December 2015 Practice Report
(Data collected in 2016)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS
Employment Sector
Location
Educational and Credential Background
Full Time/Part Time Status
Job Titles
Length of Service
Term Limits & Post-OO Eligibility
Issues
7
9
10
11
12
13
16
PRACTICE REPORT
Professional Development and Employee Support
IOA Membership Dues
18
Conference and Other Trainings
19
CO-OP Certification
20
Ombudsman Role, Mandates, Structure
Role
Charter/Terms of Reference
Performance Reviews/Reporting Structure
45
Promotion Opportunities/Direct Reports
23
24
25
Types of Cases
Issues Over Time
28
29
Policies and Standards
Accessibility
Confidentiality
33
34
Functions
Accessibility, Safety & Credibility
Helping People Help Themselves
Informal Intervention
Working with the Organization
Other Functions
Functions Rarely or Never Practiced
37
38
39
40
41
42
Accomplishments
43
Open Text Responses
26
2
Introduction
Purpose of Survey
The Practice and Compensation survey provides an important snapshot of the contemporary field of organizational ombuds based on
responses from members of the International Ombudsman Association (IOA) who were practitioners in December 2015. This portion of
the report provides general demographic information about the ombuds who participated in the study and detailed information about the
structure and functions of ombuds offices around the world. The survey data, over time, will allow us to position ourselves as a profession
as effectively as possible. The survey data also permit us to offer individual support to our members and those organizations interested in
creating an ombudsman office.
The IOA practice survey reports information from members of a relatively young profession — a profession where effectiveness
and importance to the bottom line are being widely studied.
With respect to response rate and the reporting of data in this report, please note that to protect the anonymity of participants, data are not
shown in categories where there were only a few respondents. Because of this, the data are reported in aggregate and are not provided for
specific sectors. We would like to advise the reader to interpret this survey report with appropriate care. If you have specific questions
about data that seem to be omitted from this report, the survey team will do its best to clarify while being careful to protect participants
and convey only that which can be appropriately generalized. The team’s contact information is listed at the end of the Introduction.
Methodology
As in previous years, we invited and included members and associate members of IOA who were practicing ombuds as of December 31,
2015 to participate in the survey. Previous survey results and IOA member feedback were considered at length in the development of this
survey.
In Spring 2016, email notices were sent to IOA members and associate members with a read-only copy of survey, instructions for
completing the survey, and the link to the online survey. In total, 208 members and associate members of IOA participated meaningfully in
the survey.
Response Rate. IOA listed 434 members or associate members as of April 2016; therefore, the 208 survey respondents represent 47.9%
of the eligible survey population. The survey team (and many other ombuds) hopes for greater participation in future surveys.
Length of Survey and Changes from Previous Surveys. This survey added inquiries about ombuds functions, activities, and
accomplishments with items designed to provide a more robust picture of the effectiveness of ombuds practice.
The survey consisted of 86 questions, including a number of items not on the previous survey. Below is a summary of the changes made in
the 2015 survey.
3




Length of service measures were inadvertently reflected in different ranges than in previous surveys. We will harmonize this in the
next survey so that response options are consistent and easier to track over time.
Specific questions related to IOA CO-OP certification were added.
Questions concerning policies, standards, and functions were added, bringing greater detail to our understanding of ombuds work.
Of special note are questions on frequency of ombuds services in “Working to be seen as fair, safe, accessible, and credible,”
“Helping people to help themselves,” “Informal intervention,” “Working within the organization,” and more.
A closing question on the effects of ombuds work was added to ascertain how often an ombuds office’s work leads to individual or
systemic change.
Things to know for reading the survey results
On each slide, you will find a reference to the survey question or questions relevant to the data/analysis. A read-only version of the survey
and instructions is posted on the IOA website.
Survey reference period: January 1 to December 31, 2015. Those who were not in an ombudsman role for the entire reference period had
the opportunity to make note of that within the survey.
Reporting actual numbers/percentages or best estimates. Because no single universal method for tracking ombuds case information
exists, participants were asked to either provide actual numbers and percentages or to provide their best estimate.
Caseload and types of cases. We asked several questions about caseload and types of cases in 2015; one of the questions was based on
the IOA reporting categories. Please see the definitions below.
Key Terms and Definitions
Ombudsman/Ombuds/Ombudsperson: Consistent with IOA practice, the term ombudsman is used to communicate to the widest
possible community and is not intended to discourage others from using alternatives. IOA respectfully acknowledges that many
practitioners use alternative forms of this word. In the survey, we are using the terms ombuds and ombudsman interchangeably. We also
use OO as an abbreviation for organizational ombuds.
Constituency: Those people who reasonably might contact the ombudsman office in a given year; those the OO is expected to serve on a
regular basis.
Contact: An interaction with a constituent that does not require action by the ombudsman. For instance, we did not ask about the number
of phone calls made or emails sent to schedule an appointment, or when an ombudsman is simply asked to provide referral information.
4
Visitor: An individual who first contacts the ombudsman office. In some practices, a visitor might be called an inquirer or first contact. For
our purposes, the visitor could be a single individual or a group of individuals contacting the ombuds together or individually, but
knowingly as part of a group, with the same issue or issues.
Other party/parties: The individual (or individuals) with whom the visitor has a concern or issue, or with whom the visitor is in conflict.
We are not using the term “responder” (a term which some ombuds use for people they call for information or advice in working with a
visitor).
Case: A case occurs when a new visitor or group, or a previous visitor or group, presents a new problem or issue to the ombudsman that
results in a discussion where the ombudsman helps to develop, discuss, and offer options. A case may or may not require multiple
appointments with the visitor and/or other parties. We asked about caseload in this survey.
2015 Survey Team:
Kerry Egdorf
Tim Hedeen
Mary Rowe
Jennifer Schneider
Willem Kweens
Special thanks to Jonathon Ladin (University of South Florida), Joyce De-Graft Acquah (Kennesaw State University) and Vanessa Selewski
(Kennesaw State University) for their extensive assistance on this project. Thanks also to Alicia Booker (Nova Southeastern University) for
discussing and providing feedback on survey items.
5
Participant Demographics
6
Employment Sector (N=203)
In which sector does your organization best fit?
Corporate
30 (14.8%)
Education (i.e., K-12 schools, or
school district or school
administration)
1 (0.5%)
Government
23 (11.3%)
Healthcare
7 (3.4%)
Academic (Higher Education)
117 (57.6%)
International/multinational civil
service
7 (3.4%)
International/multinational
organization (non civil service)
11 (5.4%)
Nonprofit
4 (2.0%)
Quasi-government
2 (1.0%)
Self-employed consultant or
contract ombudsman
1 (0.5%)
7
Participation by Sector Compared to Previous Surveys
In which sector does your organization best fit?
70%
60%
58%
58%
51%
50%
50%
43%
40%
30%
30%
26%
25%
22%
20%
20%
16%
15%
11%
15%
15%
12%
10%
9%
10%
9%
5%
0%
2016 (IOA), n=208
2010 (IOA), n=163
Academic
2008 (IOA), n=235
Corporate
8
Government
2006 (IOA), n=223
Other
2003 (IOA), n=170
2015 Respondent Demographics
Respondents by Sector
Where was your primary office located as of December 31, 2015?
Sector
U.S.
Canada
Academic
114
1
Outside
North Am.
