Human Capital: The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution	 
(13-APR-01, GAO-01-466).					 
								 
In an effort to expedite the resolution of employees' complaints 
about workplace issues, federal agencies created ombudsman	 
offices. In the workplace, an ombudsman provides an informal	 
alternative to existing and more formal administrative processes,
employing a variety of techniques and often working "outside the 
box" to deal with conflicts and other organizational disputes.	 
This report examines several issues concerning the role that	 
ombudsmen play in federal agencies' management of human capital. 
GAO found that the number of ombudsman offices dealing with	 
workplace issues in federal agencies is small but is expected to 
grow. These offices deal with a wide range of workplace issues,  
from helping employees get answers to questions about agency	 
policies and cutting through "red tape" to more serious 	 
situations, such as allegations about employment discrimination. 
In studying the ombudsmen offices at the National Institutes of  
Health (NIH), the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), and	 
the U.S. Secret Service, GAO found some common approaches in how 
they operate as well as some differences. Common to all three	 
offices was their broad responsibility and authority to deal with
almost any workplace issue, their ability to bring systemic	 
issues to management's attention, and the way in which they	 
worked with other agency offices in providing assistance to	 
employees. But how they were structured to carry out this	 
authority varied. In addition, there are no federal standards	 
specific to the operation of ombudsmen offices, but all three	 
offices adhere to standards of practice established by		 
professional organizations. Although the recommended standards of
professional organizations state that ombudsmen should be	 
accountable for their activities, federal agencies gave only	 
limited attention to evaluating their ombuds program. However,	 
officials at all three agencies generally viewed the ombudsmen	 
program as beneficial. Finally, although there is no formal	 
federal guidance on the standards of practices for the federal	 
ombuds community, there are several forums for ombudsmen to share
information informally about best practices and lessons learned. 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-466 					        
    ACCNO:   A00826						        
  TITLE:     Human Capital: The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute	      
             Resolution                                                       
     DATE:   04/13/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Dispute settlement 				 
	     Employment discrimination				 
	     Human resources utilization			 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Private sector practices				 
	     Program evaluation 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-466
     
Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services, Committee on Government Affairs, U. S.
Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

April 2001 HUMAN CAPITAL The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

GAO- 01- 466

Page i GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 5 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 12 Some
Agencies Use Ombudsmen to Deal With Workplace Issues 14 The Case
Illustrations: Varied Approaches to a Shared Goal 15 Forums Exist for
Sharing Best Practices and Lessons Learned 24 Conclusions 27 Recommendation
to the Attorney General 28 Comments of Experts 28 Comments from the Attorney
General 29

Appendix I Ombudsman- Related Internet Resources 31

Appendix II Federal Workplace Ombudsman Offices as of January 16, 2001 33

Appendix III The General Accounting Office?s Panel of Federal Experts
Recognized for Their Knowledge of the Ombudsman Field 34

Appendix IV Case Illustration: Ombudman?s Office, International Broadcasting
Bureau 35 Origins and Operating Characteristics 35 Approach to Independence,
Neutrality, and Confidentiality 37 Evaluation and Outcomes 37

Appendix V Case Illustration: The Office of The Ombudsman, Center For
Cooperative Resolution, National Institutes of Health 40 Origins and
Operating Characteristics 40 Approach to Independence, Neutrality, and
Confidentiality 41 Evaluation and Outcomes 42 Contents

Page ii GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution Appendix VI
Case Illustration: The Ombudsman Program, U. S.

Secret Service 45 Origins and Operating Characteristics 45 Approach to
Independence, Neutrality, and Confidentiality 47 Evaluation and Outcomes 47

ABBREVIATIONS ABA American Bar Association ADR alternative dispute
resolution ARCS Advisory Referral and Counseling Service EAP employee
assistance program EEO equal employment opportunity EEOC Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency FDA Food and Drug
Administration GAO General Accounting Office GS General Schedule HR human
resource IBB International Broadcasting Bureau NIH National Institutes of
Health OCR Office of Civil Rights OPM Office of Personnel Management

Page iii GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

Page 1 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

April 13, 2001 The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services Committee on
Government Affairs United States Senate

Dear Senator Akaka: During the 1990s federal agencies have had to deal with
an increasing number of complaints from their employees, particularly
complaints of alleged employment discrimination. However, the formal
administrative processes to deal with complaints have long been criticized
as adversarial, inefficient, time consuming, and costly. Such flaws in the
processes can destroy relationships and be corrosive to an agency?s
productivity and its work environment. As a result, federal agencies have
been expanding their human capital policies to include alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) processes to resolve disputes in a more efficient, timely,
and less adversarial manner. In doing so, some agencies have established
ombudsman offices. In the workplace, an ombudsman (also referred to as an
?ombuds?) provides an informal alternative to existing and more formal
processes, employing a variety of techniques and often ?working outside the
box? to deal with conflicts and other organizational climate issues. 1 An
ombuds not only works to resolve disputes but is also in the position to
alert management to systemic problems and thereby help correct
organizationwide situations and develop strategies for preventing and
managing conflict. In this regard, an ombudsman office can be an integral
part of an organization?s human capital management strategy to create a
fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory workplace.

