I’ve developed a pet peeve: Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). 

While I don't often talk about EAPs, they're a constant frustration in the work we do with clients. They always seem to be on the agenda… and rightfully so.

I felt this frustration again recently while working with a client who had an older employee assistance program. People didn’t like it, they didn’t use it, and leadership was asking whether they should replace it altogether. And as we started digging in, I was reminded of something I think a lot of organizations overlook: EAPs have real potential to be more than check-box benefits, but when they're poorly designed, they can actively harm the people they're supposed to help.

The less you use, the better… for them

At the most basic level, EAPs work by charging employers a small amount per employee per month. Of course, not everyone uses the service, and that’s kind of the point.

From a business model perspective, these programs are most profitable when usage stays low. It’s the same way gyms make money. Everyone signs up in January, and then life happens.

That doesn’t make EAPs inherently bad. But it does mean that unless someone is actively pushing them to evolve, many providers are perfectly happy to collect fees while offering something that technically exists, but functionally doesn’t work very well.

“This EAP sucks.” 

When employees tell me an EAP sucks, it’s not because they don’t believe in therapy or support. It’s because the pathway to care is exhausting.

You have to find the number. Call it. Talk to someone who takes your information. Wait for a callback. Do an intake. Get assigned to someone who might have availability in two weeks. By the time care shows up, the moment has often passed, or the person has already decided it’s not worth the effort.

Access is another issue. Some providers are still stuck in rigid models: only in-person, only virtual, limited hours. In the strictest of definitions, the service is technically “available,” but it’s not accessible in real life… especially for people working shifts or non-standard schedules.

Then there’s choice (or the lack of it). One of the strongest predictors of whether therapy actually helps is the relationship between the person receiving care and the person providing it. And yet many EAPs give people very little control over who that provider is.

And finally, there’s the short-term design. A provider often dictates how many sessions a person is entitled to for their issue. Maybe it’s six sessions per issue. Divorce? Six sessions. Anxiety? Six sessions. Then you start over — often with a different therapist. That structure pushes therapy into quick problem-solving mode. For some people, that works. For others, it feels rushed and disconnected from what they actually wanted to talk about.

Sometimes the EAP isn’t the problem

But this isn’t to say all EAPs are problematic: sometimes the program itself is fine.

I’ve seen plenty of cases where the EAP was solid, but no one talked about it. It popped up once during onboarding, buried in a benefits slide, and was never mentioned again.

Managers didn’t understand how it worked. Leaders didn’t feel comfortable bringing it up. So when usage stayed low, the organization assumed people didn’t need it rather than realizing people didn’t know how or when to use it.

So, when almost nobody uses it, it’s likely because almost nobody knows it exists.

And that’s where things start to get interesting, because at the same time that many organizations are underusing what they already have, the EAP space itself is beginning to shift in some genuinely positive ways.

More providers are integrating coaching. Not therapy, but practical, relational support that helps people think through decisions and behaviour change.

Matching is improving too. Some platforms now use AI to pair people with providers they’re more likely to connect with, based on demographics, preferences, and past outcomes. It’s not perfect, but it improves the odds.

I’m also seeing more flexibility around ongoing care. Instead of hard stops at six sessions, some providers allow people to continue with the same therapist and bill additional sessions through benefits. That continuity matters more than most organizations realize.

What matters less than people think are all the extras. Things like legal advice, nutrition consults, and content libraries. They might look impressive on paper, but they’re rarely why someone reaches for an EAP in a moment of real trouble.

If you’re choosing an EAP, start here

The first step isn’t talking to vendors, it’s talking to the people who’ll actually use the EAP.

Ask them what they actually want. Then push providers to meet those needs. Session limits, access, flexibility… none of that is as fixed as it’s often presented.

Pay attention to the relationship. The best providers act like partners, not product vendors. They ask questions. They share data. They help you understand your workforce, not just report on usage.

An EAP is a hard hat, not the whole safety system

Keeping everything I’ve said about EAPs in mind, this is the piece I always want to be clear about: An EAP is a protective, reactive support. It can help someone through a hard moment. What it can’t do is compensate for a psychologically unsafe workplace.

If the culture is causing harm, an EAP only helps people survive it.

The real question for employers is whether an EAP actually meets people where they are, whether leaders know how to use it, and whether you’re treating it as a checkbox or a relationship.