Employee assistance programmes: the 2007 IRS report

Five years after a court ruling gave strong backing to the use of employee assistance programmes, another judgment has removed many of the legal advantages to employers. IRS examines the current state of play in the use of these information and advice services, and the evidence for their effectiveness.

KEY POINTS

Many employers now provide employee assistance programmes (EAPs). They offer employees free information, advice and support, mainly by telephone, about a wide range of medical, personal and other issues.
Most EAPs offer a helpline, counselling services and referrals to specialist advisers.
The use made of EAPs varies widely, but the typical annual take-up rate is 10% of the workforce.
The cost of providing an EAP also varies widely; the typical cost per head of staff to an employer each year is just under £14.
Most EAPs are provided by external suppliers.
More than 80% of EAPs are problem-free.
Feedback from EAP providers can provide valuable information to employers about problems within their organisation; however, only one in three employers act on it.
Most employers with EAPs consider that they justify their cost.
The statistical evidence about EAPs’ cost-effectiveness is considered in the accompanying Employee assistance programmes: the business case.

Introduction

At least one in five employers in the UK now offers an employee assistance programme (EAP) to its staff. Their popularity has increased in recent years, partly because of a 2002 legal case where having an EAP was ruled to provide a defence against stress compensation claims.

On the face of it, EAPs have much to commend them. They provide a “listening ear” to employees’ problems, backed up by information, advice and moral support. Their services seem perfectly designed to help people cope with the pressures that modern life and today’s workplaces create. In the absence of such help, these pressures could preoccupy employees’ thoughts when they should be working at full capacity for their employer.

Certainly, employers that provide an EAP say they are satisfied with them. They rate EAPs as being highly cost-effective, and do not begrudge the relatively low cost of £14 per person each year. Hardly any employers report experiencing significant problems with their EAP.

There is room for improvement, however. Only one in four employers acts on the valuable feedback that their EAP provider gives them regularly about the issues and problems employees are raising. These management reports could help employers tackle problems in their organisations before they have serious consequences, such as instances of bullying or harassment.

So, is the experience of employers that provide an EAP sufficiently good to convince organisations that are considering introducing one? The answer is not clear cut.

IRS’s research into EAPs, which we report here and in the accompanying feature on the business case for EAPs, shows high levels of satisfaction. But the hard evidence for the efficacy of EAPs is often tentative and sometimes disputed.

There are indications that EAPs help reduce absences from work and alleviate stress. But even here the research is not conclusive.

In some ways, EAPs have reached a crossroads.

The legal impetus behind much of the growth of EAPs has been lost. The 2002 legal case that did so much to encourage the introduction of EAPs has been modified by a February 2007 Court of Appeal judgment in another stress compensation case. This case makes it impossible for an employer to rely on an EAP as an absolute defence in stress cases.

However, evidence is emerging that could encourage the continued provision of EAPs, including our own study reported here. The findings are not as conclusive as one would wish, so it is uncertain whether or not they will be sufficient to compensate for the change in the law.

Note: The hard statistical evidence about EAPs’ cost-effectiveness is considered in depth in the accompanying file Employee assistance programmes: the business case.

A fuller breakdown by economic sector and workforce size of the results shown in the tables in this feature can be found in Employee assistance programmes: IRS data in full.

What are employee assistance programmes (EAPs)?

EAPs are services that aim to help employees cope with life’s challenges and crises.

EAPs are usually funded by employers and are generally available to the whole workforce and, often, to employees’ partners and immediate families as well.

The three most significant points about EAPs are that they:

are confidential;
are not restricted to issues and problems connected with work; and
are free of charge to employees and other users – however, there may be an indirect cost when an EAP is offered as part of a healthcare plan or other insurance scheme to which employees contribute financially.

Most EAPs are contacted via a telephone helpline. Callers can raise a wide range of problems with the helpline staff, and receive information and advice, support and counselling.

