This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 12 August 2014, At: 07:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Employee Assistance QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzea20

Where Have We Been? …Where Are We Going?Nan Van Den BerghPublished online: 15 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Nan Van Den Bergh (2000) Where Have We Been? … Where Are WeGoing?, Employee Assistance Quarterly, 16:1-2, 1-13, DOI: 10.1300/J022v16n01_01

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J022v16n01_01

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Nan Van Den Bergh 1

Where Have We Been? . . .Where Are We Going?:

Employee Assistance Practicein the 21st Century

Nan Van Den Bergh

SUMMARY. This chapter addresses changing trends within the EAPfield; and, discusses the prevalence of EAPs internationally. There hasbeen a change in focus from earlier EAPs, which were somewhat se-questered away within the organizational structure; and, with a focusmost exclusively on the ‘‘troubled employee.’’ A program model whichmay be more salient for��������������� ��������� ��� ����� �������� ����������������� ���� �� � ��������� ����������������� ����� ��� �������� ������ �� ��� ��������� ��� � ��� ��������[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website:<http://www.HaworthPress.com>]

KEYWORDS. Strengths-based, solution focused employee assistanceprogram

It may be the case that one of the most important workplace innova-tions of the 20th century was the development of EAPs. Initially bornfrom a concern with alcohol impaired employees, EAPs have grown toserve employees affected by a variety of stressors associated withworking in rapidly changing workplaces, as well as the exigencies

[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: ‘‘Where Have We Been? . . . Where Are We Going?: EmployeeAssistance Practice in the 21st Century.’’ Van Den Bergh, Nan. Co-published simultaneously in EmployeeAssistance Quarterly (The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 16, No. 1/2, 2000, pp. 1-13; and: Emerging Trends forEAPs in the 21st Century (ed: Nan Van Den Bergh) The Haworth Press, Inc., 2000, pp. 1-13. Single ormultiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service[1-800-342-9678, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com].

� 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

EMERGING TRENDS FOR EAPs IN THE 21st CENTURY2

associated with balancing work and family issues. This volume seeksto offer insight and pragmatic information on evolving themes forEAPs, as we move into the 21st century. In doing so, two primarythemes are addressed by contributors: (a) the impact of changingworkforce demography as it portends to the need for workplace spon-sored services assisting caregivers and older workers; plus, (b) thedevelopment of intervention skills broader than generic assessmentand referral, to help organizations manage crisis, change and evolu-tion.

Consequently, it appears that because of the evolutionary changesin the nature of work, workers and work organizations, the coretechnology ‘‘troubled employee’’ conceptual model of EAP servicedelivery may need revision. It is the thesis of this author that EAPservices for the 21st century may be better provided emanating from astrengths-based, empowerment and ecological model of EAPs.

Oh no, you say . . . not some New Age California counterculture,biodegradable and vegetarian notion about how to do EAP work!Hardly. To suggest that EAP may be best provided from a focus onstrengths assessed from an ecological perspective is to move EA workinto conformity with important trends affecting the delivery of humanservices over the last ten to fifteen years. Perhaps as an outcome of aconfluence of multiple factors including the human rights activistmovements of the 1960’s and 1970’s, coupled with epistemologicalalterations in the nature of knowledge, as well as by an increasingemphasis on holistic health, wellness and spirituality . . . a focus forhuman intervention has been on looking for strengths, not pathologies.Hence, in many professions and academic disciplines, new paradigmsfor providing help to others have emerged with varying names, such asstrengths (Saleeby, 1997; Tice & Perkins, 1996), resiliencies (Fraser,1997; Frazier, Byrne and Klein, 1995), hardiness (Kobusa, 1979) em-powerment (Gutierrez, Parson & Cox, 1998) and solution-focusedapproaches (DeJong & Miller, 1995). The common denominatoramongst these approaches is a switch in focus from problems and‘‘troubled’’ individuals, to a perspective emphasizing empowerment,strengths, competencies and capabilities.

