Background Information for
DOJ Order 1200.1, Part 7, Employee Assistance

HUMAN RESOURCES ORDER

DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED

Comments received on the chapters in this installment of the Human Resources Order and changes made are discussed below.

APPENDIX I. HUMAN RESOURCES DICTIONARY

References.

In response to a component's comment that the key term "Critical Incidence Stress Management" (CISM) is identified with a particular theoretical orientation, we have changed the term to "Traumatic Incident Management" (TIM), which is a more generalized concept. (We also made this change throughout Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Part 7.).

We have revised the definition of "family member" to accommodate the continuum of family arrangements, and we have allowed for an extended definition of "family member" for purposes of Traumatic Incident Management.

Part 7. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE

Chapter 1.    Employee Assistance Program

Paragraph B.1. Policy. One component commented that this paragraph lacked clarity as it did not provide a date for the establishment of component's new policies, and questioned the responsibilities of components for whom the Justice Management Division provides Employee Assistance Program (EAP) services. To address this concern, the transmittal memorandum includes the requirement that components draft and return their policy and procedures to Ted Schwartz, within 9 months of the issuance of this chapter. In addition, section B.2 states that only those components that directly operate their own EAP shall define the scope of EAP services and eligibility and B.5 notes that only those components that operate their own EAP shall develop written EAP policies and procedures.

Paragraph B.2.c. Scope of Services. Paragraph B.2.c. was added to address one component's desire to communicate and counsel by e-mail. While this new technology has provided many advantages, confidentiality remains a concern. Department e-mail can potentially be seen by third parties, and the Department has taken the position that there is no expectation of privacy regarding communication on or information stored within the Department's computer systems. Thus, this new paragraph severely limits and clarifies when such communications are permitted.

Paragraph B. 3.e.(1) Duties and Responsibilities. A component took issue with the paragraph that stated that the Assistant Director (AD), Workforce Support Group, Human Resources Staff, JMD, approves component EAP policy statements; oversees the development and maintenance of component EAPs; and evaluates their compliance with Federal law, regulation and Department policy. The component did not feel that the Department should have the right to approve component EAP policy and expressed concern that this language would interfere with the design, budget and control of a component's EAP. The current wording is not substantially different from the previous EAP Order, DOJ 1792.1B. The Assistant Attorney General for Administration has responsibility for planning, directing, and coordinating Department-wide personnel management programs, and for developing and issuing Department-wide policy in all personnel program areas (28 CFR 0.75(d)); has authority to inspect at any time any personnel operations of the various organizational units of the Department (28 CFR 0.76(o)); and is authorized to redelegate this authority to any Department official (28 CFR 0.79). The suggested change was not considered in order to ensure the greatest flexibility to the Department.

Paragraph B. 3.e.(3). Duties and Responsibilities (TIM Coordination). A component objected to the JMD Human Resources StaffAD's responsibility to coordinate and develop Department-wide procedures for EAP Traumatic Incident Management (TIM) response following acts of terrorism or other disasters affecting Department personnel or facilities. The component wanted to add that any agreement to pool available resources would be voluntary, that Department procedures would not diminish the capabilities of component EAPs to respond to their own EAP and TIM services needs, and that responders would be limited to Federal staff at the exclusion of contract counselors. Since there is no way to predict future events, and responses to terrorism or other disasters will be determined by the Attorney General, this paragraph has not been revised in order to ensure the greatest flexibility.

Paragraph B. 3.e.(4) Duties and Responsibilities (Evaluations). The same component took exception to the JMD Human Resources StaffAD conducting evaluations of component EAPs, as it felt that its own extensive internal inspections were sufficient. This provision is not new. The previous Order stated that the AD will conduct evaluations of component EAPs (DOJ 1792.1B; Chapter 5, Evaluation and Monitoring; Paragraph 25, Department Responsibilities). The oversight responsibility of the Assistant Attorney General for Administration is discussed above under Paragraph B.3.d.(1).)

