员工援助计划的使用

R. Csiernik
{"title":"员工援助计划的使用","authors":"R. Csiernik","doi":"10.1300/J022V18N03_04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the EAP field, utilization rates are an important concept routinely used as a descriptor of EAP success, yet there has been little formal research conducted in this area. In a study of 154 Canadian EAPs, 102 organizations reported their utilization rates along with how they defined both utilization and a case. Mean utilization rate was 9.2% with utilization being greater in organizations with a union where labor was involved in establishing the program, providing assistance in accessing the program and in managing the program through participation on a joint labor-management committee. Utilization rates were also found to be greater where there was an EAP policy in place and where ongoing program promotion occurred. However, what was also discovered was that most of these statistical conclusions were questionable as there was a lack of consistency in how utilization rates were calculated by various organizations, nor was there any agreement on what even constituted a case. This brings into question the utility of EAP utilization rates in any comparative program monitoring or evaluation. A comprehensive EAP Utilization Scorecard is offered as a response to this situation. The scorecard counts the actual number of employees, retirees and family members who use the EAP, either face-to-face, through telephone counselling or via e-counselling. Also presented is the idea of a new calculation, penetration rate. This value would include counselling offered by the EAP along with the other services, including group counselling, critical incident debriefings, consultations and mediations, workshops and seminars, peer referral contacts and telephone inquiries. This approach would provide a more comprehensive understanding of what EAPs do and would also allow for longitudinal program comparison as well as comparisons between programs.","PeriodicalId":246202,"journal":{"name":"Employee Assistance Quarterly","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Employee Assistance Program Utilization\",\"authors\":\"R. Csiernik\",\"doi\":\"10.1300/J022V18N03_04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In the EAP field, utilization rates are an important concept routinely used as a descriptor of EAP success, yet there has been little formal research conducted in this area. In a study of 154 Canadian EAPs, 102 organizations reported their utilization rates along with how they defined both utilization and a case. Mean utilization rate was 9.2% with utilization being greater in organizations with a union where labor was involved in establishing the program, providing assistance in accessing the program and in managing the program through participation on a joint labor-management committee. Utilization rates were also found to be greater where there was an EAP policy in place and where ongoing program promotion occurred. However, what was also discovered was that most of these statistical conclusions were questionable as there was a lack of consistency in how utilization rates were calculated by various organizations, nor was there any agreement on what even constituted a case. This brings into question the utility of EAP utilization rates in any comparative program monitoring or evaluation. A comprehensive EAP Utilization Scorecard is offered as a response to this situation. The scorecard counts the actual number of employees, retirees and family members who use the EAP, either face-to-face, through telephone counselling or via e-counselling. Also presented is the idea of a new calculation, penetration rate. This value would include counselling offered by the EAP along with the other services, including group counselling, critical incident debriefings, consultations and mediations, workshops and seminars, peer referral contacts and telephone inquiries. This approach would provide a more comprehensive understanding of what EAPs do and would also allow for longitudinal program comparison as well as comparisons between programs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":246202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Employee Assistance Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Employee Assistance Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1300/J022V18N03_04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employee Assistance Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1300/J022V18N03_04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

在EAP领域,利用率是一个重要的概念,通常被用来描述EAP的成功,但在这一领域很少有正式的研究。在对154个加拿大eap的研究中,102个组织报告了他们的利用率以及他们如何定义利用率和案例。平均利用率为9.2%,在工会组织中,劳动者参与制定计划、协助进入计划、参与劳资联合委员会管理计划,利用率更高。我们还发现,在有EAP政策和正在进行的项目推广的地方,利用率更高。但是,还发现,这些统计结论大多数都是有问题的,因为各组织计算利用率的方法缺乏一致性,甚至对什么构成一个案例也没有达成任何协议。这就对EAP利用率在任何比较项目监测或评估中的效用产生了疑问。针对这种情况,提供了一个全面的EAP利用率记分卡。计分卡计算使用EAP的雇员、退休人员和家庭成员的实际人数,包括面对面、电话咨询或电子咨询。同时提出了一种新的计算方法——渗透率。这一价值将包括EAP提供的咨询以及其他服务,包括小组咨询、危急事件汇报、咨询和调解、讲习班和研讨会、同伴转介联系和电话咨询。这种方法将提供对eap工作的更全面的理解,并且还允许纵向项目比较以及项目之间的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Employee Assistance Program Utilization
Abstract In the EAP field, utilization rates are an important concept routinely used as a descriptor of EAP success, yet there has been little formal research conducted in this area. In a study of 154 Canadian EAPs, 102 organizations reported their utilization rates along with how they defined both utilization and a case. Mean utilization rate was 9.2% with utilization being greater in organizations with a union where labor was involved in establishing the program, providing assistance in accessing the program and in managing the program through participation on a joint labor-management committee. Utilization rates were also found to be greater where there was an EAP policy in place and where ongoing program promotion occurred. However, what was also discovered was that most of these statistical conclusions were questionable as there was a lack of consistency in how utilization rates were calculated by various organizations, nor was there any agreement on what even constituted a case. This brings into question the utility of EAP utilization rates in any comparative program monitoring or evaluation. A comprehensive EAP Utilization Scorecard is offered as a response to this situation. The scorecard counts the actual number of employees, retirees and family members who use the EAP, either face-to-face, through telephone counselling or via e-counselling. Also presented is the idea of a new calculation, penetration rate. This value would include counselling offered by the EAP along with the other services, including group counselling, critical incident debriefings, consultations and mediations, workshops and seminars, peer referral contacts and telephone inquiries. This approach would provide a more comprehensive understanding of what EAPs do and would also allow for longitudinal program comparison as well as comparisons between programs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信