An employee assistance program (EAP) is a worksite-based program designed
to assist in the identification and resolution of productivity problems
associated with employees impaired by personal concerns, including, but
not limited to, health, marital, family, financial, alcohol, drug, legal,
emotional, stress, or other personal concerns that may adversely affect
employee job performance. (1)
An effective EAP should include:
• Expert consultation for employees and managers;
• Training in helping to resolve behavioral, health, or job performance
problems;
• Confidential, appropriate, and timely problem assessment services;
• Referrals for diagnosis, treatment, and other assistance;
• Establishment of referral links between the worksite and community
services;
• Follow-up services;
• Education and information designed to prevent alcohol and other
drug problems;
• Consultation about environmental change that could prevent or minimize
employee problems; and
Coordinated statements concerning alcohol and other drug use and related
sanctions. (2)
National Association
The EAP Association (EAPA), founded in 1971, is the largest, oldest, and
most respected professional association for persons in the employee
assistance program field. EAPA represents more than 7,000 individuals
and organizations around the globe with an interest in employee assistance.
(1)
Descriptive Facts
• 33% of all nonpublic work sites have assistance programs, serving
more than 55% of all employees in U.S. work sites with 50 or more employees
in 1993. (3)
• In 1991, a national survey indicated that 45% of full-time employees
had access to an EAP provided by their employer. (2)
• Worksite size is related to the prevalence of EAP programs; 21%
of the smallest firms (50-99 employees) have an EAP, and 76% of the largest
firms (1,000+ employees) have an EAP. (2)
• The prevalence of EAPs is highest in communications, utilities,
and transportation, at about 52%, whereas mining, construction, and service
industries have the lowest prevalence, at about 25%. The higher rate among
the former may be due to Federal regulations for drug testing and education.
(2)
• There are two kinds of EAPs. An internal EAP is an in-house
service, staffed by company employees. An external EAP is a specialty
service provider hired by the employer. Internal EAPs tend to be
more costly than external EAPs, but are sometimes preferred by employers
because services can be more precisely tailored to the employers' needs.
(2)
• A survey of Workplace drug abuse programs found
that about 47% were internal and 40% were externally contracted services.
(4)
• The median annual EAP cost per eligible employee, which
varied by region of the country, was $21.83 for internal programs and
$18.09 for external programs in a select sample study. (5)
• Marijuana and cocaine were the drugs most often reported as utilized
by EAP clients. (4)
• A 1994 report described anecdotal evidence of the savings from
EAPs:
• a $7,750 saving per employee at Warner Corporation
because of lower recruitment and training costs, lower workers' compensation
costs, and fewer on-the-job accidents;
• a 75% reduction in inpatient substance abuse treatment costs
after EAP implementation at Gillette Company;
• a reduction in on-the-job accidents and lost time as a result
of such accidents at Tropicana; and
• a reduction in absenteeism and workers' compensation insurance
costs at Sawyer Gas Company and at Oregon Steel Mills. (6)
• Cost-effectiveness data on EAPs generally indicate a savings to investment
ratio ranging from 1.5:1 to 15:1. A study of the McDonnell Douglas EAP estimated
savings of $5.1 million, due to fewer days missed from work, lower turnover,
and lower medical claims of employees, spouses, and dependents. (2)
• It was found that drug abuse cases make up an estimated 10% of
all EAP cases, with cocaine being the most prevalent substance of abuse,
followed by marijuana. In contrast, alcohol cases make up about 20% of
the reporting EAPs' caseloads. (7)
• The EAP drug abuse caseload is greater in companies that are stable
in the size of their labor force; are economically stable or profitable;
are unionized; have a drug screening policy and program; believe they
have a major problem with drug abuse; refer drug cases to the EAP; and
publicize the EAP, encouraging self-referrals for substance abuse problems.
(7)
• Improvement of supervisor training is positively associated with
the proportion of drug abuse cases in the EAP caseload, and it is negatively
associated with the number of EAP staff. (7)
References
1. Employee Assistance Professionals Association (http://www.eap-association.com).
October 1998.
2. Blum, T.C.; and Roman, P.M. (1995). Cost-effectiveness
and preventive implications of Employee Assistance Programs. Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Publication RP0907.
3. Steele, P.D. (1995). Worker assistance programs
and labor process: Emergence and development of the Employee Assistance
Model. The Journal of Drug Issues 25(2):423-450.
4. Backer, T. (1991). Drug abuse services and EAPs: Preliminary
report on a national study. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Abuse, Drug
Abuse Services Research Series No. 1: Background Papers on Drug Abuse
Financing and Services Research. Rockville, MD: National Institute
on Drug Abuse, 227-244.
5. Hartwell, T.D.; Steele, P.; French, M.T.; Porter, F.J.;
Rodman, N.F.; and Zarkin, G.A. (1996). Aiding troubled employees: The
prevalence, cost, and characteristics of Employee Assistance Programs
in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 86( 6):804-808.
6. Marsh and McLennan Companies. (1994). The economics
of Drug-Free Workplace programs, N.P.
7. Roman, P.M. (1991). The use of EAPs in
dealing with drug abuse in the Workplace. National Institute on Drug Abuse,
Abuse, Drug Abuse Services Research Series No. 1: Background Papers on
Drug Abuse Financing and Services Research. Rockville, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse, 271-286.
(3/99)
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
|
Copyright © 2000-2008 Geigle Communications. All rights reserved. Federal copyright law prohibits unauthorized reproduction by any means and imposes fines up to $25,000 for violations.
|