Paragraph B.3.g. Duties and Responsibilities (Component EAP Administrator). A component suggested that we include supervision of collateral duty staff in the EAP Administrator's supervisory responsibilities to make it clear that the ultimate responsibility regarding the supervision of EAP personnel rests with the EAP Administrator, regardless of the geographical or organizational location of the staff, and regardless of whether they are full-time or collateral duty EAP program personnel. This suggestion was incorporated into the policy. This modification allows the EAP to command and control its unique responsibilities and mental health personnel; ensures that EAP services "do no harm"; and provides for centralized control of all EAP records.

Paragraph B.3.i. Managers/Supervisors. Several components wanted to strengthen the first sentence of this paragraph, which now reads: "Managers are encouraged to refer employees to the EAP who have performance, conduct, and attendance issues that have not been resolved through supervisory guidance and/or other forms of progressive intervention," by changing "are encouraged" to "shall". This wording was not adopted as General Counsel has advised that it would put management in a vulnerable position should any manager not refer an employee. We also did not change "are encouraged" to "shall" in the second sentence.

Paragraph B.3.j. EEO Counselors and Ombudsperson. The same suggested change to substitute "shall" for "are encouraged" was not accepted. Requiring a referral by EEO counselors interfered with their mandate and independence. The reference to the Ombudsperson was deleted since the position no longer exists.

Paragraph B. 4. Organizational Placement. A component said it would be a hardship to follow the requirement that the EAP be placed organizationally so that it is free from any conflict of interest, ethical compromise, or the appearance of either. This requirement was in the previous EAP Order (DOJ 1792.1B, Chapter 2, Section 1, paragraph 10) and has been retained in its current modified version, to ensure that there is no undue influence from programs that serve conflicting functions and that programming is objective and fair. This section was edited from the previous EAP order, based on the advice of the JMD Labor Relations and Employment Law section.

Paragraph B.5.a. Service Delivery Model. Several components took issue with the requirement in this paragraph that component policies and related EAP contracts allow for coordination and cooperation among the DOJ component EAPs to permit the provision of services to any DOJ employee involved in a traumatic incident. A component commented that working cooperatively with the JMD Human Resources StaffAD in coordinating and delivering a DOJ response to a terrorist attack or disaster affecting Department personnel or facilities might supercede the component's own EAP's Crisis Management Plans or divert resources from the component's internal trauma response operations. The intent of this paragraph was to permit the Department's EAPs to assist a sister component and its affected employees when circumstances made it both practical and clinically appropriate, upon the request of a sister EAP, if approved by the servicing EAP COTR. It allows the JMD Human Resources StaffAD to potentially take advantage of responding component counselors, who may be on site after a terrorist attack or natural disaster and maximize their potential in serving affected Department employees. This paragraph remains unchanged.

Paragraph B. 5.b. Session Limits. One of the components questioned the need to limit the number of EAP counseling sessions, "given the individual nature of many cases and the tremendous value to the government in some instances of extended coverage (difficulties in finding a specialist, securing a smooth transition to employee health benefits coverage, and providing counseling for what may become work related psychological injures for which the government would be held responsible through Workers' Compensation anyway)."

EAPs have historically provided short-term counseling to stabilize, mitigate or quickly resolve an employee's problems regarding substance abuse, work related matters, or other personal issues. Long term care is to be borne through the employee's own means, either through their health insurance, Worker's Compensation, and/or self pay.

The EAP and Workers' Compensation program have different executive or legislative mandates and employee benefits. Therefore, some limits need to be set to minimize excessive reliance on EAP services. To allow for flexibility, the limit on the number of sessions has been revised from six to eight, and the following sentences have been added to paragraph B.5.b.:

"Appointments or contacts for case monitoring or follow-up services are not considered counseling sessions. Additional sessions beyond eight sessions may be provided in those instances where the employee has been involved in a traumatic incident, or it is in the best interest of the government to do so, and it has been approved by the respective component EAP Administrator and/or COTR. However, regardless of the number of sessions allowed, individuals with life-threatening behavior or circumstances may be provided assistance, based on the situation and prevailing professional practice."