In February and March 2007, IRS conducted research into EAPs. We asked employers about the nature of their EAP, its cost, take-up rate and impact on their organisation. We also asked employers that do not provide an EAP for their reasons for deciding against them. Our findings are reported in this article.

Our study is based on information supplied by 127 employers, of which 76 offer an EAP to their workforces. These 76 employers have a combined workforce of almost 400,000 people. Our research provides more details of the employers in our study.

The main features of EAPs

EAPs that employers provide for their workforces follow a well-established pattern.

Their main features are shown below, together with the findings from our research about the proportion of employers’ EAPs providing each of them:

a telephone helpline providing information and advice on a wide range of issues (93%);
a counselling service provided over the telephone (91%);
face-to-face counselling, usually of a time-limited nature (71%);
referrals to specialist advisers, for example on legal, tax and health issues (68%);
an advice line for line managers to help them handle difficult situations at work, such as interpersonal conflicts and emotional problems that their subordinates might be experiencing (52%); and
an internet site that provides information resources about a range of issues of interest to EAP users (33%).

Table 1 shows these results. A breakdown of the results by economic sector and workforce size can be found in table 1 in Employee assistance programmes: IRS data in full.

The subjects and issues covered

Many EAPs cover an almost limitless range of topics and problems. The staff who answer the helplines will field enquiries, but many EAPs are set up so that more complex and technical issues can be referred to a specialist. For example, a caller’s tax enquiry may be referred to a taxation expert. Helplines are usually staffed 24 hours a day and use a freephone number, so that users will not be inhibited by the potential cost of what could be a long telephone call.

EAPs usually offer a mix of information and advice together with “active listening”: a form of counselling. The latter is backed up in many employers’ EAPs with the provision of face-to-face counselling with trained counsellors. The face-to-face counselling sessions are almost always time-limited. A series of six to eight sessions is often offered as part of the EAP contract with the employer’s provider.

It is difficult to provide a list of the subjects and issues covered by EAPs because of their breadth. However, here are examples of some of the more common topics that they will tackle:

health;
alcohol and drug abuse;
financial matters, including debt and tax problems;
personal relationships;
emotional problems, such as stress and anxiety;
bereavement;
conflicts at work or outside work;
the law;
redundancy counselling;
coping with change;
harassment, bullying and discrimination; and
work–life balance issues, including childcare and eldercare.

Trends in employee assistance programmes

EAPs are an American import. According to a report by Colin Grange (external link, PDF format, 116K)¹, chair of the UK Employee Assistance Professionals Association (external website), there was a time lag of almost 30 years between their development in the US and their widespread adoption in the UK.

Grange argues that EAPs have developed differently in the two countries. They tend to be provided by external companies under contract to employers in the UK, rather than being in-house services. And EAPs in the UK generally take a “broad brush” approach to the issues they cover. In the US, by contrast, he says they are more likely to focus on helping employees who abuse drugs or alcohol.

Grange adds that EAPs in the UK have evolved through four distinct phases or “generations”:

the first generation, 1985–1995: companies offering EAPs to employers tended to be small, specialist organisations; EAPs focused on “callers at risk” and their services were seldom integrated with other aspects of employers’ health, absence and related policies;
the second generation, 1995–2000: larger organisations, particularly private medical insurers, began to offer EAPs; during this period, too, employers began to integrate their EAP services with other aspects of their health, absence and related policies; and although “EAP provision still remained very clinically focused and remedial in nature”, it also began to broaden into health, legal and more general information areas;
the third generation, 2000–2004: EAPs began to incorporate more aspects of work–life balance, including issues concerned with “normal life experiences”, such as childcare and eldercare, alongside problems requiring a professional’s help; and
the fourth generation, 2004 to the present day: the main development in the latest phase of EAP services involves the use of online technologies to provide counselling, health services and access to information.

An example of Grange’s “fourth generation” of EAPs is health provider FirstAssist’s new EAP. It offers a range of online services alongside traditional telephone helplines and access to trained counsellors.

