Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CONTENTS
Span of Service
EAP Sponsors
Growth – Numbers Served – Work Location of Clinical Clientele
Service Utilization – Clinical
The Sociotechnical Whole
Life – to – Work Programs
Services to Retirees
EAP Stress Analysis Questionnaire
Organizational Consultation
Occupational Stress Programs
A Statement on Value
Future Directions
Key Demographic Markers
Concluding Thoughts
EAP Personnel
STRESS MANAGEMENT – THE
CORNERSTONE OF EAP
INTERVENTIONS
SPAN OF SERVICE A range of interdisciplinary interventions directed at employees, their families, retirees, teams and the work context are utilized by the University of Missouri Employee Assistance Program (EAP). These applied and curricular tools include occupational – public health, industrial/organizational psychology, human factors, industrial engineering, economics, sociology and an assortment of clinical specialties. The span of services provided by the University EAP is integrated into a holistic primary, secondary and tertiary preventive apparatus. This mechanism of prevention considers all ecological (e.g., environmental, social, financial, physical and psychological) factors that potentially influence individual, work group and organizational wellbeing. The primary preventive activity of our EAP focuses on the transactional nature of stress; the relations and interactions among employees and various elements of the work context and larger, external ambient environment. A principal means to monitor and analyze these transactions is the EAP Stress Analysis Questionnaire, a device that appraises 13 job‐specific, 7 interpersonal, 7 health‐related and 6 personal or life stressors and their intersections along numerous categorical domains such as UM System campus location, gender, work shift, job classification, employee age and level of education. Our assessment of these stressors and concomitant efforts toward moderation of each factor approaches stress management from a single unit of analysis vantage‐point. These data are collected at clinical intake and during large‐scale organizational consulting interventions. All members of our system‐wide institution are encouraged to complete the questionnaire. Subsequent analyses of the data provide key benchmarks for EAP interventions along organizational, group‐level and individual domains. The instrument or questionnaire is located at: https://counseling.missouri.edu/employee‐assistance‐program/secure/ In terms of secondary prevention, our EAP designs and implements an array of life – to – work and occupational stress training programs designed to increase employee, work group and institutional awareness of stressors and to promote the stress management capacity of each entity. These occupational health education and health promotion programs are research‐based and derived from data collected from stakeholders at clinical intake, during organizational consulting activities and as part of our primary preventive activity. This category of intervention is a vital channel through which the overall institution can directly influence its health status. Our EAP views health education and health promotion as central to stakeholder and institutional wellbeing. Therefore, we routinely and systematically engage in activities that disseminate information about occupational and life risks to health, encourage stakeholder actions to reduce these risks and advocate for everyone to increase control over and improve their overall wellbeing. Tertiary preventive pursuits sponsored by the University EAP include brief, solution – focused, cognitive – individual – process – oriented clinical interventions to employees, their families and retirees. These supports are provided at no‐cost to stakeholders and include up to 5 sessions; more if necessary, of counseling for those who have encountered or are encountering a range of occupational or life stressors. This service includes linkage with community resources as needed. Our goal in providing this level of intervention is to assist in the recovery and rehabilitation processes of all stakeholders, to help them capitalize on their role contribution across a wide array of occupational and life domains and to moderate or eliminate stressors that may impede their wellbeing.
Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Prevention
EAP SPONSORS The list of stakeholders who champion our EAP is broad and diverse. These work groups and associated individuals supply enormous support including but not restricted to expert consultation, work space, capital and various technologies. A non‐exhaustive, summary list of these stakeholders is as follows.
Student Affairs
Provost
University of Missouri System
University of Missouri Health Care
Human Resource Services
Work Injury Services
Chancellor’s Diversity Initiative
Healthy for Life
Growth
NUMBERS SERVED – WORK LOCATION OF CLINICAL CLIENTELE The grid depicted below provides a brief, seven‐year summary of our clinical clientele.