1
Corporate
20
2
Government
22
Non-Profit/Other
No Response
Total
% of Total
1
117
57%
8
0
30
15%
2
1
0
25
12%
21
0
12
3
36
17%
Total
177
5
22
4
208
100%
% of Total
85%
2%
11%
2%
100%
Respondents by U.S. Geographic Location
#OO's
WUS
23
NWUS
10
SWUS
13
N/NCUS
34
SCUS
12
NEUS
38
SEUS
33
N/A
14
TOTAL
177
%
13.0%
5.6%
7.3%
19.2%
6.8%
21.5%
18.6%
7.9%
100.0%
Respondents by Global Geographic Locations
Asia
Europe
#OO's
6
8
Australia/
New Zealand
4
%
27%
36%
18%
1
South
America
2
5%
9%
Africa
9
Middle East
Total
1
22
5%
100%
Respondents’ Educational & Credential Background in 2015 (N=208)
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
In what field of study do you hold your highest degree?
If you hold certifications or other credentials relevant to your work as ombuds, please indicate those:
Areas of study varied, but were highly concentrated in law/dispute resolution and education. 64.4% (N=134) reported earning additional certifications or
credentials, including certificates and/or coursework in conflict resolution, mediation, and ombudsman certification. No particular degree is seen as “the best"
for the profession as whole. Salaries appear to vary more by sector and previous work experience than by education. Individuals with professional degrees like
law and social work, and with masters and doctorates, have also on occasion served in more than one organization and in more than one sector.
10
Full-/Part-Time Status Comparison 2007, 2010, and 2015
How is your position configured?
How would you describe your employment arrangement?
80%
70%
73%72%
68%
60%
50%
40%
2007 (N=235)
2010 (N=163)
2016
2015(N=208)
(N=208)
30%
20%
16%17%
13%
9% 10%
11%
10%
0% 0%
2%
6%
0% 0%
1% 1% 0%
0%
Full-time position Full-time position Full-time position
Part-time
Part-time
as ombuds
overall: part-time
other than
position: all of my position: part of
position other
ombuds:
time dedicated to
that time
than ombuds, collateral duty or ombuds role
dedicated to
part-time as
volunteer as
ombuds role
ombuds
ombuds
No answer
Most organizational ombuds (93%) who responded to were employed by a single organization in 2015.
11
Respondents’ 2015 Job Titles by Sector (N=208)
What is/are your job title(s) in this organization? (Check all that apply):
90%
79%
80%
Title is simply 'Ombudsman' or
variation such as 'ombuds',
'ombudsperson'.
74%
74%
70%
Title indicates relational position
in OO hierarchy such as
Director, Manager, Senior,
Specialist, Associate.
% of Sector
60%
Title indicates specific
constiuency such as faculty,
student, staff, campus, corporate,
client, European.
50%
40%
Title
Titlesuggess
suggestsdual
dualpositions
positionsof
OO
andand
something
elseelse
in in
of OO
something
organization.
the organization
30%
21%
Title does not include the word
'ombudsman' or any variation.
20%
13%
12%
10%
9%
10%
No title reported.
7%
3%
2%
1%
0% 1% 1% 1%
0% 0%
2%
3%
0%
1% 0%
0%
Academic (n=117)
Corporate (n=30)
Sector
Government (n=23)
12
Other (n=38)
0%
Respondents’ Length of Service in OO Position in 2007, 2010, and 2015
How long have you served as an ombuds within your current organization (rounding to the nearest full year)?
50%
45%
46%
40%
35%
%
30%
27%
25%
20%
16%
15%
2016 Years in
Current
Position
10%
6%
5%
3%
2%
16 to 20
21+
0%
0 to 3
4 to 6
7 to 10 # of years 11 to 15
50%
47%
46%
45%
40%
35%
30%
26%
%
25%
2007 Years in
Current Position
22%
20%
15%
10%
2010 Years in
Current Position
12%
9%
10%
7%
5%
3%
0%
<1
1 to <5
5 to <10
13
10 to <15
# of years
15 to <20
2%
1%
20+
3%
1%
no answer
Respondents’ Length of Employment as an OO in 2007, 2010, and 2015
How many years total have you worked as an ombuds, including at your present and any
prior organizations (rounding to the nearest full year)?
40%
35%
35%
30%
27%
%
25%
20%
16%
2016 Total Years as OO
15%
11%
10%
6%
5%
16 to 20
21+
5%
0%
0 to 3
4 to 6
7 to 10
11 to 15
# of years
40%
38%
35%
35%
30%
29%
26%
%
25%
20%
2007 Total Years as OO
18%
2010 Total Years as OO
15%
15%
10%
8%
6%
5%
4%
5%
2%
3%
0%
<1
1 to <5
5 to <10
10 to <15
15 to <20
# of years
14
20+
no answer
Respondent's 2015 Length of Service in OO Position
Compared to Length of Employment as an OO
50%
45%
46%
40%
35%
35%
%
30%
27%
25%
Years in Current Position
20%
Total Years as OO
16%
15%
11%
10%
6%
5%
6%
3%
5%
2%
0%
0 to 3 years
4 to 6 years
7 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 or more years
# of years
We cannot know how closely the group of OOs who responded to this question resembles a hypothetical group of “all" organizational
ombuds in the world since it is possible that only something like half of all OOs in practice worldwide belong to IOA and not quite half of
those who received the IOA survey sent it back. However, several points stand out from these data:
1) There are at least four dozen OOs world-wide who have worked as an OO for more than a decade. In addition, there is a significant
number who have worked as an OO for more than a decade and at more than one organization. There likely are at least two dozen such
widely-skilled “experts” (and perhaps more) in the world capable of helping to develop the new profession of organizational
ombudsmanry. This suggests a pool of particularly experienced professionals on whose wisdom IOA may be able to draw more
systematically—in addition to recruiting more wisdom from a dozen or more retired OOs.
It may be possible to add to the input of senior experts by asking them one by one to consider working with IOA on a project of their
choosing. Ideally we might find ways to learn from all the most experienced OOs and former OOs.
2) There are many – at least six dozen— OO practitioners who have recently joined the OO profession. (There likely are more who have
15
not yet joined IOA.) We need to continue to learn what their “new practitioner“ questions are and offer lengthening lists of FAQs to these
new practitioners. In addition, IOA knows of at least 90 OOs (and there may be many more in the world) with four to ten years of
experience. This is a group ideally situated to advise on “journeyman questions,” that is, the issues that may be experienced by practitioners
with that length of service.
Many OOs bring extraordinary skills and experience in allied professions into the OO world. Many are well suited to analyze the challenges
of changing conditions and laws. It would appear that IOA might wish to systemically try to capture and build on the questions, ideas and
suggestions of this generation of leaders.
Term Limits and Post-OO Service Eligibility
Is there an official prohibition or restriction of subsequent employment in your organization after serving as the ombudsman?
Is your role as an organizational ombudsman for a set period of time, such as 3 calendar or fiscal years?
If the above role is for a set period of time, is the appointment renewable?
Thirty-five respondents (16.8%) reported that their position had set term limits. Reported term limitations are below with frequencies:






Annual contract (3)
Two years (4)
Three years (10)
Four years (3)
Five years (8)
Six years (1)
Some respondents reported restrictions on continuing employment which included:



May no longer serve after two consecutive 3-year terms (2)
May no longer serve after two consecutive 4-year terms (1)
May no longer serve after two consecutive 5-year terms (3)
16
December 2015 Practice Report
(Data collected in 2016)
17
Professional Development and Employer Support
IOA Membership
In relation to IOA membership dues:
Five out of six (85.1%) survey participants who were IOA members in 2015 reported that their employer paid their IOA membership dues
in full that year, while one in seven (14.5%) indicate their employer did not pay any portion.
