I'm a high school debater, and one of the things we do is put together
cases of evidence from sources more qualified than we are.  The
resolution we're debating for this year is "Resolved: That the United
States federal government should substantially increase public health
services for mental health care in the United States."  Anyway, my
case is providing nation-wide Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) to
everyone who doesn't already have one.  I'm writing a new version of
it, and I'm having trouble finding a cruicial piece of evidence (or
"card" as we call them).  What I want is the statistical prevalence of
treatable mental illness in the workplace in the United States.

As a word of explanation, EAPs are one-size-fits-all mental health
services that employers provide as a non-wage/salary benefit to lower
disability costs, reduce absenteeism, etc.  The idea of my case is
that a few people have them already (and they work great), but we need
to tax corporations a small amount and use the money to pay for enough
EAP services for every employee in the USA.  The numbers work
surprisingly in my favor (ranging from a 50% to 1500% return on the
money spent, with good effectiveness) but I just can't find a certain
bit of evidence that would be extremely helpful.

The minimum I would accept for an answer:
a source stating the number of those currently (2000 dated or later)
employed that are mentally ill.

What I would like:
-it should to be a reputable source (.gov is nice, but lacking that,
the author/source should be as qualified as possible)
-if you find multiple statistics/estimates, I'd like them all, but one
between 5 and 10% is the best (using incorrect evidence [but not
falsified] is actually allowed; its the opponent's burden to provide
better evidence in the event of something untrue being read... crazy
but useful)
-it would be best in paragraph form with non-contradictory (preferably
related) context, but data tables are technically acceptable if that's
all you can find
-"ONLY x%" is very undesireable; it should play up the number... I
want a low number above 5%, but I want the source to stress how large
that number is (spin is very important)
-references to the APA or specifically the DSM-IV are undesireable
(too many source indicts in circulation - using an established part of
the mainstream mental health field opens up a whole can of worms) but
permittable
-"poor mental health" is preferable to "mental illness"
-Numbers of specific disorders are useful but ideally it should be an
overall statistic

I know this is a lot to require of a single number, but its needed for
a very specific use.  Any approximation of the above is greatly
appreciated, because quite frankly, anything would be good at this
point.

What I already have:
lots of evidence saying EAPs are good, EAPs save money, 6-8% of people
use EAPs, 44 million americans are mentally ill, 20% of people are
mentally ill, mental illness has a huge impact on the workplace, 200
million work days are lost each year due to depression, 70-80% of the
mentally ill are unemployed, 10-15% of canadians in the workplace
suffer from severe personal problems.

An american figure similar to the canadian number would be excellent.

Basically I have "qualitative harms" (mental illness is bad) but I
need quantitative harms (HOW MANY people suffer IN THE WORKPLACE
specifically) to prove the point I'm trying to make.

I've done all sorts of research, including looking through the
Department of Labor website (www.dol.gov), the Bureau of Labor
Statistics website (www.bls.gov) and quite a few google searches.  A
place to look that might yield leads (I've already gotten quite a bit
from there) is the International Labor Organisation (www.ilo.int/en). 
Believe it or not, I could not find a single number on the one site I
would expect to be the most helpful (www.workplacementalhealth.org).

If you would like to go above and beyond the call of duty (and earn my
eternal gratitude, as well as possibly an increased price if that sort
of thing can be raised after an answer has been given) I could also
use reputable sources of the following information: (text that
supports the point is almost as good as text saying it outright)

-As high a rate of EAP utilization as you can find from a very recent
source
-As low a rate of EAP availability as you can find from a very recent
source (i'm operating with the bls.gov number of 33% of corporations,
realistically covering around 55% of people [I've found no data after
1999])
-non-anecdotal, highly reliable numbers (presented as facts, not
estimates, in context) for the price per employee for EAPs purchased
en masse (consortium) and ideally a comparison to costs for small
businesses from the same source (it ranges from $16 to $40 generally)
-something saying EAPs are one of the good sides of capitalism, or
EAPs maximize the good in capitalism, or job benefits remedy the flaws
of capitalism, or in general anything that would get
around/over/refute the argument that capitalism is bad (people have
already tried this; it doesn't work well thankfully but I want good
evidence to support capitalism){something that directly turns
"capitalism bad" by saying "EAPs fix whats wrong with capitalism"
would make me love you forever)
-something saying there is no stigma against the use of EAPs or the
people who use them
-something implying that EAPs are able to expand to fit demand on a
large scale (say, to provide them to all 135 million employed workers
in the USA)
-something implying EAPs are worth having whether people actually use
them or not
-Something stating that increasing public mental health care/services
will lead to something bad (excess spending, a welfare state, no good
result, nuclear war, etc)(and i'm serious about the nuclear war thing,
that'd be great)

I'm hoping the price I'm setting should be sufficient for finding a
single number.  The more qualifications it meets, the more different
sources you provide to chose from, and the more of the non-mandatory
items you find, the better the answer would be.

Hope this doesn't send you on a wild goose chase... I know I've spent
several hours looking for it without too much luck.