Because of the role that ombudsmen can play in an agency?s management of its
human capital, you asked that we provide the Subcommittee with an up- to-
date perspective on the role of ombudsmen in resolving workplace issues.
Specifically, in your letter of July 10, 2000, and in subsequent

1 There are two kinds of ombudsmen. In addition to ombuds who deal with
workplace issues, which are the subject of this report, there are other
ombudsmen who handle concerns and inquiries from the public.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

conversations with your office, you asked that we develop information to
answer the following questions:

1. What is the number of ombudsman offices at federal agencies addressing
workplace issues, and what kinds of issues do they address?

2. At selected ombudsmen offices,

 What are the operating characteristics in terms of their structure,
financial and staff resources, authority, and how they interact with other
offices responsible for handling employee complaints and providing employees
assistance?

 How do ombuds offices conform to professional standards of practice,
particularly with regard to the core principles of independence, neutrality,
and confidentiality?

 What is known from formal and informal evaluations about the results of
the programs?

3. How are federal ombudsmen provided with guidance and what means exist for
sharing ?best practices? and ?lessons learned? among ombudsmen offices?

The number of ombudsman offices dealing with workplace issues in federal
agencies is small but, according to federal ADR experts, is expected to
grow. Based on our research, and in consultation with a panel of federal ADR
experts, we identified 22 workplace ombuds offices in 10 agencies. We cannot
be sure, however, that this is a complete list because there was no complete
and verified source of federal ombuds offices. Federal ombuds offices deal
with a wide range of workplace issues, from helping employees get answers to
questions about agency policies and cutting through ?red tape? to more
serious situations, such as allegations about employment discrimination,
other prohibited personnel practices, and workplace safety issues. Ombuds
work to resolve disputes between individuals as well as within work groups.
We were not able to identify any governmentwide data regarding the various
issues ombudsmen deal with and the frequency with which these issues are
raised.

In studying the ombudsman offices at the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), and the U. S. Secret
Service, we found some common approaches in how they operated as well as
some differences. Common among the three ombudsman offices was Results in
Brief

Page 3 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

their broad responsibility and authority to deal with almost any workplace
issue, their ability to bring systemic issues to management?s attention, and
the way in which they worked with other agency offices in providing
assistance to employees. But how they were structured to carry out this
authority varied. Ombuds offices at NIH and IBB were independent entities of
the agency director?s office while the Secret Service ombudsman was a
component of the agency?s Office of Human Resources and Training. Of the
three offices, only the NIH ombudsman office had its own budget. Each of the
ombudsmen was a high- level manager- General Schedule (GS) grade 15 or
senior executive- and the ombudsmen at NIH and the Secret Service had
defined or limited terms. Assistant ombudsmen were full- time permanent
positions at two offices (NIH and IBB) while being a part- time, collateral
duty position at the Secret Service. Two of the offices (IBB and Secret
Service) drew ombudsman candidates from within their ranks while NIH
recruited dispute resolution practitioners from within and outside the
agency.

There are no federal standards specific to the operation of ombudsman
offices, but program literature and the ombudsmen at the three offices we
studied described how they adhered to the standards of practice for
ombudsmen established by professional organizations. These professional
standards revolve around the core principles of independence, neutrality,
and confidentiality. One way in which the ombudsman offices said that they
maintained independence is by having a reporting relationship with the
agency head. The NIH and IBB ombudsmen reported to their agency director?s
office. Although the Secret Service ombudsman did not directly report to the
agency director, he had ?unfettered? access to the director?s office,
according to agency officials. The three ombudsman offices also asserted
their neutrality in their dealings by not taking sides in a dispute but
advocating for resolution, achieving results, as one ombudsman put it,

?through persuasion.? The ombudsman offices were explicit about providing
for confidentiality in their dealings by not keeping a log of visitors? or
callers? names or formal case records and by destroying any informal notes.

Although the recommended standards of professional organizations generally
state that ombudsmen should be accountable for their activities and results,
the three agencies gave only limited attention to evaluating their ombuds
programs. However, officials at the three agencies generally viewed the
ombudsman programs as beneficial. They said that the ombuds offices, through
their early intervention, were particularly helpful in resolving workplace
conflicts quickly and in lightening the caseloads of other offices dealing
with complaints and grievances. The ombudsmen

Page 4 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

estimated that they resolved between 60 and 70 percent of their cases. In
addition, the ombudsmen and other officials identified lessons they learned
in establishing and operating an ombuds office. Chief among these is the
need for top- level support. Another important lesson officials at NIH and
IBB noted was the importance of collaborating with stakeholders on ombuds
program design and operation. Officials at the three agencies also said they
learned that, in addition to being trained and skilled, the ombudsman must
be respected and have credibility with management and staff alike. Officials
said it was also important to publicize the services of the ombuds office.
Having a diverse ombuds staff was something that officials said was
important at each of the three agencies that we studied.

