Item 11 - Annual Report - Personal Assistance Services of San Diegoill
F
r
2 of 16
.LowSts' PROD
CITY OF. POWAY
REPORT
(SECOND YEAR)
(JULY 1, 1985 to JUNE 30, 1986)
'provider
PERSONAL ASSISTANCE. SERVICES OF SAN DIEGO
2321 Hartford- Street, San Di.ego, CA. 92110
(619) 480-8223 AUG 19
ITEM 11-
3'of1:6
preface
This document is the Annual Report for the City of Poway, Employee
Assistance Program. The program was established through action of
the City in June of 1984, with services beginning onthe. lst day of
July 1984..
The service is . provided by Personal Assistance Services of San Diego,
a provider of occupational program/employee assistance services > to
employers and groupsin the Western united States.. Offices are
located in Escondido, Mira, Mesa, Oceanside, Mission' Valley and
Chula Vista.
AUG 19 I: s ITEM 11
a
s
=x
ANNUAL REPORT
(Second. Year).
EMPLOYEE. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
CITY OP POWAY
E
The coint.ract for employee assistance services has included five
f
areas.: 1) Employee,/Family Assessment Evaluation Sessions (1-3 pe.r
year),, 2) Department Consultation on Performance Issues, 3)
Supervisory, Trai.ning/ Emp to Yee- in Meetings., 4) The
Developmen.t of Employee Information Materials, and 5) `Programmatic
Poli..cy` and Procedure Consultation.
During the second -year of service ending June 3G, 1986 the employee
=: assi tance_program accomplished the following*
Fif teem (15) - ndivi.d.ual cases were: served.
Ni.n.eteen total sessions were providedL for=4
II
12 " employeesY and 7 family. members,.'
�
# 'The Performance Referral Rate was 6-.7% (1).
The Self Referral Rate was 93.3% (14)0,
The: Overall Success Rate for the 15 cases was
9303 (14 out of' 15 cases) ,
Two Performance Consulwere, e p
for two supervisory staff.
1
#` Thirteen (13) -Supervisory/Employee Orientation Groups
• were heli for 132 employees.
1
Four- hundred and ninety --seven ( 497) individual pieces
of program information were distribut-ed
AUG: i9 1986 ITEM
11
4, of 16
CLIENT PROFILE*
The client profile is a statistically averaged picture of the typical
client using the program, employee or family.
It pictures the
client by average and can be used to present a picture of who is
using the assistance program for the employer and the -provider.
This information is important for the employer and the service:
Provider for program planning purposes.
The profile indicates that the average user of the assistance program
is male (56%), 36 years of age, married (837) and, 'has worked for the
City an average of 4.7 years. He is usually Self -Referred. (93.:
3%) to
theP r.ogram with personal problems that were most likely legal,
alcohol/drug, marital, family,or and occupational related.
Performance related referrals (7%) presented a somewhatdifferent
profile. They were male (100%) , 35 years of age, married (1002)
and have worked for the City an average of 11 years. Their problems=
were. occupational in nature. This group consisted of one client.
ASSISTANCE SESSIONS**
Employee assistance assessment interviews were provided .to help bath
employee and family member clients assess and evaluate 'personal.
Problems, . and decideupon a plan of action to resolve such problems.
A total of 19 assistance sessions were provided to 12 employees and
seven family members
New cases ` seen by the program total 15 for the. year. Cases were
seen at the rate of 1.6 sessions per month. New cases are opened at
the rate of 1.3 new cases per month. The main presenting problems
occurring, in total new cases were. Legal 33.3%, Alcohol/Drug -`
20.0%, Marital/Relationship - 13.3%, Family - 13.3%, Occupational
- 13.3%, Financial 6.7%, . and Medical 0%
Monthly. Breakdown****
The monthly breakdown shows the frequency of month to month cases
seen, •
new and total Total individuals seen (19) is also shown by
month. Perhaps the most factual data on Reference Page D is the
average per month of each of these columns (1.3 new cases, 1.6
sessions, and 1.6 persons).
to Reference Page- A
to Reference Page B
to Reference Page C & D
to Ref ereance Page D
Refer..rin& Departments
This chart - indicates departments. from which. new cases were seen.:
The departments. with `higher numbers of referrals are often those with
a larger number. of -employees.. As shown in Reference Page E, the
Public Services department. had 7 cases, Safety Services had 4, cases,
and. Administrative Services and. Community Services 2 each.