Launched on 13 September 2006, the company’s EmployeeCare EAP includes an Online Health and Wellbeing website. This gives access to information and advice on a wide range of issues, including medical topics, diet, nutrition and overseas travel. The site also features its Insight Online Assessment, which enables individuals to analyse their current stress levels.

The recent broadening of the coverage of EAPs noted by Colin Grange is echoed by comments made by a spokesperson for BUPA Wellness.

This EAP provider agrees that the remit of EAPs has gone beyond clinical issues to encompass lifestyle issues and everyday information needs. In fact, it believes that the latter now dominate UK employees’ use of EAPs.

In a July 2006 article in Employee Benefits magazine² (external link), the clinical and business development manager of BUPA Wellness, Tony Urwin, is quoted as saying that: "In other countries, there has been a strong link between EAPs and counselling for mental health, but in the UK there is more of a focus on the information side of the service. We reckon that about 60% of calls [to EAPs] relate to information about legal, financial or other matters such as childcare.

"Or perhaps the employee's landlord hasn't fixed their heater and they don't know what their rights are or they have some issues about buying a home. These are not embarrassing worries but can make work more stressful if they are not sorted out quickly."

How many employers offer an EAP?

EAPs are very common in the UK. At least one in five organisations offers them to its workforce.

Precise figures are difficult to identify. For example, the four surveys of employers listed below produce estimates of the prevalence of EAPs that range from two in 10 to six in 10 organisations:

IRS’s HR Prospects survey of 2004³ gives a figure of one in five employers (21%);
the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s absence survey of 2006 (external link, PDF format, 420K)⁴ estimates the proportion is about three in 10 employers (“more than 30%”);
the Healthcare Research study of 2006 conducted by Employee Benefits magazine and health insurer HSA (external link, PDF format, 2.6MB)⁵ found that just over four in 10 employers (43%) in its survey provide an EAP; and
IRS’s employee benefits survey of 2006⁶ gives a figure of six in 10 employers (60%).

Employees’ use of EAPs

There appears to be a stark discrepancy between the popularity of EAPs among employers and the low level of use by their workforces.

Figures quoted in the previous section suggest that between 21% and 60% of employers are estimated to provide EAPs in the UK. However, our own research indicates that only one in 10 (10%) employees in organisations offering EAPs actually make use of them each year. This is not necessarily a worrying disparity (see later in this section).

The 10% take-up rate found by our research represents the typical position, based on the median result (the mid-point in the range of all take-up rates). Table 2 provides the details.

However, the range of take-up rates reported by employers in our study is very wide. For example, the rates in the top 25% of our figures (the upper quartile) are more than three times higher than the take-up statistics of employers in the bottom 25% (in the lower quartile). At least 15% of employees use the EAP in the top 25% of employers, versus no more than 5% in the bottom 25% of employers.

A breakdown of take-up rates by economic sector and workforce size can be found in table 2 in Employee assistance programmes: IRS data in full.

Some other sources confirm that our research’s finding of a 10% annual take-up rate is typical of employers as a whole:

EAP provider PPC Worldwide is reported in Personnel Today magazine in July 2005⁷ as saying that 9% of its client employers’ workforces use an EAP each year; and
EAP provider Right Corecare is reported in an article in IRS’s Occupational Health Review of November 2005⁸ as giving a usage rate of between 8% and 10% a year by employees of its client employers’ EAPs.

Our research did not gather data on the take-up of the counselling component that most EAPs offer. However, other studies show that it is much lower than the overall usage of EAPs, as one would expect:

a figure of 3% is quoted in the July 2005 Personnel Today magazine article cited above in respect of telephone and face-to-face counselling offered as part of EAP provider PPC Worldwide’s services to client employers; and
a usage rate of between 2% and 4% is cited by Right Corecare in respect of the counselling components of the EAPs that it provides to client organisations, according to the Occupational Health Review article cited above.

Should employers be concerned about the low usage rates of EAPs? After all, the typical pattern is that 90% of their workforces do not use their EAP in any one year, and 97% do not use its counselling component.