A component asked if the limit on the number of sessions applies to each referral or to the length of an individual's employment with the Department. It is not often that an employee seeks assistance more than twice in one year to deal with different issues. This can be handled on a case by case basis.

Paragraph B.5.e. Service Delivery Model (Counseling Continuance). Wording was requested to make it clear that an employee could continue seeing their contract EAP counselor beyond the EAP sessions, if the employee was willing to assume the cost through the employee's health insurance and/or as an out of pocket expense. This suggestion was adopted as a separate and distinct paragraph for emphasis.

Paragraph B.6.a. Participation and Job Security. A component suggested we add e-mail as a means for an employee to privately access the EAP directly. As discussed in B.2.c, e-mail may be used to access the EAP if the client consents to such communication.

Paragraph B.6.b. Employee Access and EAP Attendance. A component asked that the policy clearly state that formal EAP referrals should not be filed in an employee's OPF or medical file, or any other system of records other than EAP records. General Counsel has advised that such wording is not acceptable since a manager might include mention of an EAP referral in disciplinary correspondence. Although it is customary not to include formal EAP referrals in an employee's OPF, this could create a problem for management in the case of disciplinary communication. Counsel has advised that this could be clarified procedurally by stating operationally that formal EAP referrals that are not part of a disciplinary action memorandum or letter will not be placed in an employees OPF or medical records, or any system of records other than EAP records. Thus, the current wording stands and modifies the previous EAP Order.

Paragraph B.6.d. Attendance. A component objected to allowing employees to attend EAP sessions during work hours without a charge to leave, when permission is granted by the employee's supervisor, on the grounds that it induces employees to breach their own EAP confidentiality. Another component wanted to allow up to six sessions without a charge to leave. We have not revised this provision. Employees have the right to choose to see an EAP counselor on their own time with complete anonymity (e.g., lunch time appointments, requested leave, or before work), or during their work day without a charge to leave, if approved by their supervisor. Attending an EAP session without a charge to leave is not an entitlement, and the supervisor may choose to deny such a request. This is not a new policy as it was permitted under the previous EAP Order, DOJ 1792.1B. The only change from the previous policy is use of the term "without a charge to leave" instead of "administrative leave." This eliminates recording the reason for the leave on an employee's Time and Attendance record, which is a requirement in the case of administrative leave, thus adding additional privacy protection for the employee/EAP client.

Paragraph B.7.a. Selective Factors for EAP Personnel. One of the components felt the proposed licensing requirement for EAP administrators and internal EAP counselors would be problematic. Another component requested that we add that internal EAP counselors may be Peer Support (PS) members who have advanced CISM certification and 5 years of experience on a PS Team. Another wanted greater flexibility in recruiting what they felt were qualified personnel and asked that this paragraph be modified to include "licensed eligible" counselors. These changes were not accepted as a license sets a minimal standard that is accepted throughout the United States to protect the public from incompetent practitioners.

Licensure "protects the EAP and the government from legal problems surrounding malpractice because unlicenced persons make an employer vulnerable to a legal suit."¹ Most EAP vendors require licensed practitioners. The license requirement lessens the government's risk for administrative and clinical malfeasance and builds in an additional level of confidentiality. Also, the market is such that there is no shortage of licensed personnel, and it should be relatively easy to recruit seasoned counselors at almost any grade. From a business perspective, it makes sense to hire an experienced licensed counselor instead of a non-licensed counselor at the same cost, since a non-licensed counselor may not provide the same confidentiality privileges as the licensed counselor. Thus, risk management concerns suggest we should not rely on para-professionals or peers as EAP counselors in order to avoid putting program quality at risk. Recruiting, screening, selecting, training, testing, certifying, and supervising internal, unlicensed EAP counselors requires a component to create an internal mental health/social service system of its own, outside of the current market place, which increases costs and liability to the government. This is fundamentally a poor business and clinical design. Use of employees as EAP para-professionals on a collateral duty basis creates role conflicts for collateral duty personnel, raises concerns for EAP clients, and interferes with the para-professional employee's primary mission responsibilities. We did not adopt a suggestion to use the term "licensed mental health professional" as a general term for personnel who are qualified to carry out EAP services, but components may use the term as long as it is defined in accordance with paragraph B.7.a.