Although there is no formal federal guidance on the standards of practice
for the federal ombuds community, there are several forums for ombudsmen to
share information informally about best practices and lessons learned.
Outside the federal government, professional groups that have developed and
published professional standards of practice also provide forums for
information sharing and training. Within the federal community, the
Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (an informal group of federal ombuds) and the
Interagency ADR Working Group (authorized under the Administrative Dispute
Resolution Act to encourage and facilitate agencies? use of ADR) are venues
for information sharing and training. Some federal ADR experts are concerned
that among the growing number of federal ombudsman offices there are some
individuals or activities described as ?ombuds? or ?ombuds offices? that do
not generally conform to the standards of practice for ombudsmen. As a
result, the Coalition is considering developing guidance that would follow
the standards of practice put out by the outside professional groups. In
addition, the Interagency ADR Working Group, which has the authority to
issue policy guidance on dispute resolution issues that have a
governmentwide impact, has begun a study of federal ombudsman that may lead
to guidance on standards.

We are recommending that the Attorney General, as chairman of the
Interagency ADR Working Group, see that any guidance resulting from the
Working Group?s study of federal ombudsmen (1) be clearly defined and
transparent and, in addition to including the core principles of
independence, neutrality, and confidentiality, include standards for
accountability and (2) contains information about how this new guidance can
be consistently applied within the federal ombuds community. In his comments
on a draft of this report, the Attorney General said that he will ensure
that the Working Group?s study includes guidance as we are recommending.

Page 5 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

Federal employees have long had substantial workplace protections through a
redress system that safeguards them from arbitrary agency actions and
prohibited personnel practices, such as discrimination or retaliation for
whistleblowing. 2 But the redress system- especially insofar as it affects
workplace disputes involving claims of discrimination- has long been
criticized by federal managers and employee representatives alike as
adversarial, inefficient, time consuming, and costly. As a result, federal
agencies have examined their human capital policies and have moved toward
alternative means of resolving workplace disputes, collectively called ADR
processes. These processes give employees a place to resolve their
complaints and concerns, whether or not these issues are covered under a
formal redress system.

Executive branch civil servants are afforded opportunities for redress of
workplace disputes at three levels: first, within their employing agencies;
next, at one or more of the central adjudicatory agencies; and, finally, in
the federal courts. No fewer than four independent agencies hear employee
complaints and appeals not resolved at the agency level. The Merit Systems
Protection Board hears employees? appeals of firings or suspensions of more
than 14 days, as well as other significant personnel actions. The Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hears employee discrimination
complaints and reviews agencies? decisions on complaints. The Office of
Special Counsel investigates employee complaints of prohibited personnel
actions- in particular, retaliation for whistleblowing. For employees who
belong to collective bargaining units represented by unions, the Federal
Labor Relations Authority investigates complaints of unfair labor practices
and reviews arbitrators? decisions on grievances. The complexity of the
redress process is compounded by the fact that a given case may be brought
before more than one of the agencies- a circumstance that adds time-
consuming steps to the redress process and may result in adjudicatory
agencies reviewing each other?s decisions. Moreover, the law provides for
further review of these agencies? decisions in the federal courts.

In the past, the government has relied heavily upon traditional, adversarial
processes to resolve disputes, according to the former Attorney General in

2 The current redress system grew out of the Civil Service Reform Act of
1978 and related legal and regulatory decisions that have occurred since the
act?s enactment. Background

Overview of the Administrative Redress System for Federal Employees

Page 6 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

her January 2001 letter to the President. She said that this approach can
destroy the underlying relationships between the parties, which can be far
more harmful in the long run. In the workplace, she said, formal complaints
often force employees working in the same office to take sides against one
another. During the months or years required to process a complaint, and
even long after it is over, the dispute can be extremely corrosive to the
productivity of the office and the morale of its employees.

Processes for complaints of discrimination have drawn particular attention
because of the increased volume of such complaints and the extended time
taken to process them. In oversight hearings before the House Civil Service
Subcommittee, we testified that the number of new discrimination complaints
by federal employees grew by more than 50 percent- from 17,696 in fiscal
year 1991 to 26,655 in fiscal year 1999, overwhelming the ability of
agencies and EEOC to process them. 3 At the same time, backlogs of
unresolved complaints grew, as did the time taken to process them. It is
significant to note that a case traveling the entire administrative
complaint process- from filing at the agency through hearing and appeal at
EEOC- could be expected to take an average of 1,275 days (3 years and 6
months) based on fiscal year 1999 data. In fiscal year 1995, this figure
stood at 801 days (2 years and 2 months).

In past reports and testimonies, we noted, among other things, that the
discrimination complaint process was burdened by a number of cases that were
not legitimate discrimination complaints; some were frivolous complaints or
attempts by employees to get a third party?s assistance in resolving
workplace disputes unrelated to discrimination. 4 Similarly, EEOC reported
in its 1996 study that a ?sizable? number of complaints might not involve
discrimination issues at all but instead reflect basic communications
problems in the workplace. 5 EEOC said that such issues

3 Equal Employment Opportunity: Discrimination Complaint Caseloads and
Underlying Causes Require EEOC?s Sustained Attention (GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 104,
Mar. 29, 2000). 4 Equal Employment Opportunity: Complaint Caseloads Rising,
With Effects of New Regulations on Future Trends Unclear (GAO/ GGD- 99- 128,
Aug. 16, 1999); Federal Employee Redress: An Opportunity for Reform (GAO/ T-
GGD- 96- 42, Nov. 29, 1995); Federal Employee Redress: A System in Need of
Reform (GAO/ T- GGD- 96- 110, Apr. 23, 1996); and Civil Service Reform:
Redress System Implications of the Omnibus Civil Service Reform Act of 1996
(GAO/ T- GGD- 96- 160, July 16, 1996).