The answer must depend on each organisation’s own motivation for providing an EAP. However, there are some general considerations that could be taken into account. These considerations, and the evidence to support them, are covered in depth in the accompanying file Employee assistance programmes: the business case.

It is also worth noting that EAPs appear to be no different from any other “passive” benefit or healthcare service in the workplace. They require regular publicity to remind employees to use them (see the next section).

Moreover, EAP providers calculate the cost of their services according to a fairly low level of usage. The modest cost of just under £14 per head that a typical employer pays each year for its 24-hour 365-day EAP (see the section below on The cost of providing an employee assistance programme) would doubtless be much greater if employees’ take-up of EAPs were much higher.

The need for regular publicity

Employee assistance programmes (EAPs) fall into the category of workplace benefits and services that come to life only when employees make use of them. They are “passive”, unlike a regular profit-sharing bonus, for example, which the employer is responsible for distributing to its workforce.

Employees are likely to forget about the existence of passive benefits, such as EAPs, unless they receive regular reminders. For new members of staff, it is even more important to publicise the EAP’s existence, its contact phone number and the services it offers.

Several of the employers in our study believe that usage of their EAP tends to peak soon after they draw attention to its services. For example, a large retailer told us: “[Our EAP] supports our bullying and harassment and stress policies, which are part of our business principles policy. The [EAP] helpline is specifically referred to within these policies and within the communications and guidance which support them. These are used on a day-to-day basis but are also specifically included when we are going through change, etc. We often see small peaks in usage when the helplines are referred to as part of these activities.”

A contact of ours in a consumer products company made a more general point, observing: “It has been necessary to promote the EAP and to educate employees about the range of services that are available.”

The cost of providing an employee assistance programme

Most employee assistance programmes (EAPs) are paid for by employers according to a fixed annual fee per head of staff.

In our research, only 29 employers were able to give costs for their EAP. The results are shown in table 3. A breakdown by economic sector and workforce size, where sample sizes permit, can be found in table 3 in Employee assistance programmes: IRS data in full.

Employers’ feedback shows that the cost per capita of an EAP varies significantly. For example, the bottom 25% of our small sample of employers pays only £6 a head a year for their EAP. However, the top 25% of employers pays almost four times as much at £22 per employee per year. Overall, the typical (median or range mid-point) cost of an EAP is just under £14 per person per year.

This £14 figure seems slightly on the low side when compared with the amounts quoted in other sources. For example, management consultancy Towers Perrin’s survey (external link, PDF format, 550K)⁹ gave an average cost per head of staff of £17.58 in 2004, based on responses from around 60 UK employers.

Differences in costs will reflect several factors, including the scope of the EAP and the pricing policy of the programme’s supplier. Naturally, it is advisable to shop around when considering introducing an EAP or switching providers. The website of the UK Employee Assistance Professionals Association, for example, includes a directory of 17 EAP providers with links to their internet sites. There is also an online “EAP brokerage service” offered by Enlighten (external link) that will assist in obtaining quotes from around 30 EAP providers.

It is worth noting that employers’ payments to EAP providers are tax deductible, according to the Health and Safety Executive’s leaflet on Tax Rules and the Purchase of Occupational Health Support (external link, PDF format, 538.6K)¹⁰. However, an EAP is unlikely to be tax-exempt if it is an optional extra that healthcare benefits insurers and private medical policies are increasingly offering. This means that both the employer and employee could be taxed, the latter as receiving a “benefit in kind” from their employer.

The following section considers employers’ views about the value for money of EAPs.

Opinions about the cost-effectiveness of EAPs

In the previous section, we showed that the typical EAPs costs an employer just under £14 per head of staff each year. There are various ways of considering whether or not the costs involved represent value for money.

First, we asked employers for their views. Attitudes towards EAPs can be influential in shaping purchasing decisions, and it would be wrong to disregard client organisations’ perceptions of their EAPs’ cost-effectiveness.

