CHART B--(cont.)
PCP
--hallucinations
--paranoia
--stuttering, stumbling, foggy mind
37
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOURCES CITED
Beck, M. & Buckley, J.
(1983, August 22).
habits. Newsweek, p.54.
Nurses with bad
Belohlav, J.A. & Popp, P.O.
(1983, July-August). Employee
substance abuse: Fpidemic of the eighties. Business
Horizons, pp.29-3 4 .
Bensinger, P.B.
workplace.
(1982, November-December). Drugs in the
Harvard Business Review, pp. 48-50.
Blacklaws, A.F.
(1981). One company's experience. In
B.:J. Hore & M.A. Plant (Eds.), Alcohol problems in
employment (pp.134-l43). London: Croom Helm London.
Brecker, J., Wallace, A. et ale
(198), August 22).
drugs on the job. Newsweek, pp. 52-55.
Taking
Brenton, M.
(1982, November). Help for the troubled employee.
(Available from Fublic Affairs Committee, Inc., New
Yo:~k, NY).
Busch, F.J., JR.
(1981). Developing an employee assistance
program. Personnel Journal, 60, 708-711.
Camisa, K.P.
itBelf.
(1982). How alcoholism treatment pays for
SAM Advanced IVIanagement Journal, 11. (1), 53-56.
Carr, J"L. & Hellan, R.T.
(1980, April). Improving corporatE~ performance through employee assi tance programs.
Business Horizons, pp.57-60.
Corporations viewing alcoholism as an occu ational dilemma.
(1980, October). Bests Review: Life Health Insurance
Edition, p. 62.
Dawson, F.R.
(1982, June).
more than a big heart.
Helping employees cope: It takes
Data Management, pp. 16-18.
Dreyer, R.S.
(1892, Novemeber).
vision, pp. 12-1).
Problem drinker.
Drug abuse: Cost to the economy.
p·55.
(1983, August 22).
~ine,
SuperNewsweek,
M., Akabas, S.H., Bellinger, S.
(1982, September).
Cultures of drinking: A workplace perspective. Social
Work. pp. 436-440.
Godard, J.(198l). Alcohola and occupation.
In B.D. Hore
and M.A. Plant (Eds.), Alcohol problems in employment
(pp. 105-117). London: Croom Helm London.
38
Grosswirth, M.
(1983, February).
Datamation, pp. 30-36.
Helping: employees cope.
Procedures, p. 52.
Stoned at the office.
(1979, April).
Modern Office
Hollman, R.W.
(1980). Managing troubled employees: Meeting
the challenge. Journal of Contemporary Business, ,§.(4) ,
4:;,- 57.
Hore, B.D.
(1981). Alcohol and alcoholism: Their effect on
work and the industrial response. In B.D. Hore & M.A.
Plant (Eds.), Alcohol ~roblems in employment (pp.10-17).
London: Croom Helm London.
Kemper Insurance Companies.
(1979a). Management guide Qn
alcoholism.
(Available from Kemper Insurance Companies,
Long Grove, IL).
Kemper Insurance Companies.
(1979b). What to do about drugs
and employees?
(Available from Kemper Insurance
Companies, Long Grove, IL).
Lambuth, L.
(1984, January). An employee assistance program
that works. Police Chief, pp. 36-38.
Levine, H.Z.
(1981, March-April).
PI" 4-11.
Consensus.
Personnel,
MacDonell, F.J.
(1981, March). Alcoholism in the workplace:
Differential diagnosis. Occupational Health Nursing,
PI" 14-16.
McVernon, J. (Reverend).
(1980, Summer). Return to work.
Contemporary drug problems, pp. 209-216.
Maloof, G.
(1981). The changing role of employee support
programs. Personnel Journal, 60, 844-846.
Managing medical costs through FAP's.
Pension WDrld, pp. 27-28.
(1983, December).
Mann, P.
(1984, February). The hidden scourge of drugs in
the workplace. Reader's Digest, pp. 55-71.
Merman" S .K.
(1979). Advising and counseling as an HRD
activity. Training and Development Journal, 11'5),
4L~-47 •
Milbourne, G., Jr.
(1981, March). Alcohol and drugs: Poor
remedies for stress. Supervisory Management, pp. 35-42.
Morse, G.A.
(1982, September). Drugs at work: Looking for
the obvious. Supervision, pp. 6-8.
39
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (1984).
Treating alcoholism: The illneSS L the ,§Xmptoms, the
treatment. (Available from U.S. Departmen~ of Health
and Human Services, Washington, DC).