1.0%
0.5%
My employer paid my 2015 IOA
membership dues in full
9.0%
4.5%
My employer paid a portion of my 2015
IOA membership dues
My employer did not pay for my 2015 IOA
membership dues
My employer did not pay for my 2015 IOA
membership dues, but has in the past
and/or is likely to in the future
85.1%
My employer has never paid for my IOA
membership dues
18
IOA Annual Conference and Other IOA Training Programs
In relation to IOA annual conferences,
In relation to IOA training programs (excluding the IOA Annual Conference),
2015 IOA Training
2015 IOA Conference
29.3%
I attended and my employer paid in full
66.2%
0.5%
I attended and my employer paid a portion
1.9%
1.0%
I attended and my employer did not pay
1.0%
3.8%
My employer did not pay in 2015 but has in the past and is likely to in the future
0.5%
3.4%
My employer has never paid
2.4%
62.0%
I did not attend
28.0%
0%
20%
19
40%
60%
80%
CO-OP Certification
While over half of participants reported seeing value in certification (i.e., increased credibility within profession and standardized
professional expectations; see the list below), over 70% of respondents were not certified and over 60% reported that certification was not
important to them.
Of those who responded to the question about why they were not certified, the primary reasons given were cost and an organization that
would not value certification. Additional open-ended comments included concerns and questions about the current process (e.g., whether
an exam can truly measure competence), earning professional development hours, eligibility, and timing.
In 2016, there were 108 certified organizational ombudsman practitioners. OOs offered detailed sets of reasons as to why certification is of
value to the organization, to the profession, and for the practitioner:
Were you CO-OP certified as of December 31, 2015?
58
28.2%
CO-OP certified
Not certified
148
71.8%
Is it important to your organization that you are,
or will, become CO-OP certified?
63
36.2%
111
63.8%
Did, or will, your organization pay for CO-OP
certification?
40
28.0%
Will pay
Important
103
72.0%
Not important
20
Will not pay
The Value of CO-OP Certification (N=186)
Whether you are CO-OP certified or not, what do you perceive to be the value of CO-OP?
vOPOPddddddddddddddddddOOPOPcertification?
It standardizes the profession and expectations of practicing ombuds
It increases credibility within the employing organization
It increases credibility within the larger ombuds profession
It increases employment opportunities within the ombuds profession
It provides a formal academic/professional credential specific to the ombuds
profession
It allows ombuds to negotiate higher compensation within their organizations
0%
10%
21
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Reasons for not being CO-OP Certified (N=133)
If you are not IOA CO-OP certified, or if you are CO-OP certified but do not plan to recertify, why not?
My organization does not value this certification
I do not value this certification
I am ineligible to be certified based on my position
Too costly
Too much work
I am not interested in taking an exam
I am no longer an Ombuds, or I plan to retire soon
Other
0%
5%
10%
22
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Ombudsman Role (N=204)
My ombudsman position is best described as:
Well over a third of those who took the survey were solo practitioners. This is a group that typically talks a lot at conferences about the
challenges of solo practice, and some report that it can be difficult to get away from the office or even keep office statistics up to date.
Articles in JIOA (Vol 5, no 2, 2012) explored in some detail the differences between solo practice and team practice and may be of interest
to readers of this survey.
5
2.5%
A solo practitioner
42
20.6%
77
37.7%
One of several co-equal ombuds
An assistant or associate ombudsman, reporting to a
senior or managing ombudsman
One of several ombuds but with formallyrecognized seniority (i.e., senior ombudsman, nonmanagement)
18
8.8%
A managing or co-managing ombuds, with other
ombuds reporting to me
Other (please describe)
31
15.2%
31
15.2%
23
Charter/Terms of Reference (N=201)
There is a formal written job description, charter or terms of reference for the ombudsman position in my organization.
Nine out of ten OOs reported that they have a formal charter or its equivalent, but almost two dozen of those who responded to the IOA
survey said they did not have such a charter or equivalent or that they did not know if they had one. These practitioners and their
organizations may be interested to note that IOA has useful tools for developing a charter at:
https://www.ombudsassociation.org/Resources/Resource-Library/Tools-for-Ombuds-Office-Operations.aspx
Yes
178
88.6%
21
10.4%
No
I don't know
2
1.0%
24
2015 Performance Review and Reporting Structure (N=204)
To whom do you report in your organization? Did you receive a performance review in 2015?
In your role as an ombudsman, did you conduct a structured self-assessment in 2015?
My 2015 performance review(s) as an organizational ombudsman was/were conducted by: My evaluations were based on:
Received a formal performance review
68.6 % (N=140)
Reported to:
Board/board chair
CEO/COO/Sec Gen
President/Chancellor
VP/Provost
A compliance office
More senior ombuds
Non-ombuds head
Other
10.1%
20.9%
28.1%
23.7%
3.6%
18.7%
6.5%
6.5%
Performed structured self-assessment
As part of formal review
64.3%
For own awareness/development 8.6%
Did not conduct
27.1%
More than two-thirds of OOs reported that
they received formal performance
evaluations in 2015. In addition, nearly half
of the OOs who reported said they did a
structured self-assessment as part of a
yearly formal review. Another 14% did a
structured review on their own, making
structured reviews a common practice
among OOs.
Did not receive a formal performance review
31.4 % (N=64)
Review conducted by:
Board/board chair
4.4%
CEO/COO/Sec Gen 13.1%
President/Chancellor 19.7%
VP/Provost
19.0%
More senior ombuds 34.3%
Non-ombuds head
9.5%
Other
13.1%
Frequency of
reviews
Once per year 84.6%
Twice per year 15.4%
Reviews based upon:
Completion of goals
80.3%
Metrics
24.8%
Employee surveys
13.9%
360-degree evaluation
8.0%
Cost effectiveness
6.6%
Standard review of all 45.3%
I don’t know
3.6%
Other
7.3%
25
Reported to:
Board/board chair
CEO/COO/Sec Gen
President/Chancellor
VP/Provost
A compliance office
More senior ombuds
Non-ombuds head
Other
17.2%
25.0%
26.6%
25.0%
3.1%
9.4%
4.7%
1.6%
Performed structured self-assessment
As part of formal review
1.6%
For own awareness/development 28.1%
Did not conduct
70.3%
A CEO/COO or Board member or equivalent
leader reviewed almost a third of OOs. Nearly 80%
report that they were reviewed on the basis of
(many different) standard performance measures.
Of those, almost half were reviewed on the same
basis as other employees of their organization.
About one in five either did not know how they
were reviewed, or the basis for their review was
specific to their situation.
Promotion Opportunities and Ombuds Direct Reports
Are there promotional opportunities within the
ombudsman function in your organization?
As ombudsman, does anyone report to you?
41
20.2%
85
43.8%
Yes
109
56.2%
No
Yes
No
162
79.8%
If you answered 'yes' to the above question, please indicate the number and types of
positions for which you are responsible
1
2
3 or more
Full-time ombuds
23
9
13
Collateral duty ombuds
1
0
0
Part-time ombuds
6
5
6
Full-time administrative assistant
36
4
6
Part-time administrative assistant
13
2
0
Interns
12
5
1
Other
1
2
1
26
Issues
The survey asked about cases in several different ways since this is a topic that helps to illuminate the value and effectiveness of an OO
office. With respect to specific subjects, the most frequently reported issues brought to OOs were leadership/management/supervisor
skills, mean or abusive behavior, retaliation, and ethics and “core values" issues. Two thirds of OOs heard issues about supervision and
leadership at least once a week, and often daily. Almost half heard about mean behavior/retaliation at least weekly.