5 Only a small proportion of agency and EEOC decisions contains findings of
discrimination. In fiscal year 1999, for example, discrimination was found
in 1.4 percent of the cases agencies decided on the merits without a
hearing, and 9 percent of EEOC administrative judges? hearings decisions
contained findings of discrimination.

Page 7 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

may be brought into the EEO process because of a perception that there is no
other forum to air general workplace concerns. EEOC said ?there is little
question that these types of issues would be especially conducive to
resolution through an interest- based approach.?

Federal agencies have been spurred towards greater use of ADR to deal with
workplace disputes by legislation, policies of the adjudicatory agencies,
and by the desire to avoid the time, cost, and frustration of the more
formal dispute resolution processes. 6 ADR is a term that covers a variety
of techniques designed to resolve conflicts consensually, usually with the
assistance of a neutral third party. ADR techniques generally focus on
determining the disputants? underlying interests and working to resolve
their conflicts on a more basic level, perhaps to bring about a change in
the work environment in which the conflicts developed. It is generally
agreed that early intervention is important in bringing about resolution
before positions harden, working relationships deteriorate, and matters wind
up in a formal process.

The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990, reenacted with amendments
in 1996, authorizes agencies to use ADR and requires that they adopt a
policy that addresses the use of ADR. According to the act, ADR techniques
are voluntary procedures that supplement rather than limit other available
agency dispute resolution techniques. In addition to mediation, the act
defines alternative means of dispute resolution to include conciliation,
facilitation, and fact finding. The act also authorized

?use of an ombuds.? Impetus for agencies to adopt alternative means of
dispute resolution as an integral component of their human capital policies
has also come from the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which
requires agencies to pursue performance- based management. Under GPRA,
agencies are encouraged to assess their human capital policies to determine
how well their ?people policies? focus on valuing employees and are aligned
to support organizational performance goals. As part of a framework for
human capital self- assessment that we developed, agencies are encouraged to
evaluate their performance culture to determine the health of the workplace-
for example, whether there is honest two- way

6 Alternative Dispute Resolution: Employers? Experiences With ADR in the
Workplace (GAO/ GGD- 97- 157, Aug. 12, 1997) discusses in detail why
organizations turned to ADR. Movement Toward ADR

Page 8 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

communication and whether perceptions of unfairness are minimized- and
whether workplace disputes are resolved by fair and efficient means. 7 ADR
processes can help in achieving such goals.

An ombudsman, or ombuds, is a dispute resolution practitioner who (1)
receives complaints, concerns, and questions from individuals; (2) works to
resolve these issues, making recommendations on individual matters where
appropriate; and (3) brings to an entity?s attention chronic or systemic
problems and makes recommendations for improvement. 8 Although the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act authorized use of an ombuds, an ombuds
is not itself an alternative means of dispute resolution; rather, the
ombudsman is a neutral who uses a variety of procedures, including ADR
techniques, to deal with complaints, concerns, and questions. A key feature
distinguishing ombuds from other dispute resolution practitioners is the
ombuds? focus on systemic issues and on developing conflict prevention
strategies.

There are two kinds of ombudsmen. Traditionally, ombudsman has described an
individual who handles concerns and inquiries from the public- often
referred to as an ?external? ombudsman. For example, the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has ombudsmen who serve as points of contact for
members of the public who have concerns about Superfund activities. 9 Over
time, organizations- government and nongovernment alike- have also
established ombudsmen to deal with workplace issues. Workplace ombudsmen
provide an informal alternative to existing and more formal processes to
deal with conflicts that arise in the workplace and other organizational
climate issues. Because an

7 Human Capital: A Self- Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders (GAO/ OGC-
00- 14G, Sept. 2000). The checklist provides a framework for human capital
self- assessment divided into five parts: strategic planning, organizational
alignment, leadership, talent, and performance culture.

8 The Ombudsman Association, a professional association for practicing
ombudsmen, published sample generic ombuds position descriptions. Among the
critical skills and characteristics for an ombudsman contained in these
position descriptions are communication and problem- solving skills,
conflict resolution skills, sensitivity to diversity issues, and integrity.
The sample position descriptions also suggest that an ombuds have a
bachelors degree or equivalent, managerial experience, demonstrated
leadership skills, and demonstrated ability in implementing and managing
broad- based programs.

9 The Superfund Program provides support to locate, investigate, and clean
up hazardous waste sites nationwide. What Is an Ombudsman?

Page 9 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

ombuds does not have to follow formal processes, he or she can exercise
flexibility and ?work outside the box? to resolve issues.