Second, we have obtained some facts and figures relating to EAPs’ cost-effectiveness, and reviewed the evidence of other such studies. The results are considered in depth in the accompanying file Employee assistance programmes: the business case.

The views of our contacts – mainly HR managers – show that they generally view EAPs favourably in terms of their cost-effectiveness.

We asked them to rate the extent to which they think that their organisation’s employee assistance programme “justifies its cost” on a scale of 1 to 5, or to choose a “don’t know” option. Almost one in three (31%) of our contacts consider that their EAP “completely justifies its cost”. They have given it a top rating of 1 on our scale.

A further one in five (21%) gave their EAP a cost-effectiveness rating of 2.

In all, therefore, just over half (52%) of our contacts believe that their EAPs justify the cost of providing them.

Occupying the middle, or neutral, ground a further one in five (22%) chose a rating of 3 on our 1–5 scale.

A further one in six (16%) chose our “don’t know” option.

Only 8%, one in 12, of our contacts have a negative opinion about the pay-back from their organisation’s EAP. Of this 8%, only 1% chose our most critical option of 5: “does not justify its cost at all”.

The results are shown in table 4. A breakdown by economic sector and workforce size can be found in table 4 in Employee assistance programmes: IRS data in full.

Most employers use external providers

Almost all employee assistance programmes (EAPs) are delivered by external suppliers under contract to employers. According to our research, only 5% of EAPs are provided through internal resources.

The results are shown in table 5. A breakdown by economic sector and workforce size can be found in table 5 in Employee assistance programmes: IRS data in full.

Most EAPs appear to be problem-free

EAPs are mainly outsourced services (see previous section) in that they are almost always provided by an external supplier.

However, HR staff appear to experience few problems with their EAP providers, unlike the services provided by other external HR suppliers – for example, those of recruitment advertising agencies and employment agencies.

More than eight in 10 (83%) of the employers in our study told us that their EAPs are free of major problems.

The remaining 17% of employers highlighted several different types of problem with their EAPs. However, this percentage represents just 12 organisations. This is a small sample, so our findings should be treated with caution.

The main problems associated with EAPs, from HR managers’ – rather than users’ – point of view appear to be low levels of usage and a perceived lack of impact. The EAPs have either failed to improve attendance and productivity, or their providers’ management reports are not helpful in enabling the client employer to highlight problem areas.

Management reports from EAP providers are potentially valuable documents – see the next section. Some aspects of EAPs appear to be almost problem-free, however.

Very few employers said the cost of their EAP represents a difficulty. No employer has experienced any shortcomings regarding the quantity or quality of the staff who deliver the EAP. None have come across any breaches of confidentiality.

Management reports from providers

Many employee assistance programme (EAP) providers report back to their client employers about the use of their EAP, using suitably anonymised data (see the next section “Confidentiality is essential”).

These management reports can be valuable documents. They can highlight issues that are having a detrimental impact on the employer’s workforce, enabling them to take remedial action where appropriate. The reports can both add weight to existing concerns about internal problems and also uncover problems about which the employer was unaware – such as bullying or harassment.

In our September 2004 case study of Devon & Cornwall Police¹¹, for example, we noted that the reports from its EAP provider were being put to good use as part of its stress management initiative – so much so that the management reports represented a “proxy stress audit”. Its EAP provider Validium was presenting reports analysed by users’ gender, age, staff group and the police command unit to which they belonged, as well as by the nature of the enquiries made to the EAP.

The statistics on service usage contained in EAP providers’ reports to their clients can be useful in their own right. Where the EAP provider is an external supplier, as is usually the case, it may be possible to benchmark the employer’s usage statistics against those of other employers that use the same provider.

Trends in usage internally can provide some useful feedback on the success or otherwise of the employer’s attempts to publicise its EAP. They can also indicate whether or not employees are turning to the EAP for support during times of major change within their organisation.