A third heard about ethics and core values at least weekly. Although one in eight OOs reported never receiving whistleblowing issues, more
than half described hearing such issues rarely, and almost a third reported regularly hearing whistleblowing issues. More than four in ten
regularly heard issues about safety and fear. More than half regularly heard concerns about excellence and integrity at work. Seven tenths of
all OOs reported regularly hearing concerns about discrimination and harassment. Many OOs received concerns like these daily or weekly.
Very few OOs responded to an open-ended question about external constituent concerns. Most OOs primarily serve internal constituents.
One third reported that they never hear from external constituents. In the year 2015 fewer than half reported dealing in a significant way
with layoffs and reorganization, although one OO in six was dealing regularly with these issues.
27
Types of Cases Handled in 2015 (N=180)
The types of cases you handled in 2015 include:
Compensation and benefits
83.9%
Evaluative relationships
92.2%
Peer and colleague relationships
92.2%
Career progression and development
87.2%
Legal, regulatory, financial and compliance
77.8%
Safety, health and physical environment
78.3%
Service/Administrative issues
84.4%
Strategic and mission related
70.0%
Values, ethics and code/standards of conduct
90.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
We inquired as to the handling of issues that are included in the IOA Uniform Reporting Categories. While Evaluative Relationships
and Peer/Colleague Relationships were the most frequently reported categories, and Organizational, Strategic, and Mission Related was
the least reported category, most OOs handled all of the categories during 2015. The next survey may ask OOs to rate each category by
frequency to better understand how ombuds spend their time.
28
Issues across time
Compared to previous years, more OOs reported cases “of greater complexity” than those who reported fewer complex cases. A quarter to
a third of OOs who responded to the survey reported various different aspects of “increasing complexity” compared to the tenth or fewer
whose caseload seemed less complex than previous years.
While most OOs reported seeing about the same types of issues in 2015 as in previous years, many reported more cases with crossorganization or multi-unit issues, cases involving three or more issues, and cases with conflicting rules. Cases involving multiple
generations, multiple races and ethnicities, and complex gender issues were more frequent.
The configuration of cases may also be changing somewhat. Groups were seen more often, both as complainants and those complained
against. Internal constituents complained more about external constituents and vice versa. Some OOs reported hearing from more
bystanders and anonymous constituents.
About half of responding OOs reported that there was no change in the number of cases lasting more than three or six months from
previous years. However, about a quarter reported an increase in these long-term cases. About half reported that the number of cases
leading to systemic response in a department, division/college, or organization stayed the same as in previous years. However about a third
of all OOs reported more cases with systemic implications.
About half of OOs reported no change in cases that posed a high risk for the financial health of the organization, the reputation of the
organization, personal relationships or individual health compared to previous years. Three quarters of OOs reported no change in cases
that put the safety and security of or at the organization at stake. However, nearly half of respondents reported an increase in cases that put
individual job security at risk during 2015.
All in all, with respect to the parameters describing caseloads, many ombuds thought their caseloads were much the same year to year. Of
those who perceived their work to be changing, most of the changes were in the direction of longer and more complex cases. The many
sources of increased “complexity” may be of interest to practitioners and their employers.
The Survey team has elected to include all open qualitative text responses at the end of this report. Many of these relate to the items in this
section. The open text entries portray some specific details, similarities, and differences in the practice of OOs in December 2015. We also
hope these details may be of interest to those doing descriptive research about OOs. Open text entries can be found at the end of this
report.
29
Compared to previous years, in 2015 did you see more, fewer, or about the same number of cases related to:
(N=172)
Multigenerational issues
25.0%
72.5%
Three or more issues in a case
31.4%
Multi-ethnic or multi-language/race issues
31.1%
Complex gender issues (LGBTQ, sexual harassment)
65.0%
28.3%
Cross-organizational or multi-unit issues
10.7%
62.2%
9.4%
59.0%
32.4%
0%
Same
5.0%
61.8%
20%
More
3.6%
58.2%
36.0%
Multiple or conflicting rules, codes, contracts, regulations
2.5%
40%
60%
5.9%
80%
100%
Fewer
Compared to previous years, in 2015 did you see more, fewer, or about the same number of cases brought in by:
(N=169)
Groups as visitors
Groups as other party/ies
39.1%
23.0%
Anonymous visitors
17.9%
Bystanders or third parties
17.4%
Internal constituents concerned about other offices in same org
Internal constituents concerned about external parties
External parties concerned about internal constituents
0%
More
49.6%
73.0%
4.0%
68.4%
13.7%
77.4%
32.1%
5.2%
63.5%
19.3%
4.4%
71.6%
22.6%30
20%
Same
Fewer
11.3%
9.2%
71.4%
40%
60%
6.0%
80%
100%
Compared to previous years, in 2015 did you see more, fewer, or about the same number of cases which:
(N=170)
Lasted three or more months
26.4%
Lasted longer than six months
11.4%
18.3%
Became the impetus for a systemic response in a dept
16.7%
31.1%
Became the impetus for a systemic response in a division or college
10%
More
63.0%
7.4%
25.8%
0%
65.1%
5.9%
27.9%
Became the impetus for a systemic response organizationwide
62.1%
64.8%
6.5%
20%
Fewer
67.7%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Same
Compared to previous years, in 2015 did you see more, fewer, or about the same number of cases that posed a high risk for:
(N=170)
21.9%
Financial health of the organization
20.0%
32.3%
Reputation of the organization
18.9%
Safety and security of or at the org.
58.1%
12.0%
55.6%
7.4%
73.8%
49.3%
Individual job security
22.6%
Individual reputation
7.3%
38.8%
Personal relationships
40.9%
Individual health (physical or mental/psych.)
0%
10%
8.7%
More Fewer
20% 31
30%
42.0%
70.1%
5.8%
55.4%
7.3%
Same
40%
51.8%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Compared to previous years, in 2015 I did more, less or about the same in relation to:
(N=170)
Conducted shuttle diplomacy
28.4%
Served as a facilitator or mediator
5.0%
66.7%
37.7%
Contacted a compliance office within org. for advice
9.4%
31.9%
Contacted external legal counsel for advice
14.3%
9.2%
58.9%
16.1%
Conducted training or briefings
69.6%
45.2%
0%
52.9%
10%
20%
More
13.3%
30%
Fewer
40%
50%
41.5%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Same
Compared to previous years, in 2015 did you see more, fewer, or about the same number of cases with:
(N=170)
Simple problem with easily identifiable solution(s)
12.6%
Multiple factors influencing visitor's concern
18.2%
69.2%
43.3%
No clear solution
19.2%
Multiple people or offices involved in the concern
3.8%
9.6%
71.2%
32.7%
0%
10%
52.9%
7.1%
20%
30%
More
Fewer
32
40%
Same
60.3%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Policies, Standards, and Functions: Accessibility (N=170)
Is working with the ombudsman voluntary for complainant (or visitor)?
97.0%
Is working with the ombudsman voluntary for responder?
82.1%
Will you listen to an anonymous caller?
13.1% 4.8%
85.9%
Will you listen to third parties, including bystanders?
Yes, always
1.8% 1.2%
11.8% 2.4%
76.5%
0%
20%
In some matters, not all
40%
No, never
22.9%
60%
80%
0.6%
100%
Many conflict management systems are perceived by constituents to have shortcomings. Sometimes a person with a concern is required to
go to a certain office or through a specific process at work or at school, but wishes for an alternative to that process. Step procedures still
are common, where people with concerns are required to go “step one” on an identifiable basis (and “step one” often means returning to a
supervisor with whom one is having trouble).