Fiscal Year Campus Health Care UM System UM Extension Totals
2006 ‐ 2007 159 = 61.4% 78 = 30.1% 11 = 4.2% 12 = 4.3% 260
2007 ‐ 2008 152 = 57.8% 92 = 35% 15 = 5.7% 4 = 1.5% 263
2008 ‐ 2009 136 = 49.5% 125 = 45.5% 11 = 4.0% 3 = 1.1% 275
2009 ‐ 2010 154 = 48.0% 151 = 47.0% 15 = 4.7% 1 = .3% 321
2010 ‐ 2011 176 = 48.1% 164 = 44.8% 15 = 4.1% 11 = 3.0% 366
2011 ‐ 2012 194 = 50.9% 159 = 41.7% 23 = 6.0% 5 = 1.3% 381
2012 ‐ 2013 228 = 56.9% 145 = 36.2% 15 = 3.7% 13 = 3.2% 401
A summary of the employment division, frequency and percentage of clinical clientele is depicted in the following grid.
WORK LOCATION – CLINICAL CLIENTELE
Division Frequency Percentage
Chancellor 2 .5
Development ‐ Alumni Relations 7 1.7
Provost ‐ Deputy Provost 6 1.5
Student Affairs 31 7.7
Administrative Services 40 10.0
Intercollegiate Athletics 6 1.5
University Affairs 2 .5
Vice Chancellor for Research 18 4.5
Undergraduate Studies 7 1.7
International Programs 4 1.0
Graduate School ‐ Advance Studies 5 1.2
Extension ‐ Cooperative Extension 11 2.7
School of Medicine 30 7.5
School of Nursing 3 .7
School of Health Professions 5 1.2
Children's Hospital 2 .5
Ellis Fischel Cancer Center 2 .5
Missouri Orthopedic Institute 7 1.7
Missouri Psychiatric Center 1 .2
Missouri Rehabilitation Center 14 3.5
University Clinics 80 20.0
University Hospital 6 1.5
University Physicians 22 5.5
Women and Children's Hospital 15 3.7
Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources 18 4.5
Arts & Sciences 3 .7
Business 8 2.0
Education 1 .2
Engineering 5 1.2
Human Environmental Sciences 10 2.5
Journalism 1 .2
Law 1 .2
University Libraries 11 2.7
Veterinary Medicine 17 4.2
Total 401 100.0
SERVICE UTILIZATION – CLINICAL Routinely, EAP administration monitors the utilization of clinical service in an effort to ensure sufficient program staffing, adequacy of interventions and to forecast for the future service needs of customers. The following graph contains data regarding the month, frequency and percentage of consumers who initiated clinical service in our EAP during fiscal year 2012 – 2013.
Month Frequency Percentage
January 24 6.0
February 30 7.5
March 26 6.5
April 32 8.0
May 35 8.7
June 31 7.7
July 53 13.2
August 36 9.0
September 39 9.7
October 41 10.2
November 34 8.5
December 20 5.0
Totals 401 100.0
The grid listed below summarizes the number of sessions, frequency and percentage of consumers receiving one to six clinical interventions during fiscal year 2012 – 2013. During this term, a total of 850 sessions were provided by our EAP. The average number of sessions or mean per consumer was (M = 2.11, SD = 1.51). A long‐term client is one who received 6 or more sessions. During the previous fiscal year; 2011 – 2012, a total of 920 sessions were provided; (M = 2.41, SD = 1.68).
Number of Sessions Frequency Percentage
One Session 201 50.1
Two Sessions 88 21.9
Three Sessions 45 11.2
Four Sessions 24 6.0
Five Sessions 17 4.2
Long‐Term Client 26 6.4
Totals 401 100.0
THE SOCIOTECHNICAL WHOLE The University EAP applies sociotechnical systems tenets to the work context in an effort to optimize social and technological aspects of our organization. We strive to deliver or provide access to information, services and other technologies that strengthen individuals, teams and the overall enterprise. The sociotechnical systems approach is a useful tool to enhance employee involvement and innovation at work. This methodology also serves to augment the lives of employees off‐line; in their times away from the organization. Ultimately, our EAP intends to promote a synthesis of the social and technical characteristics of this organization that in turn is flexible and open in relation to the ambient environment. This particular EAP design feature is directed toward the objectives of employee wellbeing and organizational efficiency and effectiveness and is a channel to serve more employees electronically. A range of information contributing to the sociotechnical whole is located on our website at: http://counseling.missouri.edu/employee‐assistance‐program/index.php . A summary list of website content is as follows.