To take a focus off of trouble seems innately provocative for em-ployee assistance endeavors, as the profession was given birth from aconcern with troubled employees; primarily alcoholics who wereoverwhelmingly male (Trice and Schonbrunn, 1981; Steele, 1989;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Nan Van Den Bergh 3

Steele & Trice, 1995; Bickerton, 1990). Similarly, the core technologycoined by Roman and Blum (1985) was quite specifically focused ondevising an intervention technology which would be effective in train-ing management how to confront a ‘‘troubled employee’’; and, how toassess and refer such persons so as to ensure their receipt of effectivetreatment, and return to the workplace as productive. It is true that inthe last number of years literature within the EAP profession has beenchallenging core technology assumptions and suggesting that thefunctions of employee assistance must evolve to meet the needs of arapidly changing international world economy (Yandrick, 1994; Ti-sone, 1994, Lung, 1994). Evolving EAPs would include a focus on allthe content areas addressed in this special edition, including child/el-der/dependent care services, prevention/interventions for older work-ers, work/family programs, critical incident interventions, manage-ment consultation; plus, areas such as health and wellness promotion.Hence, the original three session assessment and referral paradigm toaddress the ‘‘troubled employee’’ is perhaps too parochial a focus forEA service delivery into the next century.

In addition to change in conceptualization of EAP core technology,the structure of EA programs has altered drastically from norms of theearly 1970’s when the first employee assistance programs wereformed. For example, in 1972 there were 300 national occupationalalcoholism programs, the precursors to EAPs; these were overwhelm-ingly internal programs. It is estimated that at present there areapproximately 20,000 employee assistance programs internationally(EAPA, 1996); 80% of Fortune 500 companies have an EAP in place(EAPA, 1996); 76% of U.S. companies with 1000+ employees havean EAP and 33% of all work sites with 50+ full time employees offerEA services (Hartwell, Steele, French, Potter, Rodman & Zarkin,1994). Using that figure to calculate access, one finds that 55.3% ofthe U.S. workforce has EA services available to them.

As the number of EAPs have grown, a radical shift has occurred inthe venue of delivery for such services. Recent research based uponnational sampling of EA programs determined that only 2.2% of worksites had an internal and external program; internal programs provided16.7% of services with the remaining 81.1% of EA services beingoffered through external programs (Hartwell et al., 1994). It is as-sumed that approximately 15,000 of the 20,000 EAPs now extant, areexternal companies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

EMERGING TRENDS FOR EAPs IN THE 21st CENTURY4

The switch from ‘‘inside’’ to ‘‘outside’’ has been most significantlyaffected by the impact of managed mental health and substance abuseservices. Commensurate with the growth of PPOs and HMOs, hasbeen the potential for such behavioral health care networks to offeremployee assistance as a gatekeeping function for carved out mentalhealth and chemical dependency benefits. Although seemingly a threatto the ongoing viability of EAPs, this market-based change can bereconceptualized as an opportunity for EA professionals to expandupon what they already do well. That is, in addition to supervisorytraining, employee orientation, management consultation, and assess-ment/referral services; EAPs can expand the focus of their interven-tions, as well as the technologies by which they do their work. It maybe that offering more prevention, early intervention, and health/well-being programs, in addition to providing organizational interventionswill become an important justification for EA services not being sub-sumed under PPOs and HMOs. Hence, EAP opportunity may lie inbecoming an ecologically-oriented, strengths-based EA practitioner,able to provide such above noted services.

BECOMING AN ECOLOGICALLY-ORIENTED/STRENGTHS-BASED PRACTITIONER

21st century EAP direct services may be better operationalizedfrom a strengths and solution-oriented case management approach(Christensen, Todahl & Barrett, 1999; Rapp, 1998), rather than anassessment and referral model. The first step in this strengths-basedapproach, is to conceptualize the various systemic forces having animpact upon the employee; this is called the client’s ecosystem. Whatconstitutes, then, an ecological approach? First, and foremost, ratherthan seeing a client system as ‘‘troubled,’’ one conceptualizes theindividual as ‘‘challenged.’’ An assumption exists that the challengeis transactional; that is to say, there is a lack of goodness of fitbetween the client and what she/he needs to be optimally productive.The client’s environment, or ecosystem, includes all those systemswhich impact upon an employee, such as the workplace, family/per-sonal life, health, biopsychosocial, spiritual and cultural dynamicswhich interact to impact an individual’s ability to cope and displaycompetence. Within an ecological model, holism is operative; and,this means that just as environmental factors affect an individual, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Nan Van Den Bergh 5

individual also impacts her/his environment. Hence, reciprocity be-comes a focus of ecologically-based interventions. That is to say, towhat extent will changes within an individual affect her environment;and, conversely, how will environmental changes affect an individu-al? This model does not suggest an abrogation of personal responsi-bility for harmful behaviors to self or others. Rather, it suggests that‘‘moving into the solution’’ requires an intervention which addressesall aspects of a client’s life, or ecosystem. An ecologically-orientedapproach, therefore, is holistic and looks at interlocking dynamicsthat affect the source of a client’s challenge; and, how to move to-ward a solution.

This conceptual model should make implicit sense for any personhaving worked within the EA field. We know that despite EAPsbeing born from occupational alcoholism concerns, the most preva-lent problems addressed are not substance abuse. For example, a 1996survey of EA professionals found that the most prevalent problemsfound, in descending order, were: (a) family issues (25%), (b) stress(23%), (c) depression (21%), (d) alcoholism (14%), (e) workplace/jobconflict (9%) and (f) drug abuse (2%) (EAPA, 1996). These dataclearly indicate that problems in living, managing one’s ecosystem asit were, are the chief reasons why clients seek our help.

The question then becomes, how does one operationalize an ecolog-ical perspective into EA work and how does it inform practice? Toaddress that question it also becomes important to incorporate compo-nents of a strengths-based and solution-focused framework into one’sintervention. Operating from a strengths-based perspective also neces-sitates that the moniker ‘‘troubled-employee’’ be supplanted with adifferent lexicon which includes these concepts:

� empowerment� suspension of disbelief� dialogue and collaboration� membership� resilience� healing and wellness� synergy (DeJong & Miller, 1995; Saleeby, 1997).

Additionally, the following are principles of the strengths perspective:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

EMERGING TRENDS FOR EAPs IN THE 21st CENTURY6

� Every individual, couple, family, group, organization and com-munity has strengths

� Trauma and abuse, illness and struggle may be injurious; but,they may also be sources of challenge and opportunity

� Assume that you don’t know the upper limits of the capacity forindividuals, couples, families, groups and communities to growand change

� We best serve clients by collaborating with them� Every environment is full of resources (Saleeby, 1997; McMil-

len, 1999)

Needless to say, those concepts and principles come from a differentorientation than constructive confrontation with troubled employees.They mirror a more evolved and holistic perspective on human na-ture which has been significantly associated with the increasing di-versity of our society. It is specifically because of our increasingdiversity and rapidly evolving organizational and business climatethat the six articles within this anthology serve as state-of-the-artdescriptions in how to provide EA services in the next millennium.

The question remains, how does one implement an ecologically-fo-cused, strengths-based approach into EAP work? Ecologically relatedquestions might include the following:

1. Who is the client system? (the employee, the employee plus oth-er family/social supports, the employee and coworkers/supervi-sors, etc.).

2. What’s going on intrinsic to the client system? (Workplace per-formance issues; health and wellness challenges; biopsychoso-cial dynamics; spiritual issues, cultural factors; interactional/relational/familial concerns).

3. What’s going on extrinsic to the client system? (Workplace orfamily dynamics such as downsizing or divorce; economic or oc-cupational concerns such as limited jobs or blocked opportuni-ties; institutional inequities such as racism, sexism, heterosex-ism; community challenges such as unemployment, violence).

4. How do the ‘‘inside’’ and ‘‘outside’’ connect? (How are factorsexternal to the client wielding an impact on the client; how is theclient affecting her/his environment?)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Nan Van Den Bergh 7

5. How has this client system moved through time? (How has theclient addressed challenges previously?) (Adapted from Miley,O’Melia & DuBois, 1998, p. 46).

As is suggested by the above discussion, incorporating a strengths-based and solution-focused approach along with an ecological per-spective, requires that an EA practitioner operate from the assumptionthat there are inherent strengths within the client and her/his environ-ment which can be used to address the challenge; and, that failure isimpossible. Specifically, assessing for strengths includes visioningthree time periods:

� today� yesterday� tomorrow

As for the present, the EA practitioner needs to determine what per-sonal, interpersonal and structural strengths exist within the client andher/his ecosystem which can be mobilized and deployed to resolve theclient’s challenge. For example, let us assume a female client comes tothe EAP, concerned about an abusive, interpersonal relationship. Youdetermine she has been battered, the batterer abuses alcohol and drugs,she fears for her safety and her kids’. Despite the abuse, this client isreluctant to consider leaving the perpetrator as she does not believethat she could cope as a single parent. The immediate strengths to beascertained from that opening scenario are:

� willingness to ask for help� concern for her children’s welfare and her partner’s wellbeing� acknowledgment of her partner’s substance abuse problem

A strengths-based practitioner would validate the client’s concerns,express empathy and support, acknowledge strengths she is demon-strating by asking for help; and, work with the client in determining asafety plan. Solution-focused questions the EA professional might askwhich would be empowering; hence, potentially helpful in motivatingthe client to take action steps could include:

� ‘‘You have really been facing up to this challenge. How have youbeen doing that?’’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

EMERGING TRENDS FOR EAPs IN THE 21st CENTURY8

� ‘‘You must be amazingly resilient to keep going on under thesecircumstances. Where do you find the strength to go on?’’

Having located strengths while discussing challenges, an EA practi-tioner would then assess what a client has attempted previously interms of efforts to deal with her domestic violence challenge. Again,by searching for client coping mechanisms and resiliencies an EApractitioner might ask the following questions:

� ‘‘So, how have you handled this in the past?’’� ‘‘What has worked, even for a little while?’’

An EA practitioner might discover from this approach that the client isabstinent from drugs and alcohol, having previously abused them;and, she has family and friends close by, who are part of her socialsupport system. You might also discover that she has provided forherself and her children previously, prior to becoming involved withher current partner. Consequently, an EA professional would under-score her coping mechanisms of sobriety, capacity to earn a living andconnections to caring persons as resources available to her, in thepresent, which she can use in resolving her challenge.

In order to move into the solution, a strengths-based practitionerhelps the client focus on exceptions to when a problem occurs; and,what would constitute incremental steps in moving forward. Questionswhich would facilitate a solutions-focused, strengths-based approachin this direction might include:

� ‘‘What is happening on those days when your partner isn’t abu-sive?’’

� ‘‘What is the first thing you will notice when things are gettingbetter? Does that ever happen now?’’

� ‘‘You mentioned a period of time when all was well in your rela-tionship and family. Could we talk about what was going onthen?’’

This discussion has provided a framework for reconceptualizingEAP assessment and referral from a focus on the ‘‘troubled em-ployee’’ to a strengths-oriented, solution-focused and ecologically-based perspective. This framework could be considered particularlyuseful for the significant percentage of EA clients who present with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Nan Van Den Bergh 9

family, stress and mental health concerns. Research has documentedthat subjects associated with ‘‘family difficulties,’’ such as dependentcare, elder care, etc. will remain the highest priority client demand, aswe move into the millennium (Jankowski, 1989). An associated themeis the increasing ‘‘greying’’ of the workforce; and, the increased num-ber of older workers needing retirement-related services. This increas-ingly ‘‘greying’’ workforce, combined with the 1990’s labor forceinflux of women and ethnic minorities, means that there needs to beworkplace-based services which offer resources on addressing em-ployee caregiving and caretaking needs. This exigency may paradoxi-cally harken the development of a new social contract, and a renais-sance in community-building at the workplace.

A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT:COMMUNITY AT THE WORKPLACE

There are significant historical connections between caring, com-munity and the workplace. First, it bears mention that the industrial-ized workplace of the 19th century was held responsible for the dis-solution of the capacity for innate caring systems, such as families andkinship networks, to provide for societal members. More agricultural-ly-oriented societies had networks of mutual aid and peer supportundergirded by an ethic of concern for collective welfare and caring.Nineteenth century sociologist Max Weber named such societies ge-mein-schaft. However, with increasing industrialization, individualsbecame isolated from caring networks as they moved to cities to findjobs. With typical social supports lacking, individuals became iso-lated, disconnected, alienated; Weber named this kind of societal mi-lieu gesellschaft (Weber, 1958). Another 19th century sociologistEmile Durkheim (1951) noted an increased suicide prevalence in theburgeoning industrialized gesellschaft societal context, for which hecoined the term anomie. Conditions of societal anomie, then, were theseedbed for individual’s suicide.

The adage that history repeats itself seems unfortunately true, ifone reflects on societal conditions at the turn of the millennium. Arenot ever increasing addiction prevalence and violence rates indica-tors of a kind of societal suicide? And, commensurately, there was anincrease in suicide rates at the end of the 20th century; particularlyamongst youths. We are in many ways, at present, a gesellschaft-af-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

EMERGING TRENDS FOR EAPs IN THE 21st CENTURY10

fected society; and, feelings of anomie, dissatisfaction, disappoint-ment, disillusionment and disconnection impact the workplace. AsWorster indicates, in his article, the former workplace social contractbetween employer and employee has waned. No longer do em-ployees believe they will have lifetime employment with a firm; thisphenomenon is as true for professional and managerial employees asit is for pink and blue collar workers. Not even EA professionals areimmune from being ‘‘right sized.’’ In a related vein, Beard notes thatbeing vulnerable to downsizing is a phenomenon that impacts organi-zational and business leaders as well as middle management and rankand file employees. The need for rapid responses to changing eco-nomic, market and business climate factors causes executives to haveto deal with ambiguity as well as uncertainty. Such an organizationalecology becomes a context for organizational development interven-tions. And, Plaggemars’ chapter reminds us that experiencing crisisand trauma at the workplace has become so commonplace, that EAprofessionals need to be adept in applying critical stress debriefingtechnologies.

So, what does all of this mean for EA professionals in the millen-nium; and, how do the two themes of caring and community convergeat the workplace? In essence, the workplace needs to become a moregemeinschaft environment, one that acknowledges the following fact:the overwhelming majority of employees have caretaking responsibil-ities. Hence, provision of services, benefits, policies, and programswhich address those gemeinschaft needs are critical in order to have aworkplace ecology which allows employees to be optimally produc-tive. Paradoxically, the workplace may serve as the optimal venue forthe renaissance of caring communities.

So, what would these caring communities look like; and, whatwould be the role of employee assistance professionals in helping tooperationalize such a workplace culture evolution/revolution? First,as Hoffman and Herlihy indicate, employees need to be seen asindividuals with family needs; EAPs must be facilitators of ‘‘familyfriendly’’ services. In that regards, there needs to be an expandeddefinition of what constitutes family to also include persons econom-ically dependent upon one another (although not married) and toextended family or ‘‘family of choice.’’ Hence, the definition of‘‘dependent’’ must be reconceptualized to be more flexible, so as to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Nan Van Den Bergh 11

meld with a more realistic and enlightened definition of persons whoare family, to each other.

Secondly, as Perkins underscores, by using a strengths-based ap-proach to EAP services, employee competencies are emphasized, rath-er that pathologies; this allows for synergy, rather than remediationand rehabilitation. That is to say, employees may be better able to seetheir competencies and how they can be used to not only help them-selves, but those around them. Hence, the potential for networking,establishing mutual aid and peer support opportunities, and other com-munity-building activities might organically arise within a strengths-based workplace environment. Since a strengths-based model impliesengaging in dialogue and collaboration, rather than constructive con-frontation, the workplace could become a self-empowering venue forpersonal and collective wellbeing.

A family and strengths-based approach also undergirds the applica-bility of offering critical incident stress debriefings, as is noted byPlaggemars. Employees experience the same kind of feelings of lossand stress when experiencing work-associated crises (such as beinglaid off) as if they had gotten divorced. Hence, providing CISD inter-ventions empowers employees by encouraging their emotional ven-tilation and participation in healthy self-care activities.

As mentioned previously, Worster notes grave concern that the for-mer sense of social contract between employee and employer, built onmutual loyalty, has waned. Because employees may see themselves asexpendable commodities, there could be a commensurate decline incommitment to one’s job; and, productivity. He notes that EA profes-sionals could be the harbingers of change for workplace communitydevelopment by: (a) advocating for humane human resource policieswhich engender feelings of employee safety, (b) forming natural al-liances with other organizational entities concerned with ‘‘human capi-tal,’’ (c) promoting open organizational communication and collabora-tive decision making and (d) supporting growth-oriented opportunitiesfor employee education and development.