Nelson, J.E. (1981). Drug abusers on the job.
Occupational Medicine, £}(6), pp. 403-408.
Journal of
Occupational alcoholism programs--Wave of the future. (1979).
Personnel, J§(4), pp. 43-45.
Ozama, M.N. (1980, Novemeber). Development of social se
services in industry: Why and how?
Social Work,
pp.464-470.
Ozama, M.N. (1983, April). Social work in employee assistance programs. Social Work, pp. 243-246.
Fati, G.C. & Adkins, J.I., Jr. (1983). The employer's
role in alcoholism assistance. Personnel Journal, 62,
56B-572.
Perham, J. (1982, June). Battling employee alcoholism.
Duna Business Month, pp.48-49.
Plant,: M.A. (1979). Drinking careers: Occupations, drinking habits. and drinking problems. London: Tavistock
Publications Limited.
Preventive maintenance for employees. (1979, April).
Modern Office Procedures, pp. 51-53.
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association
(3rd ed.). (1983r:- Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Quayle, D. (US. Senate). (1983, April). American productivity: The devastating effect of alcoholism and drug
abuse. American Psychologist, pp. 454-458.
Ray, J.S. (1982, May).
ance? Try an EAP.
Having problems with worker performAdministrative Management, pp.47-49.
Reed, D.J. (1983). One approach to employee assistance.
Personnel Journal, 62, 648-652.
Rendero, T. (1981, July- August). Round up: Employee
assiBtance programs. Personnel, .,i§.(4) , pp. 55-57.
Roman, P.M. (1983). Employee assitance programs in Australia
and the United States: Comparisons of origin, structure,
and the role of behavioral science researcn. Journal
of fu::'plied Behavioral Science, 12, 367- 379.
40
Roman. P.M.
(1980). Medicalization and social control in
the workplace: Prospects for the 1980·s. Journal of
Al;~plied Behavioral Science, 16, 407-422.
Rostain, H., Allen, P. ~ Rosenberg, S.
(1980). New York
City's approach to problem-employee counseling. Personnel
Journal, .i2" )21.
Sager, L.B.
(1979, June). The corporation and the alcoholic,
Across the Board, pp. 79-82.
Schneider, F.V.
(1979. May). There is a better way to help
troubled employees. Office, p. 46.
Sherrid, P.
(1982~ November 22).
pp. 59-60.
Selling Sobriety.
Forbes,
Sisk, B.A.
(1981, March). Nursing roles in alcoholism:
The employee assistance program in a one-nursing setting.
Occupational Health Nursing, pp. 9-1).
Trice, H.M. (1977). Alcoholism and the work world. In
VV .C. Hamner and F. L. Schmidt (Fds.), Contemporary
problems in ~rsonnel (pp.4 6-502). Chicago, IL:'St.
Clair Press.
Zemke, R. (198), March).
Training, pp. 44-46,.
Should supervisors be counselors?
Ziegenfuss, J.T., Jr.
(1980, April). Responding to people
problems. Business Horizons, pp. 7)-76.
PART B
RESULTS OF SURVEY
CONDUCTED ON LOCAL
EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
41
METHOD
In order to learn about Employee Assistance Programs in
Muncie and the surrounding areas, a survey was developed,
companies were chosen, and the survey was mailed to the organizations.
The standards used when doing the survey were a
minimum of 200 employees within the companies surveyed; the
company should be within a 100 mile radius of Muncie; and 250
surveys would be mailed.
A map of Indiana was used when chosing the companies to be
surveyed.
Using the mileage chart as a guide, a circle was
drawn covering a radius of the 100 miles surrounding Muncie.
If a
c~ty
was only partially within the circle, the entire
city was assumed to be within the limits.
within
thE~
radius were listed.
Next, the counties
If a county was only partially
included, those cities that were within the limit were listed,
while those outside were not.
Then the 1984 Fdition of the
Harris Indiana Industrial Directory was consulted, by county
and city, to obtain a list of industries that were located
wi thin
thE~
circle, and to determine how many employees each
industry had.
If there were less than 200 employees in an
organization, it was not listed.
If the number of employees
was not stated, the organization was included in the list of
possible contacts.
Finally the list of organizations with the potential of
being contacted was compared to the 1984 Dun and Bradstreet
Million Dollar Directory: Volumes 1,
~,
and]; and the
42
1984 Standard and Poor's Register of Corporations, Directors
and Executives, Volume 1.
If an organization was found within these two references,
the number of employees was noted.