Overview (an index page summarizing the scope of EAP interventions)
Service Access (provides information about our location, hours of operation and telephone number)
Counseling Services for Employees (conveys information about EAP clinical services)
Services for Administrators (delivers contextual material for managerial interventions)
Referral Procedures (details methods of referral for EAP clinical service)
Occupational Stress Programs (summarizes EAP work‐context training programs including a calendar of upcoming events)
Training Programs (specifies techniques used by our EAP to design, deliver and evaluate training initiatives)
Organizational Consultation (outlines levels of consultation, reviews general consulting process steps and summarizes consulting services)
Frequently Asked Questions (provides responses to several customary questions about the EAP)
Web Links (offers vast sociotechnical resources connected to occupational – organizational, health – medical, financial, maturational, family – children, consumer and legal domains)
EAP Personnel (lists EAP practitioners including their areas of specialty)
EAP Annual Report Summary (offers online versions of recent EAP Annual Reports)
Workshop Registration (provides an electronic means for employees to register for training programs)
These sociotechnical resources are frequently accessed by stakeholders. A summary of stakeholder monthly access is depicted here.
Sociotechnical Domain Monthly Access Average
EAP Overview 1200
Service Access 206
Counseling Services for Employees 269
Services for Administrators 147
Referral Procedures 179
Occupational Stress Programs 201
Training Programs 165
Organizational Consultation 200
Frequently Asked Questions 186
Web Links 234
EAP Personnel 328
EAP Annual Report Summary 148
Workshop Registration 187
LIFE – TO – WORK PROGRAMS The life – to – work initiative of our EAP is designed to moderate stressors that occur in the lives of employees away from the organization. These programs are also in place to help manage the intersections of employees with the work context and generate work – life balance. This mission is vital to the wellbeing of the overall organization and is predicated in the principles of health education and health promotion. A summary list of our life – to – work programs for fiscal year 2012 – 2013 is depicted below. We will continue to design and deliver these programs and collaborate with other University resources toward the end of increasing the stress management capacity of the workforce.
Parenting and Personality Traits
Handling Grief During the Holidays
Simple Ways to Reduce Holiday Stress
Taxes in the New Year
Making Exercise Part of Your Everyday Life
Tax Crisis Averted
Action Steps to Manage Stress
Parenting a Child or Adolescent with a Mental Health Issue I
Step‐Parenting and Blended Families
Parenting a Child or Adolescent with a Mental Health Issue II
SERVICES TO RETIREES Various supports are in place to serve University retirees such counseling and community resource linkage, health education and health promotion technologies and the pursuit of external funding to expand this initiative. During fiscal year 2012 – 2013, the University EAP conducted the following activities toward serving retirees. We will continue to offer services to retirees in the upcoming year.
EAP program promotion in the form of mailings to retirees to inform them about our service and their eligibility
Collaboration with UM System Benefits to distribute EAP information to employees planning for retirement
Liaison with MURA to convey EAP information to their membership
Preparation of grant proposals to examine factors associated with depression, suicide risk prevention and the safe use of both prescription medications and alcohol
Clinical interventions to a retiree subpopulation of 7
EAP STRESS ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE Our stress analysis questionnaire is designed to assess 13 occupational, 7 interpersonal, 7 health‐related and 6 personal or life stressors. These stressors are measured at their intersection with various categorical factors such as UM System campus location, gender, work shift, job classification, employee age and level of education. Data derived from this analysis informs and guides EAP interventions at organizational, group‐level and individual domains. We advise all stakeholders system‐wide to complete the questionnaire and routinely administer the tool at clinical intake and during large‐scale consulting interventions. Cronbach’s Alpha – Reliability Statistics The questionnaire subscale labeled: Job‐Specific Stressors consists of 13 items and is of very good reliability (α = .84). The subscale labeled: Interpersonal Stressors contains 7 items and is of very good reliability (α = .84). Analysis of Variance ‐ ANOVA A one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) reveals no significant difference in scores for work location, job category, work shift, educational level, gender or age range, or in the experienced intensity of stressors listed in the following grid. Stressors portrayed in the ensuing grid represent key intervention points or benchmarks for our EAP.
Job‐Specific Stressors Interpersonal Stressors Health‐Related Stressors
Personal Stressors
Role Stressors – too much work, lack of
clarity about the job or conflict connected to
assuming a role at work
Organizational Injustice – concerns about equity, fairness or justice at work. This category includes concerns about the
quality of interpersonal treatment on the job
Cigarette Smoking Financial Stressors
Negative Team Dynamics – unclear purposes and goals,
unclear boundaries, lack of access to resources,
lack of support
Organizational Politics – actions by individuals designed to further their self‐interests
without regard for the wellbeing of others or
the organization
Alcohol Use Planning for Retirement
Job‐Specific Stressors Interpersonal Stressors Health‐Related Stressors
Personal Stressors
Organizational Culture – goal pressures, difficulty adapting to structure, intense customer
demands
Personality – personality clashes with
colleagues; poor person‐job fit
Depression
Economic Stressors – work‐related concerns about budget cuts,
layoffs or low salaries
Personal Expectations of the Employment Relationship – unmet job expectations
Anxiety
Careers and Career Management – lack of career progression, dissatisfaction with
career status
Work – Life Imbalance – the inability to manage demands of work with the demands of one’s
personal life
ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTATION A total of 104 organizational consulting interventions were completed by the University EAP in fiscal 2012 – 2013. During the previous fiscal year; 2011 – 2012, we conducted a total of 94 organizational consultations. The broad, work‐context consulting domains of our EAP are summarized here. Work Analysis; a formal procedure by which the content of work is defined in terms of activities performed and attributes needed to perform the work (e.g., assessment of organizational factors to resolve various forms of conflict and scientific management).Work analysis is a systematic process for gathering and documenting information about: (a) the content of work performed by people in the workplace (e.g., tasks, responsibilities, role – to – role interactions, or work outputs), (b) the worker attributes related to its performance (often referred to as knowledge, skills, abilities and other personal characteristics) or (c) the context in which work is performed (including physical and psychological conditions in the immediate work environment and the broader organizational and external environment). Quality of Worklife; this is an assessment of the factors that contribute to a healthy and productive workforce. This includes determining methods to make the conduct of work (i.e., when and where it is performed) more compatible with the personal or family needs of employees. This assessment process also considers various work‐specific factors that influence the health; safety and wellbeing of employees (e.g., work schedules, role factors, leadership and numerous ambient variables). Organizational Effectiveness; this area is concerned with improving the quality and productivity of the workforce as well as assessing and enhancing the quality of relationships with customers and suppliers. Work motivation, leadership, and managing change are central to this domain. Performance Management; this consulting domain includes design of methods to assess employee work behavior and provide helpful feedback to improve performance. This sphere includes efforts to enhance the contributions of teams and the overall workforce toward attainment of larger, broad organizational goals. Training and Development; this field includes identifying employee skills that need enhancement to improve job performance. Specific areas of training include technical skills enhancement (e.g., computer operations, and individual development toward role effectiveness and self‐efficacy), managerial development programs, and training all employees to work together effectively. The selection of fitting training or experimental designs (e.g., time series, pretest – posttest, quasi experimental or experimental) and the evaluation of training programs are also of critical importance in this area. Selection and Placement; this specific area of practice includes the design and implementation of assessment methods for the recruitment, selection, placement and promotion of employees. The process involves an analysis of jobs and a determination of the degree to which tests can predict performance in specific jobs. This area is also concerned with the placement of employees and identifying jobs that are most compatible with an individual’s skills and interests.
Our consulting activities occur at individual, group, inter‐group and organization‐wide levels. Employment‐related criteria, inter‐rater reliability and validity are the objective standards we utilize during consulting interventions.
Various statistics regarding our organizational consulting interventions for fiscal year 2012 – 2013 are summarized in the following charts.