Hello db8soothsayer-ga

WOW! You’ve certainly put a lot of effort into your debate
preparations. I think I’ve found the main number you’re looking for.
I’ve also gathered a selection of other EAP related statistics and
articles that you might find helpful in your preparations.

I think you have an interesting thesis in proposing a tax to assure
EAP coverage for all. I would caution you about this. Your debate
opponent will come back with strong arguments (and the numbers to back
it up) that a very small number of eligible employees actually use EAP
services. The issues about mental and behavioral health are complex.
One of the major concerns of EAP providers is that the person with the
problem is frequently in complete denial about the need for change.
Many employees only take advantage of EAP services because of pressure
from their boss when their work is suffering to such an extent that it
will not be tolerated. Many people are reluctant to get help for
mental problems because they're worried about losing their job or feel
that they should be able to deal with things on their own. Now, to
your answer.

YOU SAID:
The minimum I would accept for an answer: a source stating the number
of those currently (2000 dated or later) employed that are mentally
ill.

HERE'S YOUR ANSWER:
http://www.nhcpi.net/pdf/mentalhealth.pdf
National Health Care Purchasing Institute, September 2002
Making the Business Case for Improving Mental Health Care
****** See Page 6 
According to the U.S. Surgeon General, about 21 percent of the adult
population – almost 34 million Americans aged 18 to 64 – will have a
mental disorder over the course of a given year. An additional 6
percent will have an addictive disorder, and 3 percent will have both
a behavioral and substance abuse disorder.

Evidence suggests that there is a high prevalence of behavioral
problems in the workplace, and that these disorders take a heavy
financial toll on a company’s prospects. In a recent study of one
large U.S. corporation, about 15 percent of employees had already been
diagnosed with one or more mental disorders, and many more individuals
likely had conditions that went undetected.
****** There is much more in this 20 page that might be useful to you.
It is highly credible and all references are fully annotated with
footnotes and an extensive bibliography.

------------------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS ABOUT EAP PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20021211/CAEAPP8/Health/health/health_temp/1/1/7/
December 11, 2002
SOS? Call your EAP
 Employee aid programs offer a lot more than just counselling these
days, SUSAN PINKER writes. So why aren't more workers using them?
This article is loaded with statistics that address many of your
questions. Just a sampling:
 --- Ms. Seward said usage varies a lot among industries -- though it
will rarely rise to above 20 per cent of employees.
 --- Research from the World Health Organization suggests that "20 per
cent of people will be diagnosed with depression at some point in
their life but only 6 per cent will access help,"

http://www.opm.gov/ehs/Eapbroch.asp
Work/Life Programs -- Your Federal Employee Assistance Program: A
Question and Answer Guide for Federal Employees
This site gives you a good overview of the full range of EAP services
– beyond just mental health.

http://www.fishervista.com/news_121102.htm
December 11, 2002  -- Workplace Options and Fisher Vista Study Finds
Expanded Shift to Integrated EAP and Work/Life Services
When asked what percent of their client base currently contract with
their EAP for Work/Life services, 48 percent say less than 25 percent,
28 percent said between 26 and 50 percent, 12 percent said between 51
and 75 percent and 12 percent said greater than 76 percent.
***** See page for additional statistics

http://www.oasas.state.ny.us/pio/publications/fs12.htm
Workplace Services
It is estimated that 90 percent of the Fortune 500 companies have
established EAPs. In New York State, approximately 25 percent of
workers have access to an Employee Assistance Program. The six million
workers without EAP services are primarily in small businesses.
(3,5,9)
***** See page for additional statistics

--------------------------------------
EAP AND HR ORGANIZATIONS AND RESOURCES
--------------------------------------

http://www.eapassn.org/public/pages/index.cfm?pageid=512
Employee Assistance Professional’s Association
Index of articles should give you other sources for research

http://www.connectionseap.com/EAP_users.html
Connections Inc.
Who Uses EAPs and Why? 
Research surveys indicate that 82.3% of companies with more than 1,000
employees have an Employee Assistance Program.
Approximately 88% of the Fortune 500 companies have EAPs.

http://www.theallengroup.com/BeneEAP.html
Benefits of TAG EAP
TAG's EAP can reduce sick leave usage by 40%, work related accidents
by 70%, workers compensation claims by 25%, lost time by 50% and time
spent on supervisor reprimands by 90%.
**** See page for additional statistics.

http://www.reach-eap.com/need.html
Why Does your organization need an Employee Assistance Program?
Ninety percent of employees who use EAP services remain on the
payroll.
Eighty percent of problems referred to the EAP are resolved without
further referral.
***** See page for additional statistics


I hope these resources will help you with making your case in the
debate. If you need more information or statistics, I strongly urge
you to talk to your librarian – either at your school or at your
public library. My experience is that librarians love to help whether
you’re looking for a specific bit of information or working on a huge
project. Sometimes it helps to have someone teach you how to make the
best use of your research tools.

I wish you great success with the debate.

czh

---------------
SEARCH STRATEGY
---------------
EAP use
EAP benefits
EAP participation

Very useful - saves me a lot of time  :-)