SUPERVISORY CONSULTATION**
The; supervisory consultation is a. service which is provided, on
request of management, by. Personal Assistance Services to the
requesting, supervisory. staff.. The consultation usually involves- a.
concern for t'he`well-being: and performance of an employee. When the
situationmeets two criterion,: the performance (Formal.) -Referral, is
made. These criteria ares I) A. documented p-erformancef conduct
problem, and Z)A hint or knowledge of a personal prob�m: When the
` . supervisor or manager, is goncerned about the employeie. s well-being,
Suggested:
but actual performance 3�s not of fected,. the Supervisor
. refer.r.al is, made,.
During the year, two supervisory performance consultations were:
provided to the Fire Department. Two managers were present in these:
meetings.
_ TRAINING & ORIENTA.TION
• Supervisory training s-essions-- were held in two groups: for staff.`
-
These meetings were, held in Sep.t.ember, with 33 supervisory staff
`
present. -
Orientation. groups are sessions for, general employees at the work
site. These, meetings introduce the program to all employees, be
they manager or staff. worker.:- These meetings are brief and pres.ea
the basic paints of the program. Questions are answered and employees
/]-et a- chance ' to meet a repr�es.entative of the program staff . During
-
l._
V
the year, eleven briefing/ox enta.tion groups were presented to 99,
total employees of the, City,
-
R
INFORMATION MATERIALS**
Informational materials.. prepared by Personal. Assistance Services
for the Gty included: ) A program announcement, 2) A program flyer,
3)` A manag.ement/•supervisory guide, and 4.) The placement of posters in
a
staff areas.: A total of 497 individual pieces of program information
were distributed to the workforce -throughout the year.
Refer to Ref erence Page E
`
Ref er to Reference Page B`
Refer to Reference Page B, F, & G
_. AUG 19. 1986ITEM -
11
6 of' 16
PAGE` 4
r id
r
WORKFORCE IMPACT RATES
One measure of effectiveness of an employee assistance program is
E,
k
whether or not a "significant number of employees use the program.
These rates are called, 'Impact. Rates,' either for the Total
Workforce or Troubled Employee Population. In the . field of employee:
r,
assistance programming., minimal baseline measures of these rates- are
stated as 5 percent impact, into the total workforce as 'successful, T'
and twenty percent (20%) impact into the troubled employee workforce:
(estimated) as successful.
_ The Total Workforce Impact Rate achieved this first year was 9.4 of
the "total workforce (160 employees}. This rate reflects new clients,
employees and family members.
The Troubled Employee Workforce Impact. Rate for this second year was
65Z of the estimated troub-led employee: population (15 of 23 employees)..
SUCCESS RATE.
The Success Rate is the measure of - how effective the program is at
-resolving the personal and performance problems of its clients. The
rate is established throughmonthly evaluation follow. --up contacts: -
between. the service, and 1)- the employee/clten.t, and -thea counselor/
resource, or 2) the employee/client, counselor/resource, and, the
referring supervisory staff (Performance Related).- The goal of
success in the case of self referrals` is- betterment. "or resolution
--
of personal problems.i In the case. of the performance: referrals the. -
,f
z
foal for success is always improved performance reported by the
referring supervisor and/or manager.
Performance/Suggested. Referral Success Rate
The success rate of the suggested: referral client (1)- was
undetermined at the time of follow-up based on feedback from referring
supervisors, the, client, and resources. Such intervention as the
performance: referral or the suggested referral can help control and lima
losses to the City, the employee and the family.
-
Self Referral Success Rate:
Success with the self referred clients (.14) at the time of measure
�
(July 1986) was 100% betterment of personal problems as reported by-
yclients
clientsand -their resources.