However, there are two important issues to note about these management reports:

First, not every EAP provider offers reports that are sufficiently detailed to enable employers to act on them. Indeed, some providers do not appear to prepare management reports of any kind. In our study, three in 10 (31%) employers told us that they do not receive “reports from the EAP provider to your organisation about service usage, the main issues raised by users, etc”.
Second, many employers fail to act on the reports that they do receive. Of the employers in our study that receive usable management reports, only about one in three (35%) takes action as a result of the information contained in them.

Confidentiality is essential

The confidential nature of an employee assistance programme (EAP) represents one if its essential attributes. An EAP’s ability to handle employees’ embarrassing, career-threatening and sensitive issues without fear of disclosure to friends, family or their employer is the bedrock of the client relationship. If employees are reluctant to refer these issues to their EAP because of confidentiality concerns, then one of the main reasons for the EAP’s existence disappears.

Reputable EAP providers will make considerable efforts to preserve client confidentiality – the client being the individual user, rather than the employer paying the EAP bills. Because trust in an EAP’s ethics is so vital to its success, employers should assure themselves that their provider or prospective provider has systems in place to ensure confidentiality. Membership of a recognised professional body represents one way of doing so.

Online EAP brokerage service Enlighten (external link) urges employers to understand what confidentiality means in practice by agreeing its parameters in advance with their EAP provider.

Enlighten points out that confidentiality invariably has limits, and these should be defined to reflect the organisation’s circumstances as well as best practice. It says that these limits should: “cover cases of significant risk or damage to the health and safety of the client or other person. Where the sponsoring organisation encounters particular safety-sensitive issues, these can be reflected in the definition of unacceptable risk. The resulting agreement is communicated in subsequent briefings to [the EAP provider’s] team of counsellors.”

The limits of confidentiality are well understood among suitably trained and accredited counsellors. Most confidentiality issues connected with an EAP are likely to arise in the counselling aspects of an EAP service.

Counsellors should enter into a contract with their client, setting out mutual rights and responsibilities. Confidentiality will be emphasised, but so should its limits. Counsellors are bound ethically, and often legally, to notify the appropriate authorities if it becomes apparent that their client poses a risk. The risk may be to themselves, such as potential suicide, or to others, such as having committed violence against their partner or abused a child, or being likely to do so.

The management reports that many EAP providers produce for employers have to tread a fine line. They must preserve clients’ anonymity while also striving to be informative and helpful.

For example, in IRS’s case study of the EAP at London Probation, we noted: “The EAP provider maintains confidentiality by never disclosing individuals' names, and activity feedback provided to London Probation is only given for groups of employees numbering at least 50, so that individuals cannot be identified. Callers to the helpline do not need to give their names to advisers, only the details of the sponsoring employer, but they do need to disclose personal information if seeking face-to-face counselling or legal and financial advice. Right Corecare [the EAP provider] keeps only limited records of counselling sessions, and its work is governed by professional guidelines on confidentiality produced by bodies such as the EAP Association.”

The reasons why employers do not provide EAPs

Cost, the availability of alternatives and simply never having considered doing so are the three prime reasons why employers do not provide EAPs.

The results are shown in table 6. A breakdown by economic sector and workforce size, where sample sizes permit, can be found in table 6 in Employee assistance programmes: IRS data in full.

The business case for employee assistance programmes

The business case for EAPs has some hard evidence to back it up. However, the evidence is not as conclusive or convincing as is sometimes implied by researchers.

The accompanying file sets out the business case, the nature of the evidence in support of EAPs and the shortcomings of the available research findings.

References

1. “The development of employee assistance programmes in the UK: a personal view” (external link, PDF format, 116K), Colin Grange, Counselling at Work, Summer 2005, pp.2–5.

2. “Dial EAP for help” (external link), Sally Hamilton, Employee Benefits, 12 July 2006, p.36.

3. “HR shapes up its focus on managing absence”, Employment Review 799, 7 May 2004.

4. Absence Management: Annual Survey Report 2006 (external link, PDF format, 420K), Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, July 2006.