Sometimes complaint handlers refuse to see or hear from third parties. Anonymous letters get thrown away, and only certain issues are
deemed appropriate for a hearing. Complexity is sometimes dealt with badly or ignored: A complaint with five issues might have to go to
five different offices and sometimes only “the most serious” issue is heard, with other issues forgotten.
Most organizational ombuds offices provide an informal remedy for each of these commonly perceived shortcomings. Ombuds offices
now, in most situations, epitomize the importance for constituents to have a choice of options. Most ombuds offices are voluntary for
complainant and responder. Ombuds typically will listen to any kind of work place issue and also help to find options for dealing with a
complex nest of issues. (There are exceptions, especially for criminal behavior.) The ombuds office can be the first place either to raise a
concern, or a final step, where the concern is an allegation of an unfair or incompetent formal process.
Fearful observers can call in, anonymously, to talk about possible options for their concerns. Bystanders can come in safely and off the
record when they see what they perceive to be unacceptable behavior. These last two points are an especially important source of OO
value for organizations that are concerned about insider threats, criminal behavior and retaliation.
33
Confidentiality
The IOA survey of 2016 sought to understand better how organizational OOs see their role in the context of the IOA Standards of
Practice. In theory, OOs observe a near absolute confidentiality with respect to their constituents. There are eight elements of the IOA
Standards of Practice that refer to confidentiality, and there is just one exception to this near-absolute confidentiality in Standard 3.1,
namely, a judgment by the OO that there is an imminent risk of serious harm. How does this work in practice?
Most people understand that that an OO may sometimes become deeply concerned about matters mentioned by a constituent. New OOs
often ask about this. Experienced OOs often discuss their options with each other. Employers and the public also may wonder, “Will the
OO sometimes just keep silent about matters that threaten public safety?” It is a matter of public interest to understand if OOs should be
allowed to be a “confidential resource.” OOs, like all other citizens, must be accountable.
As it happened, the wording and sequence of confidentiality questions in the 2016 survey were in some ways inexact and/or ambiguous.
(The next survey will rectify these problems). We therefore discuss the questions that were asked, but do not present the individual
responses. Instead, we included all the responses for the following integrated analysis of the answers provided.
What does an OO do when faced with serious issues? OOs reported that they expect emergencies and do face confidentiality dilemmas.
(Virtually all OOs reported that they are “always alert to the possibility of an emergency.”) One of the distinctive characteristics of OOs is
that they are expected to be on the lookout for “new” issues that might be disruptive to the organization and its people. Looking for
patterns is of course important. Serving as an “early warning” structure is also an absolutely vital role in a conflict management system.
Almost all OOs reported that they work to find ways to provide “early warning of new issues” to their employers; more than half reported
that some of these issues were “significant.”
Only one in eight reported no “whistleblowing issues” last year. On the other hand, nine-tenths of the survey responders reported dealing
with “ethics and core values” cases. Four-fifths reported “safety” cases and a similar number reported “legal issue” cases. Two fifths
reported a “high probability of having saved a life” last year.
Insider threats, national security issues, sexual harassment, waste, fraud and/or abuse, potential suicidal and homicidal behavior, retaliation
and a wide variety of integrity concerns are some of the specific issues that OOs reported hearing about. We analyzed responses relevant to
cases that appeared to pose a risk of imminent harm.
34
Data from the surveys indicate that about one third of all survey responders faced one or more situations where they thought that there
was “imminent risk of serious harm.” With respect to these cases, and others where they faced very serious issues:






about 10% reported that they breached confidentiality, presumably having found no other reasonable option. (This might mean
OOs reporting on their own to line or staff managers, in a way where the source may have been identified or identifiable.)
about 5% reported that they received permission to use the information, identifying the source. (This might mean that the OO
would go to an appropriate manager, identifying, with permission, how the information came in.)
about 65% reported that they received permission to use the information, without identifying the source. (This might mean that the
OO found a way to get information where it needed to go while completely shielding the source.)
about 70% reported that they helped the constituent find some way to get the information where it needed to go. (This might mean
helping the constituent to assemble all the needed information and to use a hot line or perhaps send an anonymous letter.)
about 40% reported that they found an effective way for a compliance officer to find the information for itself. (This might mean
that the OO was able to use a “generic approach,” to alert a compliance office where they might look for—and discover—certain
kinds of information, apparently in a routine inspection or audit.
about 55% reported that they found some other way for the information to get where it needed to go.
From analysis of the responses in the 2016 survey, it appears that ombuds feel that they are both able and willing to breach confidentiality
in the rare cases where they feel a situation warrants this action. That is, OOs did report an occasional use of this very important element
of the OO Standards of Practice. However, the survey data indicate that most ombuds—in most cases—are adept in finding ways to get
information where it needs to go, without compromising the confidentiality of individuals.
35
The Functions of Organizational Ombuds
The 2016 IOA Survey of OOs for the first time asked detailed questions about the functions performed by organizational ombuds.
Functions were organized into five groups and participants were asked for the frequency with which they performed each function. These
data may be useful in:
• helping to define and explain the OO profession
• helping to set up, expand or evaluate an OO office
• helping to devise appropriate training for OOs
• helping to understand how the OO may fit into a conflict management system with other line and staff managers.
36
Functions: Accessibility, Safety, and Credibility (N=167)
How often do ombuds work to be seen as fair, safe, accessible and credible?
The first set of functions refers to how the OO is and will be seen by constituents – that is, by the “customers” and stakeholders of the
office. The stakeholders include all those who may have contact with the office and all those who represent the interests of the
organization.
The first set of functions includes helping constituents to think about and deal with concerns before the concerns emerge in the light of
day. An OO has a major role in helping to manage conflicts before those conflicts have been formally “joined,” or even known by others.
These functions are among the least visible—and may be the most cost-effective—work provided by ombuds. Being responsive, and being
seen as responsive, in a regularly unresponsive world appears to be a major source of value from ombuds.
5.4%
Delivering respect, with careful attention to feelings0.6% 3.6%
90.4%
4.8%
Providing an “opportunity to be heard”0.6%
4.2%
90.4%
Providing and explaining information, one-on-one 1.8% 12.7%
18.7%
Listening to vital information, one-on-one 1.2% 12.7%
Reframing issues & developing increased awareness of others’ perspectives
Being alert to urgent issues and the possibility of an emergency
14.5%
9.7%
6.1%
13.3%
Monitoring the ombuds office time between initial contact and closing
Virtually never
69.3%
27.9%
5.4%
18.7%
18.2%
20%
Regularly
37
41.2%
16.3%
18.3%
10%
Rarely
63.0%
15.7%
15.9%
0%
67.9%
17.6%
Monitoring the accessibility of the ombuds office to diverse constituents 4.8% 7.9%
9.6%
71.7%
22.4%
0.6%
Helping to develop and evaluate responsible, ethical, and effective options0.6% 13.9%
Monitoring the ombuds office "response time"
66.9%
50.0%
22.0%
30%
Very frequently
40%
12.8%
50%
Almost always
60%
31.1%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Functions: Helping People Help Themselves (N=167)
How often do ombuds work to help people help themselves?
The second set of functions refers to the work of an OO in helping constituents to learn and use the skills they need to manage their
concerns. OOs are often imagined as constant third party interveners. In fact, much of their work lies not in “giving a fish,” but in teaching
“how to fish.”