Professional organizations expect ombudsmen to conform to professional
standards of practice that revolve around the core principles of
independence, neutrality (or impartiality), and confidentiality. Although
authorizing the use of an ombuds, the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act
does not further define an ombudsman or establish standards specific to an
ombudsman. 10 However, members of the Interagency ADR Working Group,
authorized under the act to facilitate and encourage federal agencies? use
of ADR, and other experts said that although there are no specific federal
standards for ombudsmen, they identified other professional organizations
that have published or drafted standards of practice for ombudsmen. Among
those groups are The Ombudsman Association, the Ombudsman Committee of the
American Bar Association (ABA), and the University and College Ombuds
Association. 11 In addition, a model ombudsman act for state governments
drafted by the United States Ombudsman Association 12 and recommendations of
the Administrative Conference of the United States contain standards for
ombudsmen. These

10 The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act charged the Administrative
Conference of the U. S. with establishing standards for neutrals. However,
the Administrative Conference, an independent federal agency and advisory
committee, was abolished in October 1995. The 1996 amendments to the act
authorized a successor to the Administrative Conference to facilitate and
encourage ADR. However, the 1996 amendments do not require the successor,
the Interagency ADR Working Group, to set such standards.

11 The Ombudsman Committee of the ABA drafted recommended Standards for the
Establishment and Operation of Ombudsman Offices. These recommended
standards, put forward in July 2000, are intended to expand on a 1969 ABA
resolution that identified independence, impartiality, and confidentiality
as essential characteristics of ombudsmen. The committee that drafted the
recommended standards was made up of experts, including representatives from
ombudsman organizations- the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen, The Ombudsman
Association, The U. S. Ombudsman Association, and the University and College
Ombuds Association.

12 The U. S. Ombudsman Association and The Ombudsman Association are
different organizations. Core Principles for

Ombudsmen- Independence, Neutrality, and Confidentiality

Page 10 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

standards revolve around the core principles of independence, neutrality,
and confidentiality. 13

The Ombudsman Association Standards of Practice define independence as
functioning independent of line management, with the ombudsman having a
reporting relationship with the highest authority in an organization.
According to the ABA Ombudsman Committee?s recommended Standards for the
Establishment and Operation of Ombudsmen Offices, the office of the
ombudsman must be independent in its structure, function, and appearance and
free from interference in the legitimate performance of duties to be
credible and effective. According to the recommended standards, ?In
assessing whether an ombudsman is independent, the following factors are
important: whether anyone subject to the ombudsman?s jurisdiction or anyone
directly responsible for a person under the ombudsman?s jurisdiction can (1)
control or limit the ombudsman?s performance of duties, (2) eliminate the
office, (3) remove the ombudsman other than for cause, or (4) reduce the
office?s budget or resources.? The recommended standards also state, among
other things, that the ombudsman position should be explicitly defined and
established as a matter of organization policy and that the ombudsman should
also have access to all information within the organization, except as
restricted by law. The University and College Ombuds Association standards
of practice parallel The Ombudsman Association and ABA standards, while
adding that the ombuds should be placed at the highest possible level.

The Ombudsman Association Standards of Practice define neutrality as not
advocating for any one person in a dispute within an organization but
advocating for fair processes and the fair administration of those
processes. The recommended standards of the ABA Ombudsman Committee state
that the ombudsman does not represent complainants nor does the ombudsman
defend the entity complained against. The ombudsman conducts inquiries and
investigations in an impartial manner, seeking resolution for a fair outcome
and making recommendations where appropriate. In addition, according to the
recommended standards, the ombudsman should be an advocate for change when
an investigation or

13 The U. S. Ombudsman Association drafted a model ombudsman act for state
governments for dealing with complaints from the public. Similarly, the
Administrative Conference put forth a recommendation that the President and
Congress support federal agency initiatives to create and fund an external
ombudsman in agencies with significant interaction with the public. Both the
model ombudsman act and the Administrative Conference recommendation embody
the principles of independence, neutrality, and confidentiality.
Independence

Neutrality

Page 11 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

inquiry identifies a systemic problem. The University and College Ombuds
Association standards add that an ombuds should have no interest or personal
stake in the issues handled.

The Ombudsman Association standards define confidentiality as communications
that are intended to be held in secret. The Ombudsman Association standards
assert that there is a privilege, regarding communications, that allows
individuals to come forward in a confidential setting without the risk of
reprisal. 14 The recommended standards of the ABA Ombudsman Committee state
that confidentiality must extend to all communications with the ombudsman,
including all notes and records maintained in the performance of the
ombudsman?s duties. The Ombudsman Association standards also state that the
ombudsman must not keep case records for the organization and that any
written notes the ombudsman records in handling a case should be destroyed.
The University and College Ombuds Association standards require that when
seeking systemic change, an ombuds should not reveal the identity of a
singular situation that could be associated with a particular individual.