Companies having 200 or
more employees had their names and addresses added to the list
of
companiE~s
to be contacted.
If they had less than 200, they
were eliminated from the list.
When there was no number of
employees listed, the company was maintained on a separate
list.
After going through the Indiana Industrial Directory, the
Million Dollar Directory, and the Standard and Poor's Register;
there were only 160 companies which had a listing of 200 or
more employees.
In order to have the 250 companies to be
surveyed, 90 companies were randomly selected from the list
of companies without a stated amount of employees.
These 250
companies received the survey, cover letter (see Appendix A),
and a self-addressed stamped envelope, and were given five
weeks to respond.
The questions in the survey were arrived at through brainstorming, and while doing library research on the background
and effectiveness of Employee Assistance Programs.
Questions
were complied, reviewed and arranged in a logical order.
The
cover letter was prepared to explain the survey's purpose to
the companies contacted, and both the survey and the cover
letter were submitted for approval.
given,
thE~
Once the approval was
survey was mailed to the chosen companies.
- - ---~-~-
---------.
43
-.
RESULTS
250 surveys mailed, 52 (20.8%) were returned.
Of the
these,
Of
29 (55.7%) did not have an EAP, 22 (42.3%) did have
one, and 1 company
(2%) had been permanently closed.
The number of employees was asked of each company, regardless of their EAP status.
Of the total companies that pro-
vided infol~ations,
35 (64%) had less than 500 employees.
Of these companies,
24 (75%) did not have an EAP, and only
8 (25%) did have one.
that had
1.8 (36%) of the companies
There were
500 or more employees.
not have EAP's, while 1)
Of these only
5 (27.7%) did
(72.3%) did have them.
This trend is also seen when looking at the companies within the categories of having an EAP or not having one.
were
There
29 companies that did not have EAP's (58% of the companies
providing information.)
Of these,
24 (82.75%) had less than
500 employees; 5 (17.25%) had between 500 and 750 employees;
but none of the companies had more than
750 employees.
Of the
21. companies having EAP's, only 8 (38.1%) had less than 500
employees, and
There were
3 of those 8 had between 400 and 500 workers.
13 (61.9%) companies who had EAP's, and 8 of these
13 had more than 1000 employees.
(See Appendix B).
Of those companies not having Fmployee Assistance Programs,
there was
1 (3.4%) in retail, 1 (3.4%) in services, 3 (10.3%)
in wholesale,
23 (79.5%) in manufacturing and 1 (3.4%) in some
other type of work.
were not.
15 (51.7%) were unionized, and 14 (48.3%)
In contrast, of those companies having an EAP,
2 (9.5%) were in wholesale/manufacturing and 19 (90.5%) were
44
manufacturers.
There were 18 (85.7%) of the organizations
that were unionized, and only 3 (14.3%) that were non-union
organizations.
Individual profiles for the workers within the corporations
can be seen in Appendix C.
The companies who did not have an Employee Assistance Program, were asked if they had ever had one.
27 (93.1%) had
never had a program, while 2 (6.9%) had had one at one time,
but stopped due to low usage by employees, high costs or lack
of insurance coverage.
The meth.ods of dealing with EAP-type problems was also
questioned.
The answers ranged from in-house counseling, to
supervisor and personnel or medical department aid, referrals,
and a leave of absence with
returns.
~
guaranteed job when the employee
Some companies ignore the problem.
One company of
only 13 employees explained that they have a "small group of
employees,
~nd there is] not a problem at our location; [we
-,
have aj steady workforce, no turnover and an average tenure
of 10 years."
The general consensus for most organizations is similar to
the philosophy of this company ••. "How are various problems
with employees handled?"
Those
ind~"cat
"Primarily on an individual basis.
ing interest are referred to area care providers.
At times, as a result of discipline related to chemical
dependency, employee is required to follow the recommendations
of the arE3a Mental Health Care Agency."
There were 21 corporations who did have EAP's and filled
out the survey.
One company has an EAP but did not complete
45
the questionaire.
Three companies began their programs as
early as 1970.
From 1970 to 1975, 7 companies (35%) began
their programs.
From 1976 to 1980, 5 companies (25%) did;
and from 1981 to 1985, 8 (40%) programs were started.
The reasons for the programs ranged from insurance benefits and coverage, to collective bargaining agreements and
corporate orders, to industry competition.
They were also
meant to bE? a management resource and an alternative to dismissal, as well as being done out of compassion and concern
for the employees.
One company "has a philosophy that people
are our most important asset and within that framework attempts
to assist employees whenever possible."
Several companies included explanatinns of how their
programs were developed.