Offering the option of referrals to other resources0.6%
Helping visitors to collect, organize and understand their own information 1.8%
Helping visitors (if they choose to do so) to use a direct approach 1.2%
3.0%
Teaching special skills as relevant
37.1%
19.3%
Rarely
20%
Regularly
38
53.0%
31.7%
19.9%
10%
46.1%
25.9%
20.4%
5.4%
0%
Virtually never
16.2%
43.7%
23.5%
30%
40%
Very frequently
24.1%
50%
Almost always
60%
27.1%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Functions: Informal Intervention (N=167)
How often do ombuds work to intervene informally?
The third set of functions includes a variety of actions undertaken either with the permission of a constituent or in such a way that no
constituent or potential constituent would be identifiable. The IOA survey suggests that OO perceived themselves to be engaging
considerably more as third parties in 2015.
Working with leaders so they may be seen as approachable and fair 4.2%
27.7%
Offering shuttle diplomacy (or concilitation) 3.6%
Offering mediation through the ombuds office or other internal mediators
25.1%
25.9%
16.8%
Facilitating a generic approach to a problem, to lead to a fair outcome while
1.2%
protecting identities
Assisting with process issues involved in an appeals process
31.1%
Regularly
39
20%
32.5%
33.7%
30%
Very frequently
40%
19.2%
15.7%
30.7%
50%
Almost always
70%
11.4%
12.0%
7.2% 5.4%
18.1%
60%
9.6%
4.8%5.4%
15.0%
48.2%
25.9%
10%
13.9%
27.5%
22.9%
24.1%
0%
16.8%
39.5%
32.3%
"Following up" on a specific case with relevant stakeholders 4.2%
Rarely
35.5%
34.1%
10.2%
15.7%
19.8%
50.3%
“Looking into” or exploring a problem informally 2.4%
Virtually never
18.7%
34.7%
15.1%
Referring constituents to external mediators
Reviewing data files, studies, or other information to make recommendations
33.7%
18.1%
80%
90%
100%
Functions: Working Within the Organization (N=167)
How often do ombuds work within the organization?
The fourth set of functions includes a wide variety of informal initiatives within the organization to provide upward feedback and feedback
to groups, improve communications and foster systems change where needed. The IOA survey results suggest that OOs not only
perceived themselves to be engaging considerably more as third parties in 2015, but also with some successes with respect to systemic
improvements.
The ombuds office is often the only office in an organization that hears from all cohorts, about all issues, from all units—and that works
regularly with many line managers and most staff managers. This extraordinary situation means that the OO may particularly add value by
identifying “new” issues and patterns; very few OOs said they do not do this. According to IOA survey results, OOs provided facilitations
and training, proposed and supported unit-wide and system-wide improvements, and provided invisible communications and informal
coordination of various units of the organization in times of need.
2.5%
Providing early warning of issues that are "new"
Analyzing identity-free data for feedback to the organization
Identifying and communicating about patterns of issues and their root causes
18.4%
3.1%
4.3%
46.6%
26.4%
12.2%
28.0%
44.1%
Regularly
40
35.0%
10%
20%
30%
1.9% 1.9%
13.6%
Very frequently
21.3%
36.8%
40%
50%
Almost always
60%
10.4%
1.9%2.5%
14.3%
39.6%
9.8%
0%
15.2%
46.3%
28.0%
Working for specific systems change
25.0%
37.3%
36.4%
Serving as a neutral facilitator for senior leaders discussing problems, policies or practices
Rarely
19.5%
34.1%
Running focus groups or meeting confidentially to prepare an oral report for all
13.5%
57.1%
47.6%
Bringing together task forces to address an emerging or ongoing issue
Virtually never
9.2%
0.6%
7.3%
Providing training and briefings for constituents and groups about policies and processes
19.0%
7.3% 3.7%
11.0%
70%
80%
90%
7.4%
100%
Other Functions (N=167)
How often do ombuds perform these other functions?
1.9%
Serving as a nonvoting resource person for policy committees
30.9%
Helping managers with change and professional development
20.4%
Working to support specific, missionrelated, organizational initiatives
20.0%
Following up on system change recommendations made by the Ombudsman
27.8%
30.6%
20.7%
4.3%
13.0%
35.6%
32.9%
Working informally to influence policies and procedures 4.3%
25.3%
34.6%
8.5%
Helping informally to coordinate org. resources related to conflict management
37.7%
8.1% 5.6%
43.9%
26.8%
7.9% 6.7%
36.6%
21.3%
4.3%
50.0%
12.8% 3.0%
17.7%
6.7%
2.4%
Working informally to influence legislation and regulations
50.6%
0%
Virtually never
Rarely
10%
Regularly
41
20%
30%
Very frequently
33.5%
40%
50%
Almost always
60%
70%
10.4% 3.0%
80%
90%
100%
Functions Rarely or Never Provided by OOs (N=167)
Most of the functions below were reported by a few or no OOs. A few offices keep certain records (e.g. to record certain settlements, or
for the National Archives) or include recommendations in public reports.) A few vote on committees.
Participating as a voting member on committees
Keeping records for the office, to record the settlement/outcome of a complaint
3.7% 6.7%
4.9% 8.0%
76.7%
Keeping records for compliance purposes
1.8% 0.6% 2.4%
4.3%
90.9%
Offering formal mediation where settlements are kept by the organization
1.2% 1.2%
9.1% 4.3%
84.1%
Writing formal investigatory reports for the purpose of decisionmaking and administrative
action by managers
94.5%
Issuing formal reports that recommend specific actions about a case
5.5%
1.2% 0.6% 0.6%
4.9%
92.6%
Issuing formal reports that recommend specific actions about policies and procedures
0.6%1.2%
9.9% 5.6%
82.7%
Acting as advocate or witness in a formal adjudicatory process
0.6%
2.5%
96.9%
Accompaniment of a party in a formal adjudicatory process
93.9%
Dealing with formal appeals
6.1%
0.6% 1.2%
6.8% 0.6%
90.7%
Making decisions about a grievance or conflict (excluding the very rare case of imminent
risk of serious harm)
1.2% 0.6%
3.7%
94.5%
Acting as an arbitrator or judge
100.0%
0%
Rarely
3.1% 0.6%1.2%
6.7%
88.3%
Keeping records for an office records schedule
Virtually never
1.2%
7.3%3.0%
88.4%
Regularly
42
10%
20%
Very frequently
30%
40%
Almost always
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Accomplishments
Most of the achievements of organizational ombuds are invisible. They are “visible invisibles,” as Noriko Tada has described them in her
metaphor of the OO as a kuroko actor in Japanese theater—on stage, and indispensable—and metaphorically invisible (JIOA, vol.5, no 1,
2012).
Organizational ombuds spend most of their work lives endeavoring to respond to all their constituents as quickly and respectfully and
discreetly as possible. Much of their work is performed in a manner that supports constituents with concerns to consider options for
learning to deal effectively on their own. Where ombuds take action as informal third parties, it is often with the goal of supporting people
in conflict to learn to resolve matters together in an effective way. With respect to management, much of ombuds work is performed in a
manner that permits managers and leaders to act effectively, to improve systems, and get credit for those actions.
Much of the value added by OOs is invisible—that is, intentionally invisible. Ombuds seek to save face where appropriate and to protect
privacy under almost all circumstances. Confidentiality is a standard of practice for good reason— it provides a platform for a safe,
accessible and credible ombuds office.
Many of the OOs who responded to the survey are relatively new. It may be that in a later article we can review the answers to these
questions as a function of length of service and sector.