In addition to the core principles of independence, neutrality, and
confidentiality, the recommended standards of various organizations
generally state that ombudsmen should be accountable for their activities
and results. The ABA Ombudsman Committee?s recommended standards state that
an ombudsman, to ensure the office?s accountability, should issue and
publish periodic reports summarizing the ombudsman office?s findings and
activities. Such reports may include statistical information about the
number of contacts with the ombudsman and subjects that the ombudsman
addressed. Likewise, the University and College Ombuds Association standards
and the U. S. Ombudsman Association model ombudsman act state that ombudsmen
should issue periodic reports on their activities. Furthermore, the
Administrative Conference recommendations regarding the establishment of
external ombudsman offices in federal agencies state that ombudsman should
be required to

14 Privilege is a legal term that describes a relationship that the law
protects from forced disclosure. Confidentiality

Accountability for Activities and Results

Page 12 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

submit periodic reports summarizing their activities and outcomes. 15
Moreover, the ADR Working Group has identified evaluation as a key component
of successful ADR program management and consistent with GPRA, which
requires agencies to set goals and track outcomes, and has drafted guidance
to that effect. 16

Information on Internet locations for the various standards of practice and
recommended legislation can be found in appendix I.

Our overall objective was to develop information about the role of the
ombudsman in dealing with workplace issues at federal agencies.

To determine the number of ombudsmen offices that address workplace issues,
we reviewed (1) the membership directory of the Coalition of Federal
Ombudsmen, (2) a listing of workplace ombuds developed by an expert in the
field, (3) Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Resource Guide published by the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and (4) the results of an ADR Working
Group survey of federal agencies. From these sources, we developed a listing
of ombuds offices. In consultation with members of an expert panel
knowledgeable of ombudsman activities in the federal government, we
identified ombuds offices dealing with workplace issues that the experts
believed met the standards of practice and the core principles of
independence, neutrality, and confidentiality for ombudsman offices (see
app. II). To answer the question on the kinds of issues ombudsmen address,
we used information from experts, literature on ombudsman in organizations,
and three ombuds offices selected for case illustrations.

To identify the operating characteristics of ombudsman offices, the
approaches they took to conform to professional standards of practice, and
the extent to which ombudsman offices have been evaluated and the

15 According to the Administrative Conference recommendation, which was made
in 1990, reports from external ombudsmen should summarize (1) the grievances
considered; (2) investigations completed; (3) recommendations for actions,
improvement in agency operations, or statutory changes; (4) agency response;
and (5) any other matters the ombudsman believes should be brought to the
attention of the agency head, Congress, or the public.

16 The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act had charged the Administrative
Conference with compiling and maintaining data on agencies? use of ADR. The
section of the act dealing with compilation of information was repealed.
Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

Page 13 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

results they have achieved, we primarily used information obtained from
ombudsman offices selected for case illustration. In selecting ombudsman
offices as case illustrations, we considered offices that experts identified
as ?good examples? in terms of (1) following the standards of practice
advocated by The Ombudsman Association and the Ombudsman Committee of the
ABA, (2) the reputation of the office within the federal ombudsman and ADR
communities, and (3) the availability of information relating to case
activity and outcomes. Based on our consultation with federal experts in the
field, information we gleaned from the literature, and our subject matter
knowledge, we selected the ombudsman offices at the International
Broadcasting Bureau, 17 the National Institutes of Health, 18 and the Secret
Service. We also considered other factors of the three agencies and their
ombudsman offices in selecting them as case illustrations. For example, IBB
had a large unionized and foreign- born workforce; NIH had to deal with
disputes involving scientific research; and the Secret Service used
collateral- duty ombudsmen to serve its global workforce. In addition to
obtaining relevant documentation for each of the case illustrations, we
interviewed or obtained responses to our questions from the ombudsmen, the
agency officials to whom the ombudsmen report, and other officials with whom
the ombudsmen have dealings, such as equal employment opportunity (EEO),
employee assistance program (EAP), and human resource (HR) officials.
Because of the confidential nature of ombuds offices, we did not speak
directly with employees who had used the offices. However, to gain an
employee perspective, we spoke with union officials at IBB.

To identify the ways in which ombudsman offices are provided with guidance
and the means for sharing ?best practices? and ?lessons learned,? we looked
to the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, professional and federal
groups, and ombudsmen we interviewed.

To assist us in this engagement, we assembled a panel of federal experts
recognized within the ADR community for their knowledge of the ombudsman
field (see app. III). These experts were drawn from the Coalition of Federal
Ombudsmen and the Steering Committee of the Interagency ADR Working Group.
We consulted with panel members in

17 The IBB broadcasts nonmilitary international programming and includes the
Voice of America, Worldnet Television and Film Service, and Radio and TV
Marti. 18 The NIH program received the OPM Director?s Award for Outstanding
Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs in 2000.

Page 14 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

designing this engagement and in selecting case illustrations. In addition,
because there is no single agency responsible for ADR policy development and
oversight, we obtained comments on the draft of our report from the panel.
Their comments are summarized at the end of this letter. In addition, we
requested comments on a draft of our report from the Attorney General in his
capacity as chairman of the Interagency ADR Working Group. His comments are
summarized at the end of this letter. We also obtained comments on the case
illustrations from the ombudsmen at IBB, NIH, and the Secret Service about
their respective agency?s ombudsman program. Each of the ombudsmen provided
comments of a technical or clarifying nature, which we considered in
finalizing this report.