Paragraph B.7.c. Contract EAP Counselors. One component wanted to add the following: "In components with law enforcement personnel, contract EAP counselors should have experience in working with law enforcement officers." We have not included this because the purpose of this paragraph is to establish general minimal licensing standards for contract EAP counselors. A component may add to these standards, based on its needs.

Paragraph B.7.d. Non-Licensed Staff. This paragraph was added in response to a recommendation to permit the use of para-professionals (peers) within the Department's EAPs to act as initial program contacts, program service facilitators (information, follow-up, support), and referral agents. New wording was added allowing for non-licensed EAP personnel to perform certain duties other than counseling. The suggestion to list them as "para-professionals" or "peers" was not incorporated, but the functions of such personnel were delineated.

Paragraph B.8. Ethical Standards. We broadened the paragraph on ethical standards to apply to all EAP personnel.

Paragraph B.8.a.&b. Ethical Standards. A component felt these paragraphs should be eliminated because ethics are already covered in other professional codes of conduct. We have not done this because there is no consistency between the various professions regarding sexual contact with clients, and this paragraph ensures Departmental uniformity and clarity between varying licenses, professions, and staff who may not be licenced. One component felt there should be a prohibition on engaging in "romantic relationships" as opposed to just "sexual relations." The recommendation was not adopted principally because it is difficult to define what a romantic relationship is, short of sexual relations.

Paragraph C.1. Case Record. In commenting on requirements for case records in this paragraph and on assessment requirements in paragraph C.3., Bio-Psychosocial Assessments, a component questioned whether or not there was justification in either current professional literature on EAP/mental health practice management and/or Federal regulations that indicates that gathering such extensive information (as opposed to client-specific history taking) is clinically advantageous and/or a regulatory requirement. The component also asked why a time-consuming, "one-size-fits-all client history format should be dictated centrally by DOJ when component EAPs specifically hire licensed, senior-level, mental health professionals to collect client/problem-specific data as part of their overall problem assessment and treatment planning and in doing so optimize the limited time the clinician and client have together.

This paragraph of the Order was formulated in part from the Council on Accreditation, EAP Standards and Self-Study Manual, 2nd Edition, 2003, Paragraph XI.4 Clinical Assessments (COA), the EASNA Standards For Accreditation of Employee Assistance Programs (EASNA), March 1998, pages 24-28, and the Employee Assistance Handbook, edited by James M. Oher, 1999. The Employee Assistance Handbook² states that "Assessment is one of the EAP's most important clinical functions. The assessment process can last up to several hours over the course of several sessions. The goal of this initial assessment is to identify the problem areas that the client and clinician believe are the cause of the client's emotional discomfort." The COA, in paragraph XI.3, pages 128-129, defines assessment requirements as those that contain demographic information; statement of the problem; work related issues; diagnosis when and were appropriate; environment and home situation; religion if appropriate; financial status; health insurance; social and peer groups; interests, skills, and aptitudes; work history and military service; education; date of last medical exam; physical illness/somatic variables/medical treatment; substance abuse history; behavioral/cognitive patterns that cause health risks, based on physical, emotional, behavioral, or social conditions; and, where appropriate, legal, vocational, and/or nutritional needs of the client. The purpose of the Department's client history format is to establish minimal standards for the Department's EAP counselors, who have varied backgrounds and levels of experience.

Paragraph C.2 Statement of Client Understanding. A component noted that the circumstances for which the Statement of Client Understanding (SCU) form had to be executed were too broad and should only be reviewed and signed when an employee requests short-term counseling. Since a significant amount of services provided are in the form of information and referral, and since the form was not meant for such activity, the suggested change was adopted. We also adopted a suggestion to permit review of the SCU with the employee and/or family member over the phone, recording that act in the case file, and obtaining a signed SCU by mail or fax later if practical, in order to accommodate telephonic intakes and counseling. We have added a requirement to include a statement on the form allowing the EAP to inform an inquiring supervisor of the date and time an employee met with an EAP counselor.

Paragraph C.3. Bio-Psychosocial Assessments. A component requested that we drop the prefix "bio," as it felt that the audience for this order is likely to be general, and this prefix could infer more medical expertise than actually exists. We did not drop the prefix since this paragraph is meant to provide an expectation both to the general employee audience, as well as to the professionals that provide EAP services, that physical and mental influences are to be attended to during the assessment. It is a term and expectation also reflected in the COA manual, which highlights that the client's entire medical presentation should be taken into account when assessing and resolving problems. This paragraph directs Department EAP counselors to take into account the biological influences present to ensure that the referral for care and related counseling is as accurate as possible. Counselors are not to provide service they are not qualified to offer, and must refer the client out if necessary. The component also questioned the gathering of assessment data required by this paragraph in conjunction with the requirements in paragraph C.1. This issue is discussed above under paragraph C.1.

Paragraph C.4.b.(1) Internal EAP Files. A component objected to the requirement to use GSA security-approved safes, because not all contract EAP offices have the space or structural capability to accommodate file-safes. This policy only covers Federal EAP safes, not contractors, and we have not revised it. However, we have adopted the component's suggestion to permit file-safes with security equivalence, when approved by a component's security office. The component also objected to the requirement to list only the case number on the client's file label without the client's name. This requirement has not been changed. The 1998 EASNA standards, in paragraph D--Record Keeping, paragraph 3.0, page 29, state: "In internal EAPs which are on site, a numeric system must be used to identify the record. For external EAPs which are completely separate from the work site, it is not essential to maintain a numeric system. It is, however, advised as other licensing bodies are now insisting on a numeric system for reasons of confidentiality, and for auditing purposes, a numeric system facilitates file review." Finally, with the advent of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and the penalties for breaking confidentiality, it is important to take every opportunity to reduce unintentional privacy violations.

Paragraph C.4.c. Client Access to Records. This paragraph requires EAP counselors to provide assistance to clients in interpreting records when the records could cause a serious misunderstanding or harm to the client. It was suggested that assistance could also be provided by a clinician or counsel designated by the client. We have not revised the paragraph since such designations can be made through a signed consent form, if elected by the client.

Paragraph C.4.d. File Destruction. The suggestion by a component, to make the last contact, rather than the last counseling session, the date on which the clock starts the three year time period for file retention and destruction was not accepted at the advice of General Counsel. It was also suggested that where records are to be retained as necessary because of administrative or judicial proceedings, that the additional wording "specific to the client" be added. This suggestion was adopted.

A component asked if we should maintain the ability to retain EAP records for seven years since some employees with security clearances must document all EAP clinical sessions over the previous seven years on their security form (SF-86) at the time of clearance renewal. The current three-year requirement is not a change from the previous EAP Order, DOJ 1792.1B, and retention for three years is customary in the EAP industry, unless State laws dictate otherwise. There is no law, regulation, or Federal policy that requires that EAP records conform to security practices. The SF-86 only permits mental health counselors to respond to a question about whether the person under investigation has a condition or treatment that could impair his/her judgement or reliability, particularly in the context of safeguarding classified national security information or special nuclear information or material. If the answer is yes, then the counselor may also describe the nature of the condition and the extent and duration of the impairment or treatment and the prognosis. If an EAP counselor feels that an employee is a national security risk, the counselor should not wait until the subject employee/client's background check to report such a concern. The EAP should consult with its General Counsel at the time of the concern and dealt with it expeditiously, without exposing the employee's identity during the consultation phase. Also, persons with serious mental disorders or substance abuse problems are usually treated through community programs. These programs will have more information about the employee's medical condition and treatment than the EAP, and, due to HIPAA, are required to retain the patient's files for six years.