5. “Healthcare research 2006” (external link, PDF format, 2.6MB), Employee Benefits, May 2006.

6. “Benefits and allowances (1)”, Employment Review 849, 23 June 2006.

7. “Support pays off”, Alex Blythe, Personnel Today, 5 July 2005.

8. “Integrated healthcare at London Probation”, Sarah Silcox, Occupational Health Review no.118, November 2005.

9. UK Corporate Healthcare 2005 Survey Results (external link, PDF format, 550K), Towers Perrin, 2005.

10. Tax Rules and the Purchase of Occupational Health Support (external link, PDF format, 538.6K), Health and Safety Executive, undated.

11. “Devon & Cornwall Police EAP cuts absence”, Employment Review 808, 24 September 2004.

This article was written by Neil Rankin, editor, Attendance and Absence, Employment Review.

Table 1: The main features of employee assistance programmes
	% of employers
Telephone helpline providing information and advice	93
Counselling via the telephone	91
Face-to-face counselling	71
Referral to specialist advisers (eg for legal, tax and health issues)	68
Management advice service (ie to help line managers handle difficult situations at work)	52
Internet site with information resources	33
Other	8
n = 75. Source: IRS.

Table 2: The take-up by employees of employee assistance programmes
Percent of workforce using the EAP per annum	% of employers
Average	14
Upper quartile	15
Median	10
Lower quartile	5
Upper quartile = top 25% of employers; median = mid-point in the range of take-up rates; lower quartile = bottom 25% of employers. n = 58. Source: IRS.

Table 3: The cost per head of employee assistance programmes
	Cost per head per annum
Average	£18.42
Upper quartile	£22.00
Median	£13.63
Lower quartile	£6.00
Upper quartile = top 25% of employers; median = mid-point in the range of take-up rates; lower quartile = bottom 25% of employers. n = 29. Source: IRS.

Table 4: Views on the cost-effectiveness of employee assistance programmes
	% of employers
1 – completely justifies its cost	31
2	21
3	22
4	7
5 – does not justify its cost at all	1
Don’t know	16
Our contacts were asked to select an option from a 1–5 scale. n = 67. Source: IRS.

Table 5: The sources of employers’ employee assistance programmes
	% of employers
External provider	95
Internal resources	5
n = 75. Source: IRS.

Table 6: The reasons for the non-provision of employee assistance programmes
	% of employers
The employer’s occupational health advisers provide similar services	47
Cost	39
Has never been considered	37
No business case to do so	16
Unlikely to be used by the workforce	2
Other	23
n = 51. Source: IRS.

Our research

This article is based on research that Neil Rankin and Ed Cronin of IRS conducted in February and March 2007. The research obtained information from 127 employers about their provision or otherwise of employee assistance programmes (EAPs), of which 76 employers were currently offering an EAP to their workforces. These 76 employers have a combined workforce of 393,000 employees. Of these employers: 53% are based in the services part of the private sector; 22% are based in the manufacturing and production part of the private sector; the remaining 25% are public sector bodies. Broken down by workforce size, the 76 employers with EAPs comprise: 21% that are small and medium-sized enterprises (those with 1–249 employees); 25% that are classed as large employers (having 250–999 employees); and 54% that are very large employers (having 1,000-plus employees).

Resources

“Devon & Cornwall Police EAP cuts absence”, Employment Review 808, 24 September 2004.

“Integrated healthcare at London Probation”, Sarah Silcox, Occupational Health Review 118, November 2005.

“Workplace counselling: who is the consumer?” (PDF format, 70.1K), Kevin Friery, Counselling at Work, Autumn 2006, pp.24–26.

For coverage of the recent Court of Appeal case Intel Incorporation (UK) Limited v Daw, see: “Case of the week: Employers must act on workplace stress”, personneltoday.com, 20 February 2007.

Commentary and insights

Employee assistance programmes: the 2007 IRS report

Was this article helpful?

About this resource

Employee assistance programmes: the 2007 IRS report