Some were developed and monitored
by health insurance carriers.
Others were designed by area
mental health centers or with the center's aid.
The major-
ity were developed by corporate headquarters or through company collective bargaining.
The program's development
usually began with determining that there was a need.
Then
there was the development of a policy statement, selection
and training of personnel, pUblication of the program, and a
reevaluation of it.
Finally, any needed changes were made.
One company determined
1) individual needs; 2) established a community resource directory; 3) notified
employees of our overall concern; 4)contacted
state authorities regarding co-ordination
of services; 5) formalized program as part
of orientation; 6) developed community
awareness.
46
The companies' budgets ranged from $2000 to $550,000
(including personnel's salaries) annually.
One company
stated that the cost was covered by insurance, and several
others either had no budget or were included in a corporatewide budget.
There were 16 (76%) of the 21 companies that
were branches or subsidiaries of other companies.
Of these,
14 (88%) had programs developed by the parent organization
and 2 (13%) had developed their own programs.
None of the
organizations utilized only in-house counseling, 7 (33%)
used a referral service, and 14 (67%) used both referral
and in-house counseling.
The question concerning the methods of making employees
aware of the program was answered by 19 companies.
All 19
responded that word-of-mouth was used by the company to
publicize the availability of the program.
In decreasing
order, the other methods were brochures (16 companies--84%),
signs (13 companies--68%), announcements (10 companies--53%),
newsletters (8 companies--42%), training sessions and insurance benefits (2 companies--10.5% each), and personnel handbook (1 company--5%).
As far as topics covered by the programs, every organization liste,d alcohol as t he number one topic treated.
Drug
abuse was most often listed second (11 times), and was treated
by every company also.
Emotional problems were listed as
third by :; companies and justifies treatment in 16 organizations, while marital problems were most often listed fourth.
Financial problems were usually listed fifth (4 times), and
were treated by 13 companies.
Child abuse was listed sixth
47
5 times and is being treated by 11 companies.
Legal diffi-
culties are counseled for in 2 organizations, as are problems
with an individual's children and stress management.
Obesity
and spirituality are each dealt with in one organization.
'rhe employees with a perceived need for EAP treatment
ranged from 2% to 45% of the workforce within an organization.
Out of 18 companies, 7 (38.8%) expressed a need by 10% of the
workforce, and another 7 (38.8%) expressed an even greater
percentage of need.
Only one company felt that all of those
who needed treatment were utilizing the program.
There were
10 (55.5%) who felt that 5% or less utilize the program and
7 (38.8%) felt that between 10% and 20% of the total amount
of workers make use of the Employee Assistance Program.
One
organization sited a specific number of success stories.
When asked to define the manager/supervisor's role in
referrals, a majority (95%) of the companies stated that the
manager/supervisor's responsibilities included identifying
jOb-related problems, confronting the employee without diagnosis, and/or informing the worker of the availability of the
EAP referral service.
One company actually schedules the
worker's first appointment with a referred organization.
13
(65~~)
of the organ izat ions have some sort of formal train-
ing program for their managers and supervisors.
These train-
ing sessions include lectures and speakers (9 organizations-69%), films (5 companies--381a), handouts and manuals, observation sessions and crisis intervention (3 organizations--23%),
and discussions (2 companies--15%).
Several of the corpor-
ations listed topics such as recognizing work-related problems,
48
and how far to let employees "go" before referring them to
an Employee Assistance Frogram.
There are 7 (33%) of the 21 organizations with FAP's, who
keep no documentation at all, while 13 (62%) have insurance
or physican reports, disciplinary documentation, or counseling
verifications of one sort or another.
Of the 21, 5 (24%)
companies require release of information forms as a protection for
thE~ir
employees.
These release forms are an impor-
tant means of maintaining the confidentiality of treatment.
Other means include the use of outside counselors only (4 companies--23~:&),
or record maintenance exclusively by the in-
house counselor (9 companies--52%).
One organization keeps
documents in a separate file: by location, age,
sex, work experience, referral source, work
record, attendance, problem, marital status,
accidents, tardiness, date, and acceptance or
rejection.
All organizations listed confidentiality as a very important
aspect of their program.
Aid that is provided through the RAP is always available
to present employees, but the survey questioned who else was
welcomed by an organization.
Of the 21 organizations, 20 (95%)
welcomed family members of present employees, while only 1
company wa.s willing to provide services for either their
friends, neighbors, or dependents other than immediate family
members.