We note that other Federal departments have similar time periods for record retention. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services EAP has a three-year record retention policy, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) requires that its records be retained for three to five years after the employee's last contact with OPM's prevention function, or, if the employee leaves the agency, until the Employee Counseling Service Program Annual Report for the fiscal year in which separation occurred is prepared.

Paragraph C.5. Confidentiality. A question was raised about the distinction made in the draft order chapter between 42 CFR Part 2 records and those that were not. The draft called for all records to be handled pursuant to 42 CFR Part 2, per the wording in the last EAP Order 1792.1B. Past practice under both Department and OPM directives was to have one central record system in accordance with 42 CFR Part 2 standards. The suggestion to follow past practice was not adopted at the advice of General Counsel. Thus, only substance abuse case records are to be handled pursuant to 42 CFR Part 2. In addition, clarifying language regarding what is not a disclosure when sharing information between Department EAPs has been revised to read: "(1) transmittals of information between Department EAP counselors when conducting EAP-related business; and (2) transmittals of information between external EAP counselors contracted by the Department to conduct EAP services on behalf of the Department and internal Department EAP counselors."

Paragraph C.5.b. Disclosures without Consent. A component made the following suggestions:

Circumstance (1). This circumstance deals with reporting under State law, incidents of suspected child, elder, or domestic abuse or neglect. A component suggested removing the reporting requirements for elder or domestic abuse or neglect because it is not required in every State, it is difficult to apply and enforce, and it would have a chilling effect on program participation. The component expressed concern about placing federal programs and employees too directly under individual state requirements, and felt that by relinquishing sovereignty we lose potential defensibility, create confusion in clients and program personnel, and add considerable burden to training and tracking resources. This suggestion is contrary to 42 CFR Part 2, and it has not been adopted. Failure to report elder or domestic abuse or neglect jeopardizes the license of a professional counselor when he/she is required by law to report such abuse or neglect. This is not a sovereignty issue; it is an issue of law and accepted professional practice. It is difficult to defend for failing to report when legally required to do so, when there is a high probability that failing to report will result in the injury or death of an individual. In regard to law enforcement personnel, the Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9)) states that any officer convicted of a misdemeanor act of domestic abuse loses his/her right to carry a firearm, ammunition, or transport same. Not reporting when required by law, or to prevent harm, puts the Department, the victim, the EAP, and the counselor in an untenable position. There should be no confusion about this for clients and EAP personnel if EAP management explains client rights at the start of counseling per the SCU form mentioned above. If an EAP finds reporting to be a burden on training and tracking resources, its program design needs to be modified.

Circumstance (2). It was suggested that this circumstance for disclosure without consent be revised to read: "to any person or entity to the extent necessary to prevent an imminent loss of life or serious bodily injury." We did not make this change because the current language reflects the language in the JMD EAP system of records notice.

Circumstance (4). A component suggested we add the words "has been adjudicated" before "mentally incompetent." We did not make this change on advice of Counsel and because the current language reflects the language in the JMD EAP system of records notice.

Circumstance (5). A component felt that the language in this circumstance, which allows disclosure to any person or entity to the extent necessary to meet a bona fide medical emergency, was too broad in who might be contacted in a medical emergency. We did not revise this circumstance, since narrowing it may impair a counselor's ability to assist an employee and not allow the counselor to react to unique circumstances.

Circumstance (6). A component commented that this paragraph, which allowed disclosure for certain official purposes concerning a former employee, was too broad. After discussion with Counsel, this routine use was removed. A Department-wide routine use was added in its place, relating to identity theft.

In addition, a component suggested adding confirmation of attendance at an EAP session to a supervisor as a circumstance for disclosure. This is already addressed in paragraph C.6.d. of this chapter. Another component suggested adding disclosure when an EAP client has litigation against his/her component and disclosure is necessary to defend the component. This has not been added since it will be taken care of in due process.