What is clear is that there may be several times a year when an OO may deal with just one or a few cases, any one of which would “pay
for” the ombuds office in cost effectiveness terms. These might, for example, include identifying and helping to assess and manage a
disruptive “new” issue and contributing to saving a life. In addition, any of the issues listed below might have saved time and money and
the reputation of the organization and its people in a way that more than paid for the costs of the office.
150-160 organizational ombuds answered questions about some of their accomplishments. These self-report data may be useful in:
• helping to define and explain the OO profession
• helping to set up or expand or devise metrics to evaluate an OO office
• helping to devise appropriate training for OOs
• helping to understand how the OO may fit into a conflict management system with other line and staff managers.
43
Accomplishments (N=150-160)
The work of an ombuds can lead to individual and systemic changes. In 2015, has the work of the ombuds office resulted
in any of the following systemic changes?
Change in a minor aspect of how a policy works
21.2%
Change in a policy
19.9%
34.4%
Change in a procedure
21.0%
21.2%
44.6%
23.7%
Change in an organizational structure
55.1%
56.5%
Fostered an important "bridge" between colleagues, units or agencies
15.6%
21.4%
11.3%
Fostered demonstrable improvement in excellence, integrity, and rigor
12.3%
47.4%
60.8%
Identified a significant "new issue" for the organization
26.3%
Identified significant patterns of concerns being ignored or not well known
24.7%
30.1%
11.4%
Significant cost savings from reduction in formal complaints/suits
68.4%
67.8%
6.6%
39.0%
Significant cost savings from handling an "early warning" or whistleblowing
16.9%
45.0%
Significant improvement in morale in work unit
15.9%
Significant training and briefings to prevent specific problems
Timely response induced for an urgent issue
14.7%
0%
10%
21.9%
44
In one case
33.1%
67.5%
12.1%
58.6%
18.7%
20%
25.7%
44.2%
16.6%
29.3%
14.6%
43.6%
20.3%
Significant cost savings from settling a serious dispute
22.1%
73.1%
40.3%
High probability of having helped to save a life
No
59.0%
66.7%
30%
In two or more
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Open Text Responses
The Survey team has elected to include all open text responses—slightly edited for typos and with a few deletions of identifying details. We
include these prose responses because they portray some specific details, similarities, and differences in the practice of OOs in 2015. We
also hope these details may be of interest to those doing descriptive research about OOs.
If you interact with external constituents, please identify up to three most significant issues they bring:
Abrasive Behavior
Bullying
Management Issues
Academic policy
Financial issues
Safety issues
Annual reviews
Personal relationships
Promotion and tenure
Authorship
Safety Resources
Benefits
Student Conduct
Questions about courses previously taken
Communication
Questions about policy/ procedure Complaints about services
Communication difficulties re: treatment from patients/families
Concerns about children's grades
Concern for a child/student
Questions about policy/operations Treatment of staff
Concerns about children's safety
Behavior of Staff
Ethical standards
Concerns about our community member behaviors and actions
Program Quality
Concerns about well-being of student. Interlocutors
Billing/Tuition costs
Diversity
Off-campus behavior
access to services
Domestic
unprofessional behaviors
Transparency
Faculty incompetence policy/procedure
Respect
Family whistleblowing venues
Parent Concerns
family issues
Fairness
Comfort animals
Free speech
Contracts
treatment of recipients of services
frustration with service Roommate conflicts "Concerned citizen" regarding campus occurrence they disagree with
funding
treatment of donors
transcript issues
hiring practices
Alum/donor regarding policies
time off/ work schedules
Honesty
payments to the university
issue with vendor not receiving money
Insurance
Children's fees
Regulations
Landlord related issues /disputes
Lack of knowledge
mission/values of organizationissue related to child/student
Funding
Parent regarding treatment of child at university Services
Noise
45
Parents concerned with their children
Past grades
perceived inequitable treatment
perception of institution
Products
Programatic concerns
property damage
Reimbursement of monies
Safety
Safety
member
Safety
Service problems
Service Quality
Service quality
Short stature
Student financial support
Student issues
Student mental health
Students academics
Technology
Timeliness of payment for services
Unable to find a responsive POC
Upset with their interactions with the agency
employee behavior
Personal conflicts
Contract defaults
Contractual terms
Administrative
emergency/ambulance
Substance abuse
campus climate
Policy problems
Concerns for spouses who are employed here
Debt relief/restructuring
Work relationships
laboratory tests
Benefits
Financial issues
parent concerns about child mental health
Diversity related
non admittance
Concern regarding extension office operations on behalf of student family
Employee assistance
Intellectual Property
Procurement
poor treatment
alumni trying to finish a degree don't like our rules
applicants seeking fair treatment Student well-being
decisions or actions by the institution
Quality Concerns
housing leases
inappropriate behavior
property was damaged
Transfer
child’s issue
Treatment by employees
Unfair Process
Climate
46
Open Text: Other Trends
Please describe any other trends you observed in 2015.






















50% case increase in 2015
A particular incident by our security office got brought up in many of the cases our office worked on this year— even if it wasn't an
obviously related issue
A strengthening of HR policies and procedures (and implementation consistency), much greater support for staff wellness and
health, strengthening of culture/organizational identity issues, and moves toward greater internal accountability - all issues raised by
the Ombudsman service previously.
Abrasive conduct response increasing, more awareness of implicit bias
Acceptance of members of minority communities.
An increase in generational conflict among employees and students
Bullying, abuse of power, retaliation, mobbing, non-renewed for position, violation of exceptional childhood education services
Cases described as bullying have increased.
Change management issues
Communication and respect/treatment concerns within Evaluative Relationships
Concerns about bullying.
Contentious staff and faculty relationships and expectations
Continued trend of employee concerns about relationship with management
Decreased trust between faculty and administration. Increased insecurity due to state budget issues and prioritization process
within the institution.
Elder care issues - people having to manage care of parents; not all employees have the same flexibility
Faculty treating students of color disrespectfully in the classroom. This has been a significant problem this year.
Hostile and Intimidating Behaviors (bullying)
Hostile Work Environment to include bullying/harassment/retribution increasing; lack of management/personal accountability
increasing; contract changeover concerns increasing; dissimilar treatment for contractors/government civilians performing similar
roles increasing
I don't work with external constituents but was contacted regularly by external stakeholders.
I've perceived that the International Ombuds Association has become less and less useful to me as a professional organization. It
seems to have become increasingly obsessed with its own internal structure and less interested in providing useful services for its
members.
Incivility, abuse of power, inequities in pay
Increase in academic dishonesty cases as well as dismissals from professional programs for violations of professional standards.
47
Open Text: Other Trends (cont.)




























Increase in complaints concerning interpersonal relationships, intimidation, bullying, cultural insensitivity, and discrimination
Increase in conflict and disputes in evaluative relationships
Increase in constituents presenting with underlying emotional health issues
Increase in issues around job security and uneasiness due to restructures, decrease in privacy issues, decrease in compliance issues.
Increase in more complex cases involving entire departments, departmental climate and intractable interpersonal conflicts
Increase in supervision through intimidation
Increased compliance with health and safety
Improved infrastructure within the organization in response to rapid organizational growth
Increased contact by non-tenure track faculty
Insufficient services for international students
Inconsistent communication of policies and practices
Accountability for academic integrity issues
Insufficient support for students over 50
Unfair appeal process for one administrative office
Inconsistent application of residency requirements
Insurers will not reimburse for ambulance issues and out of network care
Issues related to extensive numbers of laid off employees to include: fairness of process, perception of bias, perception of
retaliation, work culture of fear of being laid off. Work climate of uncertainty and fear.