We conducted our work from August 2000 to February 2001 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Based on our research, and in consultation with a panel of federal ADR
experts, we identified 22 ombuds offices in 10 federal agencies dealing with
workplace issues (see app. II). 19 We cannot be sure, however, that this is
a complete list because there may be other workplace ombuds offices in
federal agencies that did not come to our attention. For example, two of the
sources we used to identify the universe of federal ombudsman offices- OPM?s
Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Resource Guide and the ADR Working Group
survey- relied on voluntary reporting by agencies and therefore did not
provide a complete and verified census of federal agency ADR practices. At
the time of our study, the ADR Working Group had begun a governmentwide
survey to determine, among other things, the number of offices that call
themselves ombuds, whether they deal with external or workplace issues, to
whom they report, and their organizational location.

Federal ombuds offices deal with a wide range of workplace issues. Ombuds
can help employees get answers to questions about agency policies and to cut
through ?red tape.? They also can listen to employee concerns, counsel them
on alternatives at hand, and coach them in managing situations. This
assistance may be provided in an in- person visit or through a telephone
inquiry. Ombudsmen also handle more serious

19 In addition, there are two external ombudsmen offices (FDA and EPA) that
deal with workplace disputes on an ad- hoc basis. Some Agencies Use

Ombudsmen to Deal With Workplace Issues

Page 15 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

situations, including allegations about employment discrimination, other
prohibited personnel practices, and workplace safety issues. With a client?s
permission, they often act as a go- between, employing shuttle diplomacy to
help employees deal with their managers and supervisors as well as to help
managers and supervisors handle situations with employees. If the parties
agree, ombuds may also mediate the dispute. The goal of the ombudsman is to
intervene early in the dispute before positions harden, working
relationships deteriorate, and matters end up in a formal process.

We were not able to identify any governmentwide data discussing the various
issues ombudsmen deal with and the frequency of these issues. Of the three
ombudsman offices we studied as case illustrations, only NIH tracked
statistics on the issues raised and the frequency with which they were
raised. According to the NIH ombudsman?s annual report for 1999, the office
categorized most of the issues it dealt with as ?work

environment? (e. g., relationship with coworkers, safety), ?management?

(e. g., leadership behavior and judgment), and ?personnel? (e. g.,
promotion, job classification). The ombudsmen at IBB and Secret Service did
not track the issues their offices handled. However, the IBB ombudsman said
that in addition to cultural misunderstandings involving foreign- born
staff, his cases included issues relating to promotions, work hours,
disputes with supervisors, and allegations of discrimination. The Secret
Service ombudsman said that he most often deals with complaints over
managerial style and assignments.

In their shared goal of handling workplace issues in an efficient and
nonadversarial way, the three agencies took varied approaches in
establishing, structuring, funding, and staffing their ombuds offices (see
apps. IV, V, and VI). Nonetheless, the three offices shared broad
responsibility and authority to deal with almost any workplace issue as well
as to bring systemic issues to management?s attention. Ombudsmen at all
three agencies were an integral part of their agency?s dispute resolution
system and all three worked with other agency offices that dealt with
employee complaints and provided employee assistance. The three offices
described the approaches they took to adhere to the standards of practice
for ombudsmen and the core principles of independence, neutrality, and
confidentiality. However, the three agencies gave only limited attention to
evaluating their ombuds programs and accounting for their activities. Still,
officials at the three agencies generally viewed the ombudsman programs as
beneficial, particularly in resolving conflict and lightening the The Case
Illustrations:

Varied Approaches to a Shared Goal

Page 16 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

workloads of other offices dealing with employee complaints and concerns.

The varied approaches the three agencies took in structuring, funding, and
staffing their ombuds offices were influenced by conditions related to their
mission as well as perceived inadequacies in agency grievance processes.
After starting as pilot programs, the ombuds offices each took different
shapes as they matured and were made permanent.

 At NIH, officials were dealing with disputes arising out of the agency?s
scientific research mission, such as credit for authorship and intellectual
property rights, for which there was no grievance process. In addition,
NIH?s post- doctoral students involved in research were not covered under
redress processes available to regular federal employees. NIH officials also
recognized the ineffectiveness of the traditional administrative dispute
resolution processes, and they found that many cases not involving
discrimination were burdening the EEO complaint system. The NIH ombudsman
office, which was established in 1997, had grown to four fulltime ombuds
(the ombudsman and three assistants) and one support staff member by 2000.
The office serves the NIH workforce of 17,000 plus about 3,000 post-
doctoral students, most of whom work at NIH?s main campus in Bethesda, MD.
Organizationally, the NIH ombudman?s office is a component of the NIH
director?s office. The office has its own budget for which it must submit a
business plan that lays out the ombudsman?s objectives, goals, and resource
requirements. In fiscal year 2000, the ombudsman?s budget was $800,000 for
the office?s dispute resolution, conflict prevention, and other activities.

 At IBB, management established its ombuds office because of employee
discontent over grievance processes. In addition, about one- third of IBB?s
workforce was made up of foreign- born employees involved in the agency?s
foreign- language broadcasts. Cultural differences led to workplace conflict
and some of the foreign- born staff were not afforded the same range of
redress options as permanent federal workers. The IBB ombudsman?s office
grew from a part- time position in 1988 to two full- time ombudsmen (the
ombudsman and an assistant ombuds) serving the agency?s approximately 1,900
employees, almost all of whom are in Washington, D. C. The ombudsman is a
component of the IBB director?s office and depends on that office for its
budgetary needs.

