Suchergebnisse

Employee assistance programs (MPs) represent a relatively new fringe benefit for workers; the number of these programs has been steadily increasing in worksites of all sizes. Despite this surge in the growth of EAPs, few studies have estimated their costs or benefits. To guide future economic evaluation studies of EAPs, we have developed a methodology that has four components: a process description to understand the structure, operating environment, and goals of the EAP; a cost analysis to comprehensively identify and estimate the full range of EAP costs; an outcomes analysis to rigorously estimate the effectiveness of the EAP for groups of employees and the overall impact of the EAP on employee performance and workplace productivity; and an economic evaluation to estimate cost-effectiveness ratios, dollar benefits, and net benefits of the EAP. Our methodology is based on standard economic theory, but we present the evaluation strategy in a nontechnical way so that it can be used by employers and other researchers to estimate the costs and benefits of EAPs.

Purpose.To estimate the cost to the workplace of implementing initiatives to reduce work-family conflict.Design.Prospective cost analysis conducted alongside a group-randomized multisite controlled experimental study, using a microcosting approach.Setting.An information technology firm.Subjects.Employees (n = 1004) and managers (n = 141) randomized to the intervention arm.Intervention.STAR (Start. Transform. Achieve. Results.) to enhance employees' control over their work time, increase supervisor support for employees to manage work and family responsibilities, and reorient the culture toward results.Measures.A taxonomy of activities related to customization, start-up, and implementation was developed. Resource use and unit costs were estimated for each activity, excluding research-related activities.Analysis.Economic costing approach (accounting and opportunity costs). Sensitivity analyses on intervention costs.Results.The total cost of STAR was $709,654, of which $389,717 was labor costs and $319,937 nonlabor costs (including $313,877 for intervention contract). The cost per employee participation in the intervention was $340 (95% confidence interval: $330–$351); $597 ($561–$634) for managers and $300 ($292–$308) for other employees (2011 prices).Conclusion.A detailed activity costing approach allows for more accurate cost estimates and identifies key drivers of cost. The key cost driver was employees' time spent on receiving the intervention. Ignoring this cost, which is usual in studies that cost workplace interventions, would seriously underestimate the cost of a workplace initiative.

Purpose: To estimate the effects of a workplace initiative to reduce work–family conflict on employee performance. Design: A group-randomized multisite controlled experimental study with longitudinal follow-up. Setting: An information technology firm. Participants: Employees randomized to the intervention (n = 348) and control condition (n = 345). Intervention: An intervention, "Start. Transform. Achieve. Results." to enhance employees' control over their work time, to increase supervisors' support for this change, and to increase employees' and supervisors' focus on results. Methods: We estimated the effect of the intervention on 9 self-reported employee performance measures using a difference-in-differences approach with generalized linear mixed models. Performance measures included actual and expected hours worked, absenteeism, and presenteeism. Results: This study found little evidence that an intervention targeting work–family conflict affected employee performance. The only significant effect of the intervention was an approximately 1-hour reduction in expected work hours. After Bonferroni correction, the intervention effect is marginally insignificant at 6 months and marginally significant at 12 and 18 months. Conclusion: The intervention reduced expected working time by 1 hour per week; effects on most other employee self-reported performance measures were statistically insignificant. When coupled with the other positive wellness and firm outcomes, this intervention may be useful for improving employee perceptions of increased access to personal time or personal wellness without sacrificing performance. The null effects on performance provide countervailing evidence to recent negative press on work–family and flex work initiatives.