The document summarizes findings from a SHRM survey of California organizations regarding wellness initiatives. Key findings include: - 61% of California organizations offer wellness programs compared to 72% nationally. - Effectiveness of initiatives in improving health and reducing costs was rated highly, though few analyze return on investment. - Over half saw increased employee participation in initiatives year-over-year. - Incentives were deemed effective in boosting participation. - Most would boost investment if able to better quantify impact.

1. SHRM Survey Findings: Employee Benefits in California—
Wellness Initiatives
April xx, 2014

2. • This is part one of a series of SHRM survey findings examining employee benefits in the
workplace of California organizations.
• The following topics are included in the six-part series titled Employee Benefits in California:
» Part 1: Wellness initiatives
» Part 2: Flexible work arrangements
» Part 3: Health care
» Part 4: Leveraging benefits to retain employees
» Part 5: Leveraging benefits to recruit employees
» Part 6: Communicating benefits
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
Introduction
2

3. • For the purpose of this survey, the term wellness initiative is any type of wellness program,
resource or service offered to employees. Financial education initiative is defined as any
workplace initiative, program or resource designed to provide employees with information on how
to effectively manage their financial resources for a lifetime of financial well-being.
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
Definitions
3

4. • How many organizations offer wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services to their
employees? Sixty-one percent of organizations in California offer some type of wellness program,
resource or service to their employees, compared with 72% of overall U.S. organizations.
• Do organizations conduct analysis on their wellness initiatives? Only 16% of California organizations
that have wellness initiatives conduct an analysis to determine the return on investment (ROI),
whereas close to one-fifth (23%) of them conduct an analysis to determine cost savings achieved
by their wellness initiatives.
• How effective are wellness initiatives? More than three-fifths (63%) of California organizations that
offer wellness initiatives indicated they were “very effective” or “somewhat effective” in reducing
the costs of health care. Additionally, roughly three-quarters (76%) of California organizations
offering wellness initiatives rated their initiatives as being “very effective” or “somewhat effective”
in improving the physical health of their employees.
• Do organizations offer wellness incentives or rewards? One-half (49%) of California organizations
offered wellness incentives or rewards to their employees. Of these organizations, 89% of them
indicated these incentives/rewards were “very effective” or “somewhat effective” in increasing
employee participation in their organization’s wellness initiatives.
Key Findings
California
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014 4

5. • Wellness initiatives could mean a “win-win” for both employees and employers. The majority of
organizations (76% in California and nationally) that offer wellness initiatives perceive that they are
effective in improving employees’ overall physical health (e.g., initiatives encouraging preventive
health). Moreover, wellness programs are often extended to the employees’ dependents, which has
further implications for creating a healthy and more productive workforce. Financial wellness is also
an area that organizations are finding has an impact on reducing employee stress. Fewer than two
out of 10 organizations, however, align their employee wellness initiatives with their financial
education initiatives (14% in California, 19% nationally). This may be an area that could be
explored further by organizations that are already engaged in wellness initiatives of some kind.
• More employees are taking advantage of the wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services that
their employers offer. Over one-half of organizations in California and nationally that offer wellness
initiatives noted an increase in employee participation in these initiatives last year compared with
the year before (54% in California, 56% nationally). Furthermore, organizations reported that
offering wellness incentives or rewards was effective in getting employees involved in these
programs. The challenge remains in quantifying the impact of wellness programs. Organizations
indicated that they would be more likely to invest in wellness initiatives if they could measure the
impact.
What do these findings mean for the HR profession?
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014 5

6. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
28%
72%
39%
61%
No
Yes
California (n = 339)
Overall (n = 405)
Note: Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis.
Does your organization currently offer wellness programs, wellness
resources or wellness services to your employees?
6

7. Comparisons by organization staff size
500 to 2,499 employees (75%)
2,500 to 24,999 employees (87%)
> 1 to 99 employees (46%)
2,500 to 24,999 employees (87%) > 100 to 499 employees (53%)
Note: Only statistically significant differences are shown.
Comparisons by organization staff size
• Organizations with 500 to 24,999 employees were more likely than organizations with 1 to 99 employees to offer
wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services to their employees. In addition, organizations with 2,500 to
24,999 employees were more likely than organizations with 100 to 499 employees to offer wellness programs, wellness
resources or wellness services to their employees.
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014 7
Does your organization currently offer wellness programs, wellness
resources or wellness services to your employees? (Continued)

8. Comparisons by organization sector
Publicly owned for-profit (83%) > Privately owned for-profit (53%)
Note: Only statistically significant differences are shown.
Comparisons by organization sector
• Publicly owned for-profit organizations are more likely than privately owned for-profit organizations to offer wellness
programs, wellness resources or wellness services to their employees.
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014 8
Does your organization currently offer wellness programs, wellness
resources or wellness services to your employees? (Continued)

9. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
3%
60%
37%
2%
65%
33%
Decreased
Remained the
same
Increased
California (n = 204)
Overall (n = 290)
How did your organization’s investment in employee wellness initiatives
change in this fiscal year compared with the last fiscal year?
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services were asked this question.
Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis.
9

10. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
80%
20%
84%
16%
No
Yes
California (n = 160)
Overall (n = 214)
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services were asked this question.
Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis.
Did your organization conduct an analysis to determine the return on
investment (ROI) for its wellness initiatives last year?
10

11. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
0%
5%
66%
29%
0%
4%
67%
29%
Not at all effective
Not very effective
Somewhat
effective
Very effective
California (n = 24)
Overall (n = 38)
How effective is your organization at determining the return on
investment (ROI) for its wellness initiatives?
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services and conducted an analysis to
determine the return on investment (ROI) for their wellness initiatives were asked this question. Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded
from this analysis.
11

12. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
73%
27%
77%
23%
No
Yes
California (n = 230)
Overall (n = 215)
Did your organization conduct an analysis to determine cost savings for
its wellness initiatives last year?
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services were asked this question.
Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis.
12

13. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
0%
12%
57%
31%
6%
15%
59%
21%
Not at all
effective
Not very
effective
Somewhat
effective
Very effective
California (n = 34)
Overall (n = 51)
How effective is your organization at determining cost savings for its
wellness initiatives?
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services and conducted an analysis to
determine cost savings for their wellness initiatives were asked this question. Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis.
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
13

14. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
4%
40%
56%
4%
42%
54%
Decreased
Remained the
same
Increased
California (n = 154)
Overall (n = 222)
How did employee participation in your organization’s wellness initiatives
change last year compared with the year before?
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services were asked this question.
Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis.
14

15. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
7%
22%
60%
11%
8%
29%
55%
8%
Not at all
effective
Not very
effective
Somewhat
effective
Very effective
California (n = 99)
Overall (n = 151)
How effective are your organization’s wellness initiatives in reducing the
costs of health care?
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services were asked this question.
Respondents who answered “not sure” or “not applicable” were excluded from this analysis.
15

16. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
3%
20%
66%
10%
3%
21%
63%
13%
Not at all
effective
Not very
effective
Somewhat
effective
Very effective
California (n = 156)
Overall (n = 229)
How effective are your organization’s wellness initiatives in improving
the physical health of your employees?
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services were asked this question.
Respondents who answered “not sure” or “not applicable” were excluded from this analysis. Percentages do not equal 100% due to rounding.
16

17. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
44%
56%
51%
49%
No
Yes
California (n = 194)
Overall (n = 268)
Did your organization offer some type of wellness incentive or reward
last year?
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided any type of wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services were asked this question.
Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis.
17

18. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
2%
16%
62%
20%
2%
8%
56%
33%
Not at all
effective
Not very
effective
Somewhat
effective
Very effective
California (n = 87)
Overall (n = 140)
How effective were these wellness incentives or rewards in increasing
participation in your employee wellness initiatives?
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services and offered some type of wellness
incentive or reward were asked this question. Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis. Percentages do not equal 100%
due to rounding.
18

19. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
16%
84%
15%
85%
No
Yes
California (n = 126)
Overall (n = 165)
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services were asked this question.
Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis.
Would your organization increase its investment in employee wellness
initiatives if it could better quantify their impact?
19

20. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
55%
45%
59%
41%
No
Yes
California (n = 191)
Overall (n = 261)
Are any of your organization’s wellness initiatives extended to
dependents?
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided any type of wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services were asked this question.
Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis.
20

21. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
17%
27%
36%
48%
58%
69%
99%
23%
38%
52%
58%
61%
75%
98%
Nondependent
children
Dependent
grandchildren
Foster children
Opposite-sex domestic
partners
Same-sex domestic
partners
Dependent children
Spouses
2013 (n = 85-115)
2012 (n = 112-129)
Please indicate if your organization’s wellness initiatives are extended to
any of the following groups:
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services and extended wellness initiatives to
employees’ dependents were asked this question. Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis. Percentages do not equal
100% due to multiple response options.
21

22. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
81%
19%
86%
14%
No
Yes
California (n = 285)
Overall (n = 340)
Are your organization’s employee wellness initiatives aligned with any
financial education initiatives?
Note: Only respondents whose organizations provided wellness programs, wellness resources or wellness services were asked this question.
Respondents who answered “not sure” were excluded from this analysis.
22

23. Demographics
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014 23

24. 31%
36%
18%
10%
5%
1 to 99 employees
100 to 499 employees
500 to 2,499 employees
2,500 to 24,999 employees
25,000 or more employees
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
Demographics: Organization Staff Size
n = 310
24

25. 60%
19%
13%
7%
2%
Privately owned for-
profit
Nonprofit
organization
Publicly owned for-
profit
Government sector
Other
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
Demographics: Organization Sector
Note: n = 322. Percentages do not equal 100% due to rounding.
25

26. Percentage
Professional, scientific and technical services 24%
Health care and social assistance 13%
Manufacturing 12%
Finance and insurance 10%
Government agencies 8%
Educational services 8%
Transportation and warehousing 7%
Retail trade 7%
Whole trade 6%
Real estate and rental and leasing 5%
Accommodation and food services 4%
Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services 4%
Construction 4%
Information 4%
Utilities 4%
Religious, grantmaking, civic, professional and similar organizations 3%
Mining 2%
Arts, entertainment and recreation 2%
Repair and maintenance 2%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 2%
Personal and laundry services 1%
Other 9%
Demographics: Organization Industry
Note: n = 328. Percentages do not equal 100% due to multiple response options.
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014 26

27. Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014
Demographics: Other
U.S.-based operations only 79%
Multinational operations 21%
Single-unit organization: An organization in which the
location and the organization are one and the same.
30%
Multi-unit organization: An organization that has
more than one location.
70%
Multi-unit headquarters determines HR policies and
practices.
59%
Each work location determines HR policies and
practices.
5%
A combination of both the work location and the
multi-unit headquarters determines HR policies and
practices.
37%
Is your organization a single-unit organization or a multi-
unit organization?
For multi-unit organizations, are HR policies and practices
determined by the multi-unit headquarters, by each work
location or by both?
Does your organization have U.S.-
based operations (business units) only,
or does it operate multinationally?
n = 324
n = 325
Note: n = 234. Percentages do not equal 100% due to rounding.
Corporate (company-wide) 78%
Business unit/division 15%
Facility/location 16%
Note: n = 234. Percentages do not equal 100% due to
rounding.
What is the HR department/function for
which you responded throughout this
survey?
27

28. SHRM Survey Findings: Employee Benefits in California—
Wellness Initiatives
• Response rate = 13%
• 373 HR professional respondents in California organizations from a randomly selected
sample of SHRM’s membership participated in this survey
• Margin of error +/- 5%
• Survey fielded May 3-June 7, 2013
Survey Methodology
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014 28

29. Additional SHRM Resources
• SHRM Research Findings: Workplace Wellness Initiatives
• Wellness Benefits Resource Page
• California Employers Look to Wellness Benefits
• California Employers Turn to Wellness Programs to Combat Preventable and Chronic
Illnesses
• Preventive Health and Wellness Benefits in California
• Designing and Managing Wellness Programs
• Wellness Initiatives Can Ease the Pain of Rising Benefits Costs
• What Level of Impact Fits Your Wellness Plan?
• Federal Tax Implications of Wellness Incentives and Rewards
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014 29

30. About SHRM Research
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014 30
• For more survey/poll findings, visit www.shrm.org/surveys
• For more information about SHRM’s Customized Research Services, visit
www.shrm.org/customizedresearch
• Follow us on Twitter @SHRM_Research
Project leaders:
Christina Lee, researcher, SHRM Research
Yan Dong, SHRM Research
Project contributors:
Alexander Alonso, Ph.D., SPHR, vice president, SHRM Research
Evren Esen, director, Survey Research Center, SHRM Research
Copy editor:
Katya Scanlan, SHRM Knowledge Center

31. About SHRM
Founded in 1948, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is the world’s
largest HR membership organization devoted to human resource management.
Representing more than 275,000 members in over 160 countries, the Society is the
leading provider of resources to serve the needs of HR professionals and advance the
professional practice of human resource management. SHRM has more than 575
affiliated chapters within the United States and subsidiary offices in China, India and
United Arab Emirates. Visit us at shrm.org.
Employee Benefits in California—Wellness Initiatives ©SHRM 2014 31