Combined Success Rate
The combined success rate is the total success measure:. of all new
cases. to date of follow-uP (June 30, 1986). This Success Rate is 93.3%.
j
i
4
Refer to Reference Page B
AUG 19 1986 ITEM 1
7 of
16
8 of 16
siIrEmEffr OF COST Etk1CTIVENESS
While it is difficult to state an amount of loss reduction or
savings, some estimation of reduced losses can be .made due to the
existence of the employee assistance prograQ
Losses due to the troubled employee on: thejob are conservatively
estimated et one quarter of the employee's annual salary.- Total
annual losses for the total troubled employee workforce are figured.
by multiplying the estimated troubled em pioyee Population' (15% or23
employees) times the average annual salary of City employees
(estimated at $12,000), times one quarter [23 x $1.2,000 x «25
$69,000]. Total Annual- Losses Related to the troubled employee
population .= then can beestimated to be $69,000.
Cost savings can be estimated by multiplying the the above figure,
annual ,losses ($69,000) by the Troubled Employee Impact Rate of the
program for the year (65.2%,. and then multiplying this figure ; by
the Program Success Rate with clients (93.3%).
Thus, the formula, $69,000 x 65..2 x 93.3% = Reduced Losses that may
be attribatible to the existence of the employee assistance service
(estimated at $41,988.65). If one wished,the formula can be
carried one step further by subtracting the cost of the employee
assistance program contract,the result ` being estimatedtrue cost
savings:.
These figures can be tabulated and estimates. made. However,.. certain.
facts are evident:
* Improved functioning has been reported by . supervisors
Significant impact (9.4X) into the total workforce
and troubled workforce (65X) has beenachieved,
To date impact into, the total workforce is 18.1%
and 12.6% intoo the estimated troubled employee workforce.
AUG 19 1986 ITEM1�
PAGE 6
'1?
REPORT RY
The City of Poway,: Employee Assistance Program has completed its
second year of operation. Nineteen employees and family members
havle used the pro -gram= over the last year-.-
With an average impact of 9.i%: per year,: employees and families. are
referring; themselves 93 percent of the time for major life problems.
The major change in program profile is the: decrease in performance
cansultatioas (IL to: 2) and related referrals (4 to 1) this second
Year.: It is. not unusual. for some - service: categories to decline the
second-third year,. and then increase after the third year.
Another change in profile is that clients are taking fewer assistance
visits, ' to evaluate theirP roblems., and decide: ,on a course of action.
While the self ref erral rate is admirably high, (.93.3 } , the
performance related referral rate should be approximately nine percent
`
hi. ghe r
f
The: employee asIsistance program is seeing a mostly ,<male group,: age
17
�36 yea.ra married,, whoa have been: with the City an average of five
years, -i' anwhose problems most likely are legal , or-alcoho [dru,g
related 53.,3Z of -the - times.
By all indicators,, the employee assistance program: is meeting all:
exp-ec atioas: s;et for. it :Ln* June. of 198'4.
AUG i.9 S ITEM 11
9 of I6
a.
x�Iv 4
CLIENT PROFILE
CITY +' POW�AY -- EAP
(July 1, 1985 to June 30: 1986)
#
INDICATOR TO DATE,. - 1.985/86
1.
Sex. of Clien
— male ...•s,..1•asr-.o-ss....a.0.s 55.6f0
44.4
- Female.. .......... «....,.
2.
Age of Client:.
- Average. ................. 36 Year
- Range t ......,..... «.... 23-63 Years
3..
Marital: Status:
Married ....:.. r...., ...... 83.3%
s Dr asept.-•.:
1w9,
• i -.'!f. ttt.'
W O.O'�
..Z _
Single. s.or..•.s�
Widowed ra s• s s.-. r s a e s r .... V. 0j
11+1
4..
Years, Employed:
A.verage..........r. «......... 4.7 Years
-- Ranges .. ,.1.:O:.:............. 3 Mos.. to 11 Year
5."