 At the Secret Service, management was faced with a rising number of EEO
complaints among the agency?s Uniformed Division officers. Management Varied
Approaches in

Structuring, Funding, and Staffing the Ombuds Offices

Page 17 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

found that many of the complaints were not EEO problems per se, but that
they reflected distrust of management. These disputes ended up in the EEO
process for a lack of an alternative forum. At the Secret Service, the
ombudsman program, which started in 1987, is staffed by one full- time
ombudsman and a corps of nine collateral- duty ombuds to serve 5,600
employees at the agency?s Washington, D. C., headquarters and field
locations across the United States and abroad. The ombudsman?s office is a
component of the Secret Service?s Office of Human Resources and Training,
and depends on that office for its budgetary needs.

Each of the ombudsmen at the three agencies was a high- level manager, and
the ombudsmen at NIH and the Secret Service had defined or limited terms.
Assistant ombudsmen were full- time permanent positions at two offices (NIH
and IBB) while being a part- time collateral duty position at the Secret
Service. Two of the offices (IBB and Secret Service) identified ombudsman
candidates from within their ranks while the NIH ombudsman recruited dispute
resolution practitioners from within and outside NIH.

 At NIH, the agency conducted a nationwide search to recruit a nationally
respected ombudsman acknowledged for his skill and talent. The NIH
ombudsman, who had been an ombudsman in academia and past president of both
The Ombudsman Association and the University and College Ombuds Association,
is a senior- level executive working under a renewable 5- year contact. The
ombudsman recruited dispute resolution practitioners from within and outside
the agency, which helped to achieve some measure of racial, gender, and
ethnic diversity. The assistant ombuds are GS- 14s.

 At IBB, the ombudsmen have been recruited from within the agency. The
first ombudsman, a GS- 15 who took office in 1988 and remained until his
retirement in December 2000, was the former director of administration. He
was selected because of his reputation as a knowledgeable and impartial
manager. His successor was also selected from within the agency because of
the value the agency placed on the need for the ombudsman to know the IBB?s
operations and culture. The agency?s assistant ombuds, a GS- 13, was
recruited from IBB?s broadcaster ranks to enhance the office?s ability to
meet the needs of the broadcaster staff and to add gender diversity.

 The Secret Service has recruited full- time ombudsmen from the ranks of
the agency?s special agents. The Service?s director has appointed GS- 15
special agents who understand the agency?s structure, processes, and culture
to fill the ombudsman position under the agency?s rotation

Page 18 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

process. The appointment is renewable on a yearly basis. The nine collateral
duty ombuds were selected from the ranks of special agents, Uniformed
Division officers, and mission support staff. The collateral ombuds corps,
in addition to making ombuds services more available outside of
headquarters, has helped to provide for gender, racial, and ethnic, as well
as occupational diversity.

Although the ombudsmen at IBB and the Secret Service were not trained
dispute resolution practitioners when selected for their assignments,
officials told us that all had since received training in conflict
management, including training offered by The Ombudsman Association.

The three ombudsman offices we studied had broad responsibility and
authority to deal with almost any workplace issue as well as to bring
systemic issues to management?s attention. Of the three offices studied, the
program at NIH- called The Office of the Ombudsman, Center for Cooperative
Resolution- was the broadest in scope. In addition to addressing individual
and multiparty and group conflict, the NIH ombudsman?s office was also
involved in training, conflict prevention, and dispute systems design
initiatives. Among the initiatives was a seminar series for executives on a
variety of conflict resolution topics, training a pool of collateral duty
mediators for EEO disputes, and training facilitators and panelists for a
peer resolution pilot. 20 In addition, the office has been developing
dispute resolution protocols for teams that would be in place from the
beginning of scientific collaborations.

The ombudsmen at the three offices studied, along with officials at their
respective agencies, said that the ombudsman office is an integral component
of the agency dispute resolution system. The ombudsman offices we studied
provided an additional resource to employees and did not replace other
agency offices that deal with employee complaints and other human capital
issues, including the EEO, EAP, and HR offices. Ombudsmen and other
officials with whom we spoke described regular information sharing and cross
referrals of cases as appropriate. For example, the NIH ombudsman office
reported that about 12 percent of the cases it handled in fiscal year 1999
were referred to a formal process, such

20 In the peer pilot program, grievances will be heard and decided by a
panel of employee peers. Broad Authority to Deal

With Workplace Issues Working With Other Offices to Resolve Issues

Page 19 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

as the EEO complaint process. Also, the ombuds and EEO offices at NIH and
the Secret Service were closely allied because the ombuds offices provided
ADR services in EEO cases, thereby helping the EEO offices at these agencies
meet the requirements of regulations that ADR be available to employees
alleging employment discrimination. At IBB, the ombudsman, in addition to
the routine dealings with other offices, was a member of the agency?s EEO
Advisory Committee, comprised of the agency?s human capital- related offices
and employee representatives, that meets monthly to address organizationwide
issues.

Additionally, the ombudsman at IBB faced a different situation, compared
with NