better than the regional averages, butsince the difference was only 2 percent, the area was included inthe regional figures. Note that several gaming establishments arebased in the area.

The northwest region is home to 13 percent (545,527) of thestate’s total population. Approximately two-thirds of the residentslive in urban areas, with the remaining one-third residing in ruralareas. This region mirrors the state for most socio-economicindicators. Some items, though, are noteworthy for divergence.The race figures for this area are slightly different from the state’spercentages, with the region reporting 63 percent of the residentsas white and 36 percent black and the state reporting a 67 per-cent/31 percent split. In general, income and poverty measuresindicate the region has 5 percent to 7 percent more of its residentsbelow the poverty level than the state as a whole. The 1993 percapita income figure for the northwest region was $14,766, 88percent of the state per capita of $16,612. Only the Bossier/Caddoarea reported higher per capita income than the state.

The northwest region is bisected by three interstate systemsand numerous U.S. and state highways. The region supports fourrail lines and is serviced by up to 50 motor freight carriers. Acommercial airport is located in Caddo Parish (Shreveport), andall parishes have local airports. The nearest deepwater port is atLake Charles, 222 miles from the furthest point in the northwestregion. All parishes support financial institutions such as banksand/or credit unions. All parishes except Bienville have at leastone general hospital, and all parishes have print newspapers andtelevision stations. All parishes are within an hour’s commutingdistance of vocation-technical schools and colleges or universities(Center for Business and Economic Research, 1995).

19

Pool of Eligible WorkersBased on these macro-level data, we can describe residents of

the region as poorer and less educated than the state’s populationas a whole. This should not be interpreted to mean the region is insome way substandard, but rather that the socio-economic indica-tors reflect certain areas that are problematic throughout the state.In some parishes, up to 43 percent of the potential labor forcelacks a high school diploma. It is difficult to know for certain theextent that substance abuse or gambling is a problem for signifi-cant numbers of potential workers. Anecdotal evidence, though,suggests that concerns in these areas may be valid. Womencomprise 50 percent or more of the available labor pool in eachparish. Women also are the head of household for an average of23 percent of all families in the region, and, of these, up to 78percent include children these women must support. Given thelow wages paid to entry level unskilled workers, and the low percapita income rates for the region in general, it is not surprisingthat government assistance (welfare) has been an option for asignificant portion of the pool of workers (Stephenson, 1997).

Industry Labor Skill NeedsThe Views of Employers: Personal Interviews

Most business owners indicated they employed a primarilymale work force with little formal education or skill training,some of whom had a “spotty” work history of job turnover,unemployment, substance abuse and/or incarceration. We de-tected that most of the employee turnover occurred at the outerfringe. If a worker lasted more than a month or two, he was likelyto stay with the job for a relatively long period of time. Many ofthese business owners told us it was very difficult for them tokeep all of their positions filled, especially entry-level, low-skillpositions, despite the fact that they often paid a little better thanminimum-wage for this work. Employers indicated zero tolerancefor substance abuse and indicated that employees had few prob-lems with drugs or alcohol at this time. Given the history of manythe workers, however, it is reasonable to think substance use orabuse might continue to crop up as a problem. Most employers

20

had little contact with migrant workers. The migrant workersthey hired in the past worked well for a short period, then lefttown. There was little indication that migrant workers would be-come a substantial, reliable part of the labor pool for this industry.

Education and training

Most employers interviewed did not have specific educationor training requirements for their entry-level positions. Employ-ees were not required to have a high school degree or GED certifi-cate; neither was vocational training a prerequisite for employ-ment. Some employers even suggested generalized vo-techtraining could be something of a hindrance for many of thesepositions, at least in part, because most shops have their ownassembly and finishing methods. All emphasized that a “willing”attitude was more important than formal education or training.

Technical skills

We asked the employers to identify the skills someone mightneed for an entry-level position in their workplace. Surprisingly,the employers did not emphasize the moderate to high level ofskills we might have expected. A common theme throughout theinterviews was that a beginning employee needed basic mathskills and the ability to read a tape measure. Few employersmentioned basic reading ability as a required skill, and fewmentioned even basic cabinetry or carpentry skills as required foran entry-level position. Most employers expect to train workerson the job or to assign a beginning worker to a senior worker tolearn the various tasks required.

Work readiness

We cannot overemphasize, however, a refrain repeatedthroughout these interviews with employers in the wood prod-ucts industry. More important than any skill is a person’s willing-ness to work. This attitude, more than a set of skills, defined workreadiness to these business men and women. Employers consis-tently emphasized that the “right person” — that is, someonewith a positive attitude — could be taught the jobs and skillsrequired in their workplace. Employers described such a personwith phrases like “willing to work from the bottom up,” “willingto learn,” “tough-minded,” “self-motivated” and possessing a

21

“work ethic.” They also admitted how often they were fooled by aperson whom they thought possessed this quality of work readi-ness, only to discover that they had been duped!

The employers also indicated that a negative attitude couldnot be overcome with training and education, that some peoplesimply were “quitters.” One employer who was particularlysensitive to this lack of work ethic said his workers knew theycould either “haul wood or haul ass.” We surmised that workreadiness is an elusive concept, recognizable when seen but hardto predict.

The Views of Workers: Focus Group DiscussionsEducation and skills

Many of the comments from the employee focus groupsconfirmed the reports of their employers. The education level ofparticipants generally ranged from second grade to high school orGED. One man indicated he had some college level education,and another described his education as “sorry.” Most of the menhad performed a wide variety of jobs, almost always involvingheavy physical labor. Very few had vocational training, and, forthose who had participated in a vocational education program(with the exception of the truck drivers), their training was in afield other than carpentry/cabinetry. Almost without exceptionthe men had no previous wood-working experience. They hadlearned their current skills on the job.

Employee attitudes/motivation toward work

We asked the men to tell us what motivated them to come towork every day or to come to work at all. They almost alwaysmentioned responsibility for family and children. Some men-tioned that they enjoyed their co-workers or “boss,” or that theysimply liked the work they performed. A couple of workers madereference to spiritual or religious motivations.

This issue of internal motivation was important to us, so weprobed more deeply. We particularly wanted to know what setthese men apart from others who had similar responsibilities butdid not respond by becoming steadily employed. In other words,why are these men different from their friends and neighbors whodon’t work? The workers in these focus groups expressed great

22

disdain for people who did not meet their obligations; theydescribed such people as “lazy,” “crybabies” or unwilling to carrytheir share of a load. These workers said, “I got to work. I can’tjust sit around.” They wanted to take care of themselves and theirfamilies without becoming dependent “on a welfare check” or“living off the government.”

Almost to a man, the employees mentioned that the values ofwork and responsibility had been instilled in them while theywere young. They had “chores” when they were “small” andtheir parents were “role models” who had worked throughouttheir lives. One man mentioned that his mother “worked two andthree jobs” to provide for their children. Another responded thathis parents taught him that it was “right” to work.

Attitudes Toward Working With WomenFinally, we were interested in whether work in the forest

products industry might be suitable for the small army of womenwho are about to be eliminated from the welfare rolls in Louisi-ana. Employers indicated they were perfectly willing to hirewomen; few, however, actually had any women working for themat the present time or in the recent past. Some employers de-scribed their shops as noisy, smelly, dirty, hot-in-the-summer,cold-in-the-winter kinds of places and indicated they just didn’tthink women would be comfortable there. A few employersfrankly expressed reservations about hiring women, describingtheir workplace as “manly” and their workers as “sniffingaround” any time a woman came on the shop floor.

As for the workers themselves, there were mixed opinionsabout working with women. Most workers indicated they had noproblem whatsoever with women in the workplace as long asthey did their jobs. The men in our focus groups seemed equallydisdainful of a man who would slack off as of a woman who didthe same; they indicated they would make such a man as uncom-fortable working there as they would make a woman. Theyunderstood that a woman “has children to support and providefor” and that women need jobs, too. Some employees expressedreservations about a woman’s ability to handle the strenuousphysical aspects of the job, but indicated that some men wouldn’tbe able to do the work either! Reflecting their employers’ com-

23

ments about a somewhat crude workplace, a few men indicatedthey would have to clean up their language and stories or that awoman would just have to get used to their talk. One man indi-cated that he just didn’t think men and women could worktogether, saying “you can’t make honey and money in the sameplace!”

In a separate but related study (Monroe and Tiller, 2001),when we asked welfare-reliant women if they would acceptemployment in a place like a secondary forest products business,the overwhelming response was that they would do whateverthey had to do to exit welfare and to take care of themselves andtheir children. In the past, many of these women had worked attraditionally male jobs involving physical labor, including somewomen who had worked in forest industry jobs. We believe, then,that in rural areas where jobs and workers may be just aboutequally scarce, no labor pool should be discounted and no jobsource should be ignored.

RecommendationsImprove basic education and reorient existingpost-secondary training.

The employers we interviewed were critical of existing train-ing programs because they believed the skills necessary for theirworkplace are best taught on the job. According to these business-men and women, there are few generic secondary wood productsskills. This opinion notwithstanding, we did hear a commonrefrain indicating the need for better basic education. Basic mathskills and, to some extent basic reading skills, are important tothese employers. Training that emphasizes the application ofthese skills could be of critical importance. For example, employ-ers talked about the need for workers to be able to read andfollow plans, instructions or guidelines and to meet the specs ofprinted plans. There also is a need for workers to be able tocomplete reports or inventories of the products they have pre-pared and materials they have consumed.

We were surprised to hear many employers refer to their useof temporary agencies not only as a source of temporary assis-

24

tance, but as a screening mechanism for new permanent employ-ees. They found the temporary agencies to be a better source thanthe area vocational-technical schools for potential employees withcertain skills. Such training centers might partner with temporaryagencies to gain placement and much-needed real world workexperience for the students.

We do believe specialized training could be useful to employ-ees who move beyond entry-level positions and that the ownersof secondary wood products businesses should be consulted as tothe nature of this training. For example, reliable employees couldbe trained as forklift operators and in the loading and manage-ment of inventory. Other workers could be trained to operate andmaintain heavy equipment, such as saws. In summary, basiceducation should be enhanced and advanced training for specificskills should be enhanced but, in the opinions of the men andwomen we interviewed, generic carpentry and cabinet skillstraining are not particularly useful.

Create a workplace that is flexible, supportiveand predictable.

In asking employees in our focus groups about the factorsthat motivated their labor force participation, we hoped to gaininsight into variables in the workplace environment that could bemanipulated to increase employee loyalty and performance. If welisten to the responses of these workers, we learn that employerscan make small changes to make the workplace more attractivefor employees. Employees praised employers who “treat us likefamily.” Employees made this statement about employers whoare flexible, caring, helpful with personal problems or emergen-cies, and who provide them a basic level of support. Where someemployers periodically lay off part of their work force, otheremployers structure their businesses to guarantee workers 40hours of work year-round. When a worker knows he will be ableto have a steady income and meet his personal obligations, he ismore likely to feel loyalty and respect for the employer.

Another common theme from our focus groups is that em-ployees like knowing what their work will be from day to day.They like knowing what the owner expects and they like beinggiven full responsibility for a task without an owner “looking

25

over their shoulder.” Employers may be reluctant to give overresponsibilities for tasks, but it appears the more often they make“partners” of their employees, the more personal responsibilityand pride the employees will take in the finished product.

Finally, many of the employers we interviewed offer few or nobenefits to employees, instead paying slightly above minimumwage for entry level jobs. Some workers were satisfied with thisarrangement and did not desire additional benefits — typicallythose with access to the charity hospital system. But many work-ers indicated they valued the benefits they had or that theydesired a few benefits such as a week’s paid vacation, basic healthinsurance or a retirement plan.

Identify on-site mentors for new employees.We asked unemployed women to describe the motivations

and impediments to their labor force participation. These womenexpressed a deep desire to make a better life for themselves andtheir children, and many viewed welfare reform as a way tojump-start that goal. They want continuing education and train-ing opportunities and flexibility in the scheduling of such classes.The women expressed concern over lack of reliable transportationand child-care facilities, two factors that loom large in their poten-tial to undermine women’s success in the workplace. From ourinterviews with these women and their instructors, we detectedthe presence of a strong support network that functioned to helpthe women complete their GED studies or the training programin which they were currently enrolled. We believe it is critical tocontinue a similar support network at least in the first severalmonths of employment.

We recommend that employers identify job coaches or men-tors for new employees. Our own research indicates this approachis not far-fetched (Monroe, Blalock, and Vlosky, 1999). Recall thatmany employers indicated that they expected to train new em-ployees on the job, that they often assigned a more senior em-ployee to supervise a new worker, and that workers indicatedsome willingness to help bring a new employee up to speed.Thus, while this recommendation may be particularly useful foremployers of women moving off of welfare, we believe it hasbroad application for any new entry-level employee.

26

Summary:Introducing Value-Added Industries

to Economically Depressed Areas asAdjuncts to Welfare Reform Policies.

The forest products business owners we interviewed indicatedthat they have a difficult time keeping entry-level jobs filled.These employers told us that they expect to train new employeesand that they do not expect an entry-level person to possesshighly specialized skills. They indicated that a positive attitude andwork ethic were the most important factors for employee success.

Many of the people who will apply for low skill jobs in theforest products industry will have a tenuous attachment to thelabor force. Workers who feel little commitment to the labor forceare likely to bolt the first time they fail at a task or the first timethe boss or a co-worker criticizes them. But the reality for manyemployers is that the labor pool is shallow, and these are thepeople with whom the employers will have to work. To give thesework relationships a chance to succeed, employers can approachsuch people from their points of view and from outside of theemployers’ own middle class values about work ethic, responsi-bility and commitment.

Many job training programs for the chronically unemployedinclude a work readiness component with, we believe, a mis-placed emphasis on things like resume writing or dressing forsuccess. These programs instead need to help unemployedpeople develop coping strategies for things like isolation in theworkplace, for being called upon to do repetitive or menial tasksand for accepting criticism from a boss. Workers also need tolearn how to create their own support network if none is offeredor to find their own mentor if one is not assigned to them (Figure2). These are innovative work readiness components that emergefrom our research and that deserve a trial in job training pro-grams.

-

27

Figure 2.

Com

mun

ityim

pedi

men

tsto

long

-ter

mem

ploy

men

t

Long

-ter

mem

ploy

edad

ult

Indi

vidu

alim

pedi

men

tsto

long

-ter

mem

ploy

men

t

Com

mun

ityim

pedi

men

tsto

initi

alem

ploy

men

t

Indi

vidu

alim

pedi

men

tsto

initi

alem

ploy

men

t

Wel

fare

depe

nden

tad

ult

The

Tra

nsiti

on fr

om W

elfa

re to

Wor

k

Per

sona

lco

mfo

rtzo

ne

Job

skill

sE

duca

tion

Tran

spor

tatio

nS

ingl

e pa

rent

Job

avai

labi

lity

Voc

atio

nal

educ

atio

nP

ublic

tr

ansp

orta

tion

Qua

lity

child

car

e

Wor

k re

adin

ess

Sup

port

Rew

ards

Cop

ing

stra

tegi

es

Sus

tain

able

ec

onom

ic

deve

lopm

ent

Con

tinui

ng

educ

atio

n &

trai

ning

24 m

onth

s

28

There is a ready pool of labor about to be made available inrural communities around the state – women who will be elimi-nated from welfare program eligibility. Some have a good workhistory, but circumstances conspired to leave them unemployedand dependent on welfare. Many of the women with a workhistory had been employed at nontraditional jobs in the past andexpressed a willingness to work at nontraditional jobs in thefuture. Other women with little or no work experience still ex-pressed a willingness to work and move away from welfaredependence. Finally, employers and employees told us womencould do the work typical of many secondary wood productsindustries.

In summary, the equation seems perfectly balanced. Employ-ers in small rural communities need workers, rural communitiesoften have limited job opportunities and women whose welfareeligibility is about to expire need jobs. To the rural employer, nosegment of the labor pool is expendable. To the woman comingoff welfare, no job source can be overlooked. We see this as a win-win situation for rural employers, residents and communities, aswell as for anyone interested in economic revitalization in thisarea.

29

ReferencesCenter for Business and Economic Research: Department of

Economic Development. (1995). Parish Profiles.Northeast Louisiana University. [On-line] Available:http://leap.nlu.edu/pprof96/shrevepo.htm.

Cohen, D. (1990). What motivates trainees. Training andDevelopment Journal, 44, (11), 91-93.

Johnson, N., and K. Provan. (1995). The relationship betweenwork/family benefits and earnings: A test ofcompeting predictions. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 24, (4), 571-584.

Johnson, B. and H. Ray. (1993). Employee-developed pay systemincreases productivity. Personnel Journal, 72, (11), 112-117.

Jones, Stephen B. and Mary Carol Koester. 1989. Evaluation ofState and Interstate Programs to Encourage ForestResource Based Economic Development, College ofForestry, Pennsylvania State University. UniversityPark, Pennsylvania.

Monroe, Pamela, Lydia Blalock and Richard Vlosky. (1999). Workopportunities in a nontraditional setting for womenexiting welfare: A case study. Journal of Family andEconomic Issues, 20, 35-60.

Monroe, Pamela and Vicky Tiller. (2001). Commitment to workamong welfare reliant women. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 63.

Regional Economic Measurement Division, U.S. Department ofCommerce. (1995). Bearfacts. [On-line] Available:http://leap.nlu.edu/docs1/BFACT.

30

Reiger, B. (1995). Lessons in productivity and people. Trainingand Development Journal, 49, (10), 56-58.

Stephenson, E.F. (1997). Even the underprivileged are rational:The incentive effects of welfare. Journal of LaborResearch, 18, (2), 367-370.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990a). Income and PovertyCharacteristics. [On-line] Available: http://leap.nlu.edu/INCPV.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990b). Social Characteristics. [On-line] Available: http://leap.nlu.edu/SOCLC.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990c). General Profile: Populationand Housing Characteristics. [On-line] Available:http://leap.nlu.edu/POPHS.

Vlosky, Richard, N. Paul Chance, Pamela Monroe, David Hughesand Lydia Blalock. 1998(a). A market-based strategyfor rural development in northwest Louisiana:Maximizing opportunities through value-added forestproducts industries. Report prepared for andsubmitted to funder, Economic DevelopmentAdministration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Vlosky, Richard, N. Paul Chance, Pamela Monroe, David Hughesand Lydia Blalock. 1998(b). “An Integrated Market-Based Model for Value-Added Solid Wood ProductsSector Economic Development.” Forest ProductsJournal. 48(11/12): 29-35.

Wright, P. (1992). An examination of the relationships amongmonetary incentives, goal level, goal commitment, andperformance. Journal of Management, 18, (4), 677-694.

31

32

Louisiana Agricultural Experiment StationLSU Agricultural CenterP.O. Box 25055Baton Rouge, LA 70894-5055

Non-profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 733

Baton Rouge, LA

Pamela A. Monroe, Ph.D.ProfessorFamily, Child, and Consumer SciencesSchool of Human EcologyLouisiana State University Agricultural CenterBaton Rouge, LA 70803

Lydia B. Blalock, MSInstructor and Doctoral CandidateSchool of Human EcologyLouisiana State University Agricultural CenterBaton Rouge, LA 70803

Richard P. Vlosky, Ph.D.Associate ProfessorForest Products MarketingSchool of Forestry, Wildlife, and FisheriesLouisiana State University Agricultural CenterBaton Rouge, LA 70803-6202