Referral TYF e.
Self Referrals. ,............ 14 Cases ('9`3.30
- Work Perfor.man.ce........ 1 Cases ( 6.7%)
6.
Personal Problems: Main Presenting Problem
New Ga es All Sessions
- Legal 33.3% Z6..3%
Alcohol /Drug 20.07 -15 :; 87,
Marital/Rel. 1:3.3 10 . 5�
I
Family 13.3 10..5%
Occupational 1.3.3 1-0.5
Financial 6.77; 5.3
- Emotional 0.07, 5.3%
- Medical - 0.0% 0.0%
P
- AUG 19 1986 ITEM
11
IO of 16.
REFERENCE PAGE B
SERVICE STATISTICS
CITEOF POWAI
(July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986)
* SERVICE: QUARTER *1* *2* *3* +4* TOTAL TO—DATE F%#.
• ********* a************************************************a*** *******
It ASSISTANCE SESS-IONS: ......:3 , ..6.. • 3.....7 • • ......19
1 New Cases Seen.. s:... .. • 2. • • 3.. e. 3, i......'15.
2. Individuals, Seen.,....•......2.•...5.••..4.:. 8•....•19...
3.. Family Members �S+een•:.••r•.•1....•1••...1..:..•4...;....•x7....
4. No Shows, Late Cancels..,. 1. ...2 • e • .•Q.:• • • •Q• • • • a..3..e
P-ERFORMANCE CONSULTATIONS:
• • • 0 .. •.• • 1 . • ... 1 .. • . •- 0-.. r-. • t • 2 .. •
1.. Staff Present.....•• ..0.•.'...1.....1...•..0...;...:.2•..
a. +anager.5'•.�........•,• Q•• 1. 1•.•.•0..••.•.2.
b. Sup'ervisors••..•..',.......0.....0...•..O.s••i.O•.••••'s0•..
• ORIENTATION SESSIONS: .......... 0 .. .4... a 3.....4 • • ...;11. • ..
..,..•...0•_....27....40....32.........99
1• - Employees Present....
▪ TRAINING SESSIONS:
1. Staff Present..«........;,.33.....0.....0..••.0.-.....;.33...
. INFORMATION PLACED
1. AAnnouncements....... s .,....0.....0.....0. .. 0.0 0 • • ..0 • .
2. Service Flyers•.s•.ee••.e210 . �:.15.....24••.•.Q•..•.249•••
3. Supervisory Guide•.•r•.•x•..5•.••.0.. • 0....0.... •05.
4. Posters, Car ds.. x • .. • .33 ... 2...: I70 ...38.....2.43 ...
...•,....2.•..•.0.. ••.0...-.x0..-.•...2...
11 `of 1.6
...51(32)
...32(17).
...53(34)
...16(09)
•....7(04)
•..;13(11)
...16(14)
...10(08)
....6(:06)
...24(013)
..203(104)
•...5(03)
...74(41)
248.. .17...194....38... 497.....908(411
..150(150)
•.420(171.)
...46(041)
..292(049)
WORKFORCE IMPACT IMPACT RATES
1. Total Workforce......... 1.3Z
(160 Employees) (2. )
2 • Troubled Employee
Workforce (15%)......... 8..7%
(15% = 23 Employees)
Represents only new employee clients,
clients
Figures basedon average of 15% estimated
**
1.9% 1.9% 4.4% 9.4% 18.1%.(9.3%)
(3) (3) (7) (15)* (29)(14)
13% 13% 30.4% 65.2%** 126%(61%)
excludes family member new
problem level
AUG 19 1986 ITE 11
r
f,
NEW CASE BRWDOVN
CRY OF
POWA _ RAS
(July
1 - 1985
to June 30,
1986) .
y�M[_
yyPy��}}Q`hy�l:ea€]]s��...}}.�,9Xaysesr`.�...Z.I.SSesysmo�ns]..ya'yWork.o'].�,..}S�ye�']l�}f►..Ys ].�y.�.}.�.��`��.y.y��am�lyy�+
Legal:
5
33.3%:
5
0 S
3 d
2
1c.10 -rug
3
20.0%
3
0 3
I
4'
Marital%Aelat.