Month of Intervention Frequency Percentage
January 12 11.5
February 4 3.8
March 11 10.6
April 7 6.7
May 5 4.8
June 3 2.9
July 10 9.6
August 15 14.4
September 11 10.6
October 10 9.6
November 6 5.8
December 10 9.6
Totals 104 100.0
Year of Intervention Frequency Percentage
2012 62 59.6
2013 42 40.4
Totals 104 100.0
Work Location Frequency Percentage
Campus 66 63.5
Health Care 31 29.8
UM System 3 2.9
UM Extension 4 3.8
Totals 104 100.0
Initial Request for Consultation
Frequency Percentage
Management of
Counterproductive Work
Behaviors
17 16.3
Instructional Program Design &
Evaluation
6 5.8
Performance Management 9 8.7
Reduction in Force – Change
Management
1 1.0
Team Development 8 7.7
Acute Stress at Work – Risk
Assessment
1 1.0
Personnel Selection – Criterion
Development
2 1.9
Employee Health – Impaired
Colleague
17 16.3
Customer Satisfaction 1 1.0
Quality of Work Life 5 4.8
Work Analysis 4 3.8
Organizational Diagnosis 7 6.7
Assessment of Organizational
Culture
2 1.9
Long Range Strategic Planning 4 3.8
Regulatory Compliance – Safety
Climate
1 1.0
Organizational Justice 3 2.9
Conflict Management 9 8.7
Leadership Development 1 1.0
Policy Development 3 2.9
Group Process & Decision
Making
3 2.9
Total 104 100.0
Work‐Context Focus Area Frequency Percentage
Work Analysis 14 13.5
Quality of Work Life 27 26.0
Organizational Effectiveness 37 35.6
Performance Management 18 17.3
Training & Development 6 5.8
Selection & Placement 2 1.9
Total 104 100.0
OCCUPATIONAL STRESS PROGRAMS The University EAP administers a sequence of occupational health education and health promotion training programs intended to increase the stress management knowledge, skills and abilities of the workforce. We design and deliver occupational stress training programs that consider the range of stressors employees encounter as part of organizational life. An associated aim of this initiative is to enhance the quality of worklife for members and to improve concomitant worker productivity, quality and interpersonal transactions. During fiscal year 2012 – 2013, we conducted 61 training programs. A total of 53 training programs were conducted in the previous fiscal year; 2011 – 2012. Please reference the following list of facilitated training programs for fiscal year 2012 – 2013.
Developing Work Role Effectiveness
Incivility and Workplace Violence
Tools for Team Effectiveness
Managing in Times of Change
Acute Stress at Work
Support for a Distressed Colleague
Conflict at Work and Individual Wellbeing
Consequences of Work Stress
Gender and Stress
Economic Stressors
Work Schedules and Stress
Desired Leadership Behaviors
Obtaining Work – Life Balance
How People Learn
Work Motivation
Characteristics of People: The Role of Individual Differences in the Work Context
The Social Context of Work Life: Implications for Burnout & Work Engagement
Stress & Careers
Managing Change
Managing Return to Work Processes
Burnout: A Stress Syndrome
Shared Commitment: How to Talk About Accountability
Taxonomy of Stress Management Techniques
EAP Promotional Presentations
Job Characteristics and the Social Context of Work Life: The Influence of Work Dimensions on
Civility, Employee Wellbeing and Organizational Outcomes
Occupational Health Education & Health
Promotion
A STATEMENT ON VALUE
A variety of factors influence the overall value of an EAP such as the process or model of service
delivery including the scope and intensity of services; costs such as finances, human resource
hours utilized and intervention expenses; the outcomes, consequences or results of EAP
interventions and cost effectiveness; an assessment of program outcomes in relation to the
financial costs of implementation. Other metrics determine the value of an EAP including
reduced health care claims, lowered absenteeism, prevention or reduction in workplace illness
or injury, increased job satisfaction, reduced employee turnover, improved employee health and
fitness and enhanced transactions among employees and the institution. The U.S. Department
of Labor has concluded that every dollar invested in an EAP results in savings of $5 to $16 dollars
for the employing organization. Additionally, a study by the Paul Revere Life Insurance Company
reported a savings of $4.23 in claims expenses for every dollar of premium expenditure diverted
into the EAP. Other research by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reflects that
organizations save anywhere from $5 to $15 for every $1 spent on an EAP.
Contemplate the current financial investment in our EAP. Consider the value of in‐house EAP
interventions compared to the cost of employees receiving supports away from the organization
(e.g., hours away from work, health care claims and co payments). Factor the cost of routinely
contracting with various external subject matter experts for services such as instructional
program design and evaluation and organizational consultation. Calculate the savings.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
As authorized by the Board of Curators; University of Missouri System our EAP will expand
services to all campuses in fiscal year 2013 – 2014. We will partner with UM System
Administration as well as stakeholders at the University of Missouri – Kansas City, University of
Missouri – St. Louis and Missouri University of Science and Technology to infuse our full‐service
model in each location. This initiative includes the recruitment and selection of personnel for
each campus. We will deepen efforts to enhance managerial knowledge of stress and continue
to promote a focus on the work context as central to individual and organizational wellbeing.
Evaluation of intervention effectiveness will intensify as we serve a larger group of stakeholders.
System‐Wide
KEY DEMOGRAPHIC MARKERS
A few key demographic statistics are highligted in the following grids.
Referral Source Frequency Percentage
Self 250 62.3
Coworker 50 12.5
Supervisor 49 12.2
Human Resources 18 4.5
Primary Care Physician 7 1.7
Media ‐ Internet 4 1.0
Other Health Care
Professional
6 1.5
Union 1 .2
Spouse 9 2.2
Family Member 7 1.7
Total 401 100.0
Employment Status Frequency Percentage
Faculty 29 7.2
Faculty Dependent 4 1.0
Staff 324 80.8
Staff Dependent 23 5.7
Spouse 8 2.0
Other Immediate
Relative
6 1.5
Retired 7 1.7
Total 401 100.0
KEY DEMOGRAPHIC MARKERS
Gender Frequency Percentage
Female 283 70.6
Male 118 29.4
Total 401 100.0
Level of Education Frequency Percentage
Elementary 7 1.7
Junior High 13 3.2
High School 74 18.5
Community College 87 21.7
Bachelors Degree 108 26.9
Masters Degree 73 18.2
Law Degree 1 .2
Ph.D. 29 7.2
M.D. 9 2.2
Total 401 100.0
Race Frequency Percentage
Caucasian 339 84.5
African American 29 7.2
Asian ‐ Pacific Islander 14 3.5
Hispanic 14 3.5
Native American 1 .2
Indian 3 .7
Other 1 .2
Total 401 100.0
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Leadership is a significant factor in shaping the direction of an organization including the associated
perceptions and behaviors of stakeholders. The decision of the Board of Curators and other University
administrators to further invest in our EAP reflects a deep commitment to individual and organizational
wellbeing and serves to anchor the availability of holistic stress management interventions. This
investment also imparts credence to the relational nature of stress; including the importance of
maximizing transactions between employees and the workplace.
A variety of tools are needed to manage the collection of demands encountered by our workforce.
These instruments include but are not restricted to acceptance of organizational context as a central
factor of wellbeing, acknowledging there is no substitute for an effective, comprehensive theoretical
service orientation and respecting the needs of managers while concurrently providing first‐rate support
to employees in need of intervention. When we are able to balance these demands successfully, key
work‐context factors that may generate distress are addressed, administrators receive quality
consultation; employees are empowered and they become positioned to thrive from boundary
transactions at work and through the assortment of ecological exchanges in their personal lives.
Life and work are demanding and stressful yet factors associated with these domains need not result in distress for employees or the institution. We invite you to use the service. James Hunter EAP Director July 2013
EAP PERSONNEL
Margaret Wilson Office Manager (573) 882‐6701 [email protected]
LeCreshia M. McKinney, M.Ed.
Graduate Research Assistant & Doctoral Student
Richard Thoreson, Ph.D. Psychologist [email protected] Jean Kirch‐Holliday, M.Ed., L.P.C.
EAP Practitioner
James Hunter, MSIOP, MSW, LCSW EAP Director [email protected]
University of Missouri
Employee Assistance Program
102 Parker Hall
Columbia, Missouri 65211‐ 2340
Phone: 573‐882‐6701
Fax: 573‐884‐4936
Web: http://counseling.missouri.edu/employee‐assistance program/index.php
Work Analysis
Quality of Worklife
Workplace Counseling
Training & Development
Performance Management
Organizational Effectiveness
Selection & Placement
Columbia – Kansas City – Rolla – St. Louis
CREDITS
Blum, T.C., and Roman, P.M. (1995). Cost Effectiveness and Preventive Implications of Employee
Assistance Programs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Chenier, E. (1998). The workplace: A battleground for violence. Public Personnel Management, 27 (3),
557‐568.
Intindola, B. (1991). EAP’s still foreign to many small businesses. National Underwriter, 95 (21).
Margaret Wilson – Annual Report Cover Page
Mizzou Botanic Garden
Tiger