Beard reminds us that organizational change brings needs for helpto business leaders in managing those changes. A strengths-basedecological approach is the most effective method for assisting withthat kind of organizational development activity. By considering theneeds of the organization pursuant to a leader’s qualities, in conjunc-tion with a manager’s intrinsic strengths and competencies, OD con-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

EMERGING TRENDS FOR EAPs IN THE 21st CENTURY12

sultant coaching can lead to an empowered executive and workplaceas a result.

AS WE MOVE INTO THE MILLENNIUM . . .

As one of the single most important innovations of the 20th centuryworkplace, EAPs afforded an opportunity for employees to get assis-tance for work or personal problems affecting their productivity. Al-beit needing to be ‘‘troubled,’’ employee assistance programs haveclearly benefitted millions of American workers.

To be most relevant for the millennium, employee assistance needsto be delivered through a strengths-based, solution-focused, empower-ment-oriented ecological model that acknowledges the interdependentrelationships between employees and their work organizations. Fami-ly-friendly services delivered within a workplace community under-girded by a covenant of caring, may be the best metaphor for EAPservice delivery in the millennium. By ensuring that employee wellbe-ing needs are acknowledged and assisted, we may all become a bitmore connected to one another; and our common welfare advanced.To that end, an empowered workplace may be the most optimallyproductive one, for the millennium.

REFERENCES

Bickerton, R. (1990). Employee assistance: A history in progress. EAP Digest. Nov/Dec. 34-42, 83-84.

Christensen, D., Todahl, J. & Barrett, W. (1999) Solution-Based Casework: AnIntroduction to Clinical and Case Management Skills in Casework Practice. NewYork: Aldine De Gruyter.

DeJong, P. & Miller, S.D. (1995). How to interview for client strengths. Social Work.40. 729-736.

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. New York: Free Press.Employee Assistance Professionals Association. (1996). Employee Assistance Back-

grounder. Arlington, VA: EAPA.Fraser, M.W. (Ed.) (1997). Risk and Resilience in Childhood: An Ecological Per-

spective. November 14, 1999, Washington. D.C.: NASW Press.Frazier, P.A., Byrne, C. & Klein, C. (1995). Resilience among sexual assault survi-

vors. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychologi-cal Association. New York.

Gutierrez, L.M., Parsons, R.J. & Cox, E.O. (Eds.). (1998). Empowerment in SocialWork Practice: A Sourcebook. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Nan Van Den Bergh 13

Hartwell, T., Steele, P., French, M., Potter, F., Rodman, N. & Zarkin, G. (1994).Prevalence, cost, and characteristics of EAPs in the United States. ResearchTriangle Institute, North Carolina (unpublished).

Jankowski, J., Holtgraves, M. & Gerstein, L. (1989). A systematic perspective onwork and family units. In E. Goldsmith (Ed). Work and Family, Theory, Researchand Applications. Woodland Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Kobusa, S.C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An inquiry intohardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37. 1-11.

Lung, S. (1994). EAPs ‘‘What’s Next?’’ EAPA Exchange. February. 12-13.Miley, K., O’Melia, M., DuBois, B. (1998). Generalist Social Work Practice: An

Empowering Approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.McMillen, J. (1999). Better for it: How people benefit from adversity. Social Work.

44 (5). 455-469.Rapp, C. (1998). The Strengths model. NY: Oxford University Press.Roman, P. & Blum, T. (1985). The core technology of employee assistance programs.

Almacan. March. 8-9, 16, 18-19.Saleeby, D. (Ed.) (1997). The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice. (2nd.

Ed.) New York: Longman.Steele, P. (1989). A history of job-based alcoholism programs: 1955-1972. Journal of

Drug Issues. 19 (4). 511-532.Steele, P. & Trice, H. (1995). A history of job-based alcoholism programs:

1972-1980. Journal of Drug Issues 25 (2) 397-422.Tice, C. & Perkins, K. (1996). Mental Health Issues and Aging: Building on the

Strengths of Older Workers. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.Tisone, C. (1994). Just another burning issue. EAPA Exchange. February. 11.Trice, H. & Schonbrunn, M. (1981). A history of job-based alcoholism programs:

1900-1955. Journal of Drug Issues. Spring. 171-198.Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York:

Charles Scribner & Sons.Yandrick, R. (1994). Has the core technology become an anachronism? EAPA Ex-

change. February. 6-9.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:06

12

Aug

ust 2

014