2
13.37a
2
0 2
2 0
1
i
Family
2
13..3%
2.
0 2'
0 2
0
'I
Qccugational:
2
13.3Z
2.
1(1SS.) 1
2 0
0-
Financial
I
6..7Z
I
0 1
®
Emotional
0
0..0%
1
0` 0
0 0
: rtA
Medical
0
0.0
_0
0 0
0 0
Igo Shows---------------
Total-15
:
100%
19
1(1SS) 14
$ 3:
7
s
r
_.
..
-
12 of 16�j
AUG':19 1986
iT EM, 11
�3
nraw...-.....�... �.« �,...:--.
I+py �«�r.ti+.+^�;ty-.e - .: -
�,.. - -•- n _ w..s..�'�!'<tiaY�::�R+�'M�'•"'•q
�.
4.
`
REFERENCE PAGE D
MONTHLY BREAKDOWN OF CASES
CUT 6F
P+OWAY —EAP
w
(July 1, 1985
to June 30,.. 1986 )
MONTH GASES
OPENED
TOTAL; SESSIONS INDIVIDUALS
#
July '85
" 2
2
-
Aug.. '85
0
0
0'
k
Sept. "8
0
1'
0 (1NS}
Qct-. .1 85
0
3 -
1 (2NS )#
Nov. '85
31
3
4
Dec, '85
G.
Q
0
Jan. '86
Feb.. '-86
0
0
0
Mar.. 86
April '86
3.
-4
May. 86
- 2
2
June "86 -
2
2
2M
12 Month. Totals:
1.5 N'ew Cases
19 Tetal Sessions
19 People
Average Per ,Mo ,
1.3 �s
_
1.6 ��
.
i . 6= ft
a
t.
4
M
13 of
16
AUG
19 S6 MEM 1$
1985/86 REFERRING
DEPARTMENTS:
CITY OP POVA - EAP
(July 1,. 1985 to. June 34, 1986
)
CITY DEPARTMENTS
NEW
CASES �
1.
Public Services
_ 7
Cases
i
Safety Services"
4
Cases
: 3.
Community Services
2
Cases
i
4.,
Administrative Services
Z.
Cases
5"•
Planning Services
D'
Cases
6-.
LegIsl;ative Aeminis�trat ve
Se v' IC C
Cass.
T.
Anonymous%No* kno=wn `
0
Cases
r.
Total Cases Referred.
15
Cases
t
i
j
s
Aug 19- gas t E
l i,
1.4 of 16
-
15 of -16
REFERENCE PAGE F
1985/86_ SUPERVISORY TRAINING
CITY OF'POVAY EAP
(July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986)
* NUMBER DATE GROUP STAFF ' PRESENT
4t-
#4 9-17-85 Supervisory 19 staff
#5 9-19-:85 Supervisory 14 staff
a Meetings: 33 Staff;
AUG 19 1966 ITEM 11
Y
-:
IETrTON INV S....
1985./ 86 EMPL- OYEEORIENTATION
CITY OF POWAY - EAS'
(July
L, 1985 to June 30, 1986)
# NUMBER
DATE
GROUP EMPLOYEES PRESENT
#14
10-16-85
Community Services7
employees
#LS
10-X16-85
Community Services
3 "
16.
10-17-85
Adminiat.ra.tive < Svcs*
8;
# 17
10-�17-8,5
Administrative Svcs..
9 rf
�
03=17-$6
Public Services
25
419
03-2.1-86.
Public Services
9
#2O
03-21-$:6
Public Services
6
#21
04-02-8,6
-Planning; Services
1;0: t4
'
#22.
05-19-:86
Fire Department
9.
#23
05-20-86
Fire. Department
6. 4t ;
#24 `
-0,5
0.5-21.-86
Fire I}egartmet.
7
r,
11 ftetings:
99 Employees
f=
AUS9
t E 1
�� o l6