Evaluation Summary

Narrative Description of Evaluation Results

We evaluate our programs using a variety of measures, including internal analyses, employee feedback, and external benchmarking. We focus on what works in benchmark companies and on cost-effectively implementing those programs at L. L. Bean.

We meet the criteria for comprehensive Tier III programs identified by The Health Project, having over twice the number of points necessary to qualify. Our most recent company-wide health survey was conducted in 1993 (see Health Beat newsletter). We identified our progress in relation to previous internal surveys, state and national norms, and Healthy People 2,000 goals (see L.L. Bean Health Survey Comparison Chart). In 1994 we increased our efforts in those areas needing greatest improvement: exercise and nutrition.

Employees rate our programs very favorably. For example, the average rating of participants in our Health Risk Appraisal program in 1993 was 4.8 on a 5 point scale. Even though employees are spread over numerous sites, 75% of employees rate our programs as accessible.

We received high marks in a 1992 site visit in the Johnson and Johnson benchmark project. We have subsequently addressed all the improvement opportunities identified (see Johnson and Johnson Benchmark report and newsletter).

During the past six years the increase in the cost of medical benefits for L. L. Bean has increased less than the Northeast or national per employee averages. The differences have been dramatic during the past three years. In 1991, the cost per L. L. Bean employee was $2,068 compared to the Northeast per employee average of $3,483. This represents a cost savings of 40.6%, or $1,415 per employee. In 1992, medical expenses increased only $37 per employee. Costs were $1,532 below the Northeast average which translates to a 42.1% savings. In 1993, the per employee average was $2,123 compared with the Northeast average of $4,000. This was an increase of only $18 which was a savings of $1,877 or 46.9% per employee (see L. L. Bean Per Capita Medical Claims chart).

There are a number of factors potentially affecting these cost differences. We have designed and implemented programs analogous to proven and documented programs of other leading companies. Our health promotion programs are integrated with effective benefit design and management and we feel are instrumental in our results. To obtain further results, we are currently tying our health and fitness programs even more directly into our new managed care offering (see L. L. Bean RFP).

Lastly, we have arranged with Maine Medical Center and Dartmouth Medical School to survey all our regular employees confidentially with the SF-36 health outcomes instrument, a health habits survey, and a job satisfaction survey. This will provide a cross-sectional and longitudinal framework for ongoing program evaluation and improvement.

These types of evaluations give us a cost-effective method for measuring our program impact while allowing us to allocate the bulk of our funds to programming.