Chapter 2.    Traumatic Incident Management

Paragraph B.4.e.(1) and (2) Assistant Director, Workforce Support Group, Human Resources Staff, JMD. A component suggested that the Assistant Director should have the authority to review, but not approve, component TIM policy statements to assure they are consistent with Federal law and regulations and DOJ policy, and asked if the intent of this paragraph is to give control over component TIM plans to the DOJ EAP Director. The component is concerned that this paragraph will result in centralized design and control of protocols and deployments. The intent is not for the Assistant Director to take over the command functions of each respective TIM program. The intent is for the Assistant Director to approve components' policy and consider future service configurations. We have not adopted this suggestion. The component also asked whether DOJ would fund programs for which the Assistant Director has authority. Any funding decisions are ultimately made by the Attorney General.

Paragraph B. 4.e.(3) The same component expressed concern that the provision for the AD to develop and coordinate, with the assistance of the component EAP Administrators, a Department-wide EAP CISM response following acts of terrorism or other disasters affecting Department personnel or facilities will force the component to cooperate, drain its EAP budget, and cause it to be unable to respond to its own needs. We have not revised this provision. The objective of this paragraph is to maximize the efforts of TIM responders already on the scene, or about to be deployed, and to assist in supporting DOJ employees without incurring additional costs.

Paragraph B.4.i. Managers/Supervisors. A component asked that we require managers to follow TIM protocol in a traumatic incident instead of saying they are encouraged to follow TIM protocol. For the reason discussed under paragraph B.3.h. of the EAP chapter, on advice of counsel, we did not modify this paragraph.

Paragraph B. 5. Traumatic Incident Response. We added the following sentence on participation to this paragraph: "Participating in individual or group TIM counseling is strictly voluntary, and an employee may decline such services." We added this sentence because there have been instances in the past where employees were either told, or it was inferred, that participation in counseling was mandatory. There is emerging evidence that psychological debriefings may not provide insulation against emotional trauma; for example, a recent reference stated: "There is no current evidence that psychological debriefing is a useful treatment for the prevention of post traumatic stress disorder after traumatic incidents. Compulsory debriefings of victims of trauma should cease."³ Also, a component objected to the provision in this paragraph allowing employees to use TIM services without charge to leave. We have not changed this provision, since it is not an entitlement, and the supervisor may choose to deny such requests.

Paragraph B. 6.d. Certification. A component asked us to clarify how members of a peer support program become certified. We added a new paragraph B.6.d. directing the EAP Administrator of each PS program to develop a certification system.

Paragraph C.1. Records. A component commented that some form of record system for TIM programs would be administratively necessary. This paragraph has been modified so that administrative records may be kept, but individual records that identify an employee may not be kept. It is important that communications between a TIM counselor and the employee are confidential and protected. Another component asked how a PS member would be able to explain or justify his/her actions without even informal notes if an employee brings a claim or action that references something the PS member did. The denial of keeping even informal notes is based on the need to create a non-threatening environment for the traumatized employee to seek refuge and gain support. Traumatized employees are vulnerable after an incident such as a shooting or an accident, and may report their actions to a peer or other interveners, which may be relevant to future criminal or civil law suits. If PS members keep notes on trauma cases, employees will avoid post trauma incident services. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in its web site under "Publications" states: "A peer support person must not keep formal or private records of supportive contacts." In the 1993 book titled "Critical Incident Stress Debriefing," Drs. Mitchell and Everly state that you should "not take notes, make recordings or allow cameras at a debriefing."

Paragraph C.2. TIM Program Confidentiality. In response to comments on program confidentiality, we clarified this paragraph by noting that confidentiality cannot be assured, based on the TIM setting and the credentials of the involved TIM debriefer. We also removed specific circumstances for reporting information, and we added a reference to requirements for release of information in paragraphs C.5.a. and b. of the EAP chapter, Chapter 1.

1. Employee Assistance Handbook, page 18, 1996 EAPA National Conference, Edited by James M. Oher, 1999

2. Clinical Practice and Procedures, page 5, paragraph 4.

3. Rose, S., Bisson, J., Wessely, S. Psychological Debriefings for Preventing PTSD (Cochrane review), Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2003, Oxford, UK.

Return to the TOP