Issues with terminations of senior managers
Title IX
LGBQT
Faculty-student relationships
Job uncertainty. Work and/or personal stress. Employees with medical issues perceiving that having had medical issues unfairly
impacts their performance results as judged by the leader.
Leadership treatment
Concern about effectiveness of formal channel
Lots of reorg and change. Several cases were regarding the fear, uncertainty or impact of this.
Major lay offs
More concerns about opportunities for advancement; more concerns about people wanting to raise issues 'formally' but not
wanting to utilize the formal channels; more concerns about potential loss of job or disciplinary actions
48
Open Text: Other Trends (cont.)




















More issues related to disability and reasonable accommodations with no central office to raise these concerns to; increase in
visitors with potential mental health issues or reported substance abuse
More job security concerns
More Organizational leadership issues and concerns regarding layoffs.
Non- US male leadership behavior towards US women and perceived favoritism of non US leaders working in the US
Organizational consolidation (a merger of two institutions) led to a spike in difficulties around organizational culture and
qualifications and responsibilities.
Organizational silos resulting in duplication of efforts; ineffective or inappropriate performance feedback; putting resources
(headcount) to solve problems rather than examining the issues and using existing resources; Title IX issues of gender
discrimination; "bullying" - claims of this and lack of clarity around what is and isn't bullying;
Overwhelming level of changes going on
Poor understanding of policies by academic administrators
Problems and conflicts with increasing change in the Administration of the university. There has been a turnover of about every
major administrative office in the past few years and into the next few. This brings with it a typical increase in visitors to the
Ombuds Office
Retaliation, authorship issues, bullying, poor management skills, stressed students, insensitivity to disability, changing curriculum
and faculty roles, title IX confusion/enforcement
Student ID fraud
Students, both undergraduate and graduate, wanting to be paid for committee work
Staff feeling more and more overworked and underappreciated
The national speak outs on race and concerns over handling of Title IX cases affected conversations on all campuses, including
ours.
There is a great deal of confusion about what constitutes harassment or bullying and whether one incident or interpretation of an
incident can be considered to fall into these categories
There were more groups involved in the process. There was a significantly higher case load in 2015 than in the previous 5 years.
Top trends were supervisory relationships, poor communication, and gender
Transportation Issues, Rights, Education
We mediate sometimes with employees, customers and suppliers
When we are mediation with employees we have more issues when the organizations change their Directors/Managers
49
Open Text: Trends Related to Risk
Please describe any other trends related to risk that you observed in 2015.





























Complex issues involving more than one department and more than one source of conflict
Death threats and inadequate campus response.
Discrimination, bullying, ethical complaints, fiscal mismanagement
Email takes the place of personal contact
Emphasis on productivity gains risks violation of US labor laws
Faculty not willing to work with students
Financial issues. Protests.
Formal channels way of assessing and handling risk
Given the extreme climate of fear & uncertainty - employees are very reluctant to raise issues for fear of losing their jobs.
Improved compliance with health and safety legislation
Increase in complaints about academic/supervisor competence/diligence
increase in concerns for personal/physical safety/bullying
Increase in psychological health concerns for workers
Increase in Title IX complaints leading to external investigation
Increasing expectations for Medical faculty as well as staff
Burnout
Difficulty balancing work and family demands
Moral conduct issues
More and more obvious that systems need to be re-evaluated and either replaced or implemented
OGC and HR operations need to be assessed and updated
More employees taking medical leaves for mental health issues related to work stress.
More overt aggression in the workplace.
More students with mental health issues (mostly anxiety/depression)
Organization has had an increased focus on safety awareness in the past year, and encouraged to report concerns. That has
caused people to raise concerns.
Potential suicidal risks, harm to oneself
Retaliation. Risk of changes resulted in less quality service for clients.
Title IX; and accusations of research misconduct
University decisions and actions becoming more public due to social media. External stakeholders contacting multiple offices
in the university to complain. Worked with leadership on how to respond to these messages.
We have a lot questions about the question / complaint about a product sold by our company
50
Open Text: Trends related to Services
Please describe any other trends related to your services in 2015.

























A substantial increase in coaching (conflict and relationship) and supportive interventions, ie providing a safe place for visitors to
raise concerns and explore thoughts and feelings and options.
As ombuds (rather than researchers) we are finding space and time at the association's annual conference to make presentations or
offer workshops related to the work we do. We hope to continue doing so each year, and perhaps expand to regional subassociation conferences as well.
Case load trended down as employees were laid off. Organizational culture of fear, apathy, betrayal.
Did more Ombuds awareness "marketing" via digital communication vehicles in the company.
HR has started doing some of the training I did-and have not asked me to do other training.
Implementation of conflict coaching practice has led to improved outcomes and more informal ADR
Increase in student/faculty conflicts
increased visibility doing training
Increased expectations with limited resources
Increased training on communication, conflict resolution and leadership training series
Increasingly asked to surface concerns to second or third level of leadership without revealing the identity of the visitor.
Fewer bullying issues as we have a Faculty Civility Advocate
Less willingness to ask Ombudsman to intervene—particularly with management.
More conflict coaching
More department wide interventions
More group/department-level interventions similar to OD work
More need for improved communication and civility
More requests for trainings/briefings but not all came to fruition
More requests for workshops on conflict management
More work with groups/departments
Set goals and increased outreach programming
Slowly being brought in more to facilitate groups
Still poor understanding that impartiality is the valued asset
Units have begun inviting me to give educational seminars on conflict resolution.
We started with Outreach services
51
Open Text: Trends Related to Concerns
Please describe any other case trends related to concerns in 2015.












Department structure and staffing (context) affecting concerns beyond the interpersonal conflicts brought to the office
Disruption relating to organizational change and issues arising from that disruption
Financial security
Implicit bias issues raised by minority constituents/inclusion issues raised by people in the majority demographic
Increase in students referred by faculty
Little or no compromise among visitors
More co-worker conflict and bullying issues
More employees with questions or perceptions of unfairness relating to layoff process
New program - People had to be educated on what the Ombudsmen role was and how to access.
People are fearful to raise concerns.
These increases are certainly reflective of my greater knowledge of the organization and the increasing comfort level with the
office over the yrs the office has been in existence
Unethical hiring, unfair job classification changes, nepotism, unfair administrative decisions
52
Open Text: Other Standards of Practice/Codes of Ethics
Which standards of practice/codes of ethics do you follow? (these are in addition to the 171/171 who indicated IOA)



















Agency Policies
National Ombudsman Association (ABO)
Applicable institutional policy
CIArb in the context of Mediation
CINERGY Conflict coaching; Resolution Institute; Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand
Clinical Psychology Board
Code of Conduct of my organization
Code of Ethics and SOP of the National Association of Realtors
CPA Australia and personal code
Forum of Canadian Ombudsmen
LANL Code of Conduct
Mediation ethics when mediating
NASA Ombudsman Requirements document
National Association of Social Workers
National association of social workers
Organizational code of ethics
Rules governed by this organization
Title IX-considered a CSA
We also developed our own Service Standards for our office
53