There were 3 (14%) who specifically listed retirees,
and 10 (4El%) stated that they were willing to aid ex-employees
of all types.
49
Most companies were willing to make some type of allowances for troubled employees who are attempting to obtain
assistance in handling problems that are causing performance
deterioration.
These concessions include sick pay by 13
companies (62%), or time-off for medical reasons (9 companies--
43%).
BlUE! Cross/ Blue Shield coverage fer treatment is
provided by 6 companies (28.5%).
Four companies (19%) extend
leaves of absence, and 2 (9.5%) provide for payment of time
not worked during the first visit to a clinic or physician,
or reentry assistance once treatment is concluded.
Sevente4~n
companies provided information on the qualifica-
tions of the counselors working in their EAP program.
Frevi-
ous experience with EAP types of work was listed by 7 organizations (41%).
Certification by the state, use of licensed
facilities and/or continuing education were stated by 6 organizations (35%) for each category.
Four companies (23.5%)
employed medical doctors, 1 (6%) had a registered nurse, and
2 (12%) utilize the knowledge of recovered alcoholics.
As to the effectiveness of the Employee Assistance Programs,
only 2 (9.5%) of the companies felt that their program was
not effective.
One of these companies saw their program as
successful without being effective financially.
'rhe second
company sa.w their program as unsuccessful because of the high
number of employees who began drinking again soon after
release from the program.
There were two companies (9.5%)
who did not provide answers, and the remaining 17 companies
(81%) saw their EAP's as effective programs within their companies.
1'he amount of savings signified by the companies
so
were a 4 to 1 return on investments, double their money back,
and approximately $400,000 annual savings.
There were 18 companies (86%) who viewed their program as
successful for reasons ranging from the retention of employees
involved in the program; lower absenteeism, accident and sick
leave rates; improved morale and development of a trust
between employees and supervisors; to a generally good participation rate and feedback response.
One company stated that
the program is considered a success on the criteria that:
1) It gets the supervisor out of the counsel-
ing business and allows him or her to focus on
is~mes of work and performance.
2) It restores
performance in some cases. J) It allows us to
terminate employment with a good conscience
wht~n an employee's behavior proves incompatable
with work.
The specifics within the programs that made them successful included:
1) A leason between the company and the counselor; 2) Case management; J) Documentation
and intervention when work performance fails;
4) Training and enlighted management and supervisors; and S) Competent counseling,
as one company stated.
Other specifics were committment to
the care and restoration of human dignity, and the "concern
for the individual rather than dollars and cents."
The
availability of treatment centers, the high degree of confidentiality, and the quality, caring and objectivity of
counselors were also items that made the various programs
successful.
51
Finally, the respondents were questioned as to what changes,
if any, they would like to have seen in their programs.
There
were 5 organizations (24%) who had no answers, and 2 companies
(9.5%) saw no need for changes.
More awareness of the program
and better education of employees about the Ti'AP was wanted by
4 companies (19%).
of the following:
Two organizations (9.5%) each wanted one
increased training for the supervisor,
counselor and staff, better follow-up and after-care, or
better preventative health care.
'T'here was an organization
who expressed a need for more specific information on the
program from the corporate headquarters.
Finally, one com-
pany (4-.5%) wanted a full-time counselor; someone who would
devote the needed time to the employees and to training and
educating both the staff and the employees.
DISCUSSION
In Appendix B, we see that EAP's tend to be more prevalent in the larger companies (500 or more employees).
reasonings behind this are many.
The
A large company is more
likely to see the need among its employees, because the
actual number of workers who have problems causing job deterioration is larger than in smaller organizations, even
though the percentages may by identical in both sizes of companies.
Organizations with 500 or more workers also have
larger dollar profits than smaller organizations.
For this
reason, t:rle ratio of EAP expenses to profit will be lower
for larger companies, making them more likely to take advantage of the benefits of an EAP.
It maybe more economical
52
for a small organization to terminate one or two " problem"
employees rather than develop a program to rehabilitate them.
Another possibility is that, as in the case of one respondent,
there are no employees within the company who have a need for
the s ervicE~s typically provided by EAP' s, therefo re its existence wi thin t he company is unnecessary.
Manufacturing plants constituted t he highest number of
respondents and the highest percentage of companies with FAP's.
This could be due to the high level of supervisor/supervisee
contact, compared to retail or service industries.
The close
contact with his workers enables the supervisor to recognize
problems in his unit.
Also, the nature of the work within
manufacturing plants lends itself more readily to a quantitative evalua.tion of performance, both satisfactory and unsatisfactory.
rrhe effect of unions can be explained by the facts
that many manufacturing plants are unionized, and that through
collective bargaining, a system can be developed to satisfy
both labor and management.
The union can pave the way to a
smooth acceptance and implementat ion of t he program through
education and explanation.
The best method of making workers aware of the program is by
word-of-mouth.
As more and more individuals take advantage of
the program's assistance, its popularity will grow, and additional individuals will seek help.
As this happens, a program's
efficiency, productivity and profitability increase because
employees are more likely to seek help, and seek it early.
The stigma of using the program often lessens, employees
request assistance and a higher percentage of the work force
needing the benefits of the FAF will receive them.
5)
As programs continue, not only do they attract more workers,
but they often will develop new treatment areas also.
Pro-
grams usually begin by dealing with alcohol and drug abuse
exclusively.
These are usually the two biggest areas affect-
ing performance.
AR these programs become established, other
treatment areas are added: financial, legal and marital aRsistance, emotional and mental therapy, as well as stress management and overcoming obesity.
The primary source of identification is the manager/supervisor.
Because of this, there is a strong need for their
training.
The majority of companies have some instruction,
both formal and informal, for their supervisors and managers.
'rhis enables them to help their workers and increase the efficiency and productivity of their area.
CONCLUSION
As mOrE! companies, both large and small, come to realiz e
that a happy, healthy worker truly is a more productive and
efficient worker, EAP use and development will continue to
grow.
Methods will be tested and improved upon, and workers
will once again develop a loyalty to the company who may have
jilted them into realizing their need for help, then was willing to stand by them and aid them in the times of trouble.
,--,
APPENDIX A
-
April 8,
1985
Dear Employee Relations Representative:
I
am a senior at Ball State University in Muncie,
Indiana,
and
am doing my Senior Honors Thesis in the area of Employee
Assistance
Programs.
Employee Assistance Programs
(EAP's)
are
offered
by
organizations to help
employees
who
have
personal,
and/or
alcohol
and drug
related
problems
that
affect their job performance.
I am surveying organizations within 200 miles of Muncie, with
the
hope of gaining a profile of the EAP's within the
area.
My
goal
is
to
determine
which
organizations
find
it
profitable
to have an Employee Assistance Program, and which
do
not.
I
am also interested in the
characteristics
of
organizations who have EAP's, who never have had them, or who
have decided to eliminate them for whatever reason.
I
hope
to
use
this
information to achieve a better
knowledge
of
EAP's,
as well as to provide a service by making my
results
available to interested organizations.
I
would
appreciate
it if you would fill out
the
enclosed
survey, and return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope
within the next two weeks.
If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me at (317)285-4380,
or my
supervisor,
Dr. Judy Allen, at (317)285-1715.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
;;eLJttJ
1'1. JWt,1~
Linda M. Forthofer
Honors Program
Ball State University
Muncie, IN
47306
Tel: (317)285-4380
285-1715
-
-
55
EAP SURVEY
Linda M. Forthofer & Judy Allen
Department of Psychological Science
Ball State University
Muncie, IN
47306
(317)285-4380; 285-1715
PART I -- SECTION A
Company name
Number of employees
Type of company:
(check one)
Retail
Wholesale
Manufacturing
Services
Governmental
Other
Are you unionized? (check one)
yes
no
Approximate employee profile--by percentage--if available:
Sex: Male
Female
Age:
18-30
31-49 _______________
50-64
65+
Race: Black
Caucasian
Oriental
Other
(please specify)
Marital status:
Single
Married
Separated
Widowed
Divorced
Educational background:
Non-high school
High school
Associate
Bachelors
Masters
PhD
Wage breakdown:
Salaried
Hourly
Annual salary (in thousands):
-
17-30
31-45
1
8-16
46+
EAP SURVEY
L. Forthofer & J. Allen
Department of Psychological Science
Ball State University
Muncie, IN
47306
(317)285-4380; 285-1715
Do you have an Employee Assistance Program? yes
no
**********************************************************~*~*~*~*~i~~~£
PART I -- SECTION B
*
It y@" d@
~ h~v@
~n
PART 11:-
EAP,
pleDoe ~nower the questions in
** If y@" do hove on EAP, plesse go on to PART III.
************Ti**************************************************
* PART II
Have you ever had an Employee Assistance Program? yes ___
If yes, why was it eliminated?
no
How are various problems with employees handled? (Alcohol and drug
abuse,
marital
problems,
and
other
problems
that affect
performance. )
Go on to PART IV. (Page 7)
***************************************************************
** PART III
It yO"
h~v@ ~n
EAP,
ple~oe ftnswer
these questions.
***************************************************************
When was your program started?
Why was it developed?
2
57
-
EAP SURVEY
L. Forthofer & J. Allen
Department of Psychological Science
Ball State University
Muncie, IN
47306
(317)-285-4380; 285-1715
How was
your program developed?
(Please include any
changes that have occurred throughout its lifetime.)
How much
does it cost your company to operate
example, what is your annual EAP budget?)
its
steps
EAP?
Are you a branch or subsidiary of another organization? yes
and
(For
no
If yes,
was the EAP developed by the parent organization or your
division?
Who is the parent organization?
Is
the
EAP an in-house program,
(Check one)
in-house
a referral program,
or
referral
both
both?
How do employees become acquainted with your program?
Brochures
(check all
Signs
Word-of-mouth
th~t ~pply)
Announcements
Other
(please specify)
Which of these problems are addressed by your EAP?
(Rank with
being the most frequent.)
Alcohol abuse
Marital problems
Drug abuse
Emotional disorders
Child abuse
Financial problems
Other
(please specify)
What percent of all employees would you estimate have a need
EAP 'services?
3
1
for
58
EAP SURVEY - page 4
L. Forthofer & J. Allen
Department of Psychological Science
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
(317)285-4380; 285-1715
the
utilize
actually
total
employees
of
What
percent
program'? __________________________________________________________________--What
are
program?
the
manager/supervisors'
roles in
referral
to
the
Do your managers/supervisors have any formal EAP training?
(check one)
yes
no
What type?
What type of documentation is required in relation to the EAP?
How is the issue of confidentiality handled?
Which of the following individuals can gain aid through the
EAP?
(Assuming that present employees are already listed.)
Ex-employees
yes
no
Families of troubled employees
yes
no
Friends of troubled employees ----yes
no
Neighbors of troubled employees
yes
no
Others
--(please specify)
4
59
EAP SURVEY
L. Forthofer & J. Allen
Department of Psychological Science
Ball State University
Muncie, IN
47306
(317)285-4380; 285-1715
Approximate
percentage:
employee
profile
Sex: Male
Age:
for
those
----------------
18-30
50-64
using
the
EAP--by
Female
31-49
65+
Race: Black
Oriental
Caucasian
Other
(please specify)
Marital status:
Married
Widowed
Single
Separated
Divorced
Educational background:
High school
Bachelors
PhD
Non-high school
Associate
Masters
Wage breakdown:
Salaried
Hourly
Annual salary (in thousands):
17-30
31-45
8-16
46+
Length of time with company (in years):
0-3 years---4-8-years
3-13 years
14+ years ------------_____________
Category.::.!. job most often treated: __________
What allowances are made for employees in treatment?
sick pay, etc.)
(Time off,
What
percent of
the
total cost of treatment is each
following responsible for?
Company
Insurance
Employee
5
of
the
60
EAP SURVEY
L. Forthofer & J. Allen
Department of Psychological Science
Ball State University
Muncie, IN
47306
(317)285-4380; 285-1715
Does
the company's insurance package provide
services or treatment?
(check one) yes
for
psychological
no
What are the qualifications of your EAP counselors?
exner;enr.e, training, ptc.)
Is your EAP cost effective? (check one)
If yes, by how much?
In what ways?
Is
yes
your Employee Assistance Program successful or
yes
no
(Education,
no
unsuccessful?
check one)
What is your criteria for this decision?
What makes the EAP successful or unsuccessful for your organization?
61
EAP SURVEY
L. Forthofer & J. Allen
Department of Psychological Science
Ball State University
Muncie, IN
47306
(317)285-4380; 285-1715
What
are
some
changes,
if any,
incorporated into your EAP?
that you would
like
to
see
***************************************************************
PART IV
Please answer the following questions regardless of
not
you
have
an
Employee
Assistance
Program.
appropriate answers.)
whether
or
(Check
the
****************************************************************
Would you like your responses to be kept confidential? yes __ no
and/or anonymous? yes
no
May I quote you?
yes
no
and/or discuss you responses? yes
no
Thank you very much for your time.
Linda M. Forthofer
Dr. Judy Allen
7
62
APPENDIX B
- ,
I
I
75%
~---+--------------\R
.
co
C\I
co
I
I
I
I
I
I
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
--T------·---------
~-
';;R
\J"\
.
!:'M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\R I
I
I
I
C'\ I
I
I
'".
co
I
I
I
I
I
100%
8
(400-500= 3)
I
I
I
~ I
.:::T I
'-D I
I
32
EMPLOYEES
M
'-D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0-500
:
I
I
72.3%
I
100%
---r--------------- ---r--------------'cR
'".
18
13
~
5
I
I
25%
---EAP
---r--------------- ---t---------------
2('.7%
I
TOTAL
YES
NO
I
(1000+ =8 )
I
I
I
'-D I
C'\ I
I
I
I
500+
_I
I
I
I
~-
M
I
I
I
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
42%
I
I
I
100%
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
50
--t-----.---------- ---t--------------- ---t---------------
~
0
0
58%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
0
0
~
I
~
0
0
M
I
TOTAL
APPENDIX C
I.
Profile of employees within companies who do not. have an EAP.
Beside each percentage is listed the number of companies who
responded within that category.
Sex:
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
Male
Female
2
1
5
8
2
3
6
1
3
6
4
8
1
2
3
Profile unavailable--2
Age:
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
-
18-30
5
2
4
31-49
2
1
1
2
2
1
7
1
1
Profiles unavailable--16
50-64
2
4
6
2
1
2
1
65+
7
64
Black
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
Caucasian
Oriental
Hispanic
Other
5
8
2
9
1
6
1
5
11
5
Profiles ur..available--10
Maital Status:
. 05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
Single
3
4
2
4
1
Profiles unavailable--18
Married
2
2
4
2
3
3
Sep •
\'I1idow
Divorced
6
6
1
2
5
2
1
Education:
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
Non-HS
4
2
HS
AA/AS
BA/BS
MA
PhD
5
1
5
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
Profiles unavailable--16
Vvages:
Salaried
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
1
4
5
Hourly
1
1
8
2
3
1
3
7
7
3
3
1
1
Profiles unavailable--6
---------
---------
66
-
Salary:
..
8-1.6
.05-9;10
1
10-1.9%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
3
1
31-45
2
1
1
5
2
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
46+ (in thousands)
5
2
2
1
50- 59~10
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
17-30
1
2
1
2
1
1
Profiles unavailable--ll
II.
Profile of employees within companies that do have an EAP.
Sex:
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
Male
Female
3
1
C;
J
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
4
Profiles unavailable--9
1.
67
-
Age:
31-49
18-30
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
2
1
2
1
j
1
1
3
3
50-64
65+
3
2
2
2
1
1
Profiles unavailable--13
Race:
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
Black
Caucasian
3
4
1
1
1
1
4
5
Profiles unavailable--14
Oriental
Hispanic
Other
4
4
4
68
~~-,
Single
Mari tal Status:
Married
Sep.
Widow
Divorced
2
1
1
.05-9%
1
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Profiles unavailable--16
Education:
Non-HS
HS
AA/AS
BA/BS
MA
5
5
6
.05-9%
2
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
Profiles unavailable--14
PhD
Wages:
Salaried
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
1
8
3
2
Hourly
1
1
1
1
3
8
2
1
Profiles unavailable--5
Salar;y::
8-16
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50- 59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
2
17-30
31-45
1
3
1
2
Profiles u.navailable--15
1
2
2
1
46+ (in thousands)
5
70
~,
III. Profile of employees who use the EAP within their company.
Sex:
.05-9%
10-19%
20- 29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
Male
Female
1
2
1
1
1
3
Profiles unavailable--15
Age:
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
18-30
31-L~9
50-64
1
1
1
j
1
1
1
Profiles unavailable--17
1
65+
71
,-
Race:
. 0 5-9~~
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
Black
Caucasian
Oriental
~{ispanic
Other
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
Profiles unavailable--16
I'f.ari tal Status:
. 05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
Single
Married
3
Sep •
3
\IJidow
Divorced
2
1
1
Profiles unavailable--17
2
1
1
72
Education;
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30- 39%
Non-HS
HS
1
AA/AS
BS/BA
NIA
3
2
1
3
Lw-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
2
2
2
Profiles unavailable--14
lrJages:
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50- 59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
Salaried
Hourly
1
1.
1
1
2
1
Profiles unavailable--15
1
2
PhD
73
-
Salary:
.05-9%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
j7-30
8-16
46+ (in thousands)
31-45
2
1
t
1
3
1
Profiles unavailable--i6
Time with
~~ompany:
0-3
4-8
9-13
2
.05-9~1o
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50- 59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
100%
14+ (in years)
2
2
1
l
1
2
1
1
Profiles unavailable--16
Category of worker most often treated:
Profile unavailable--16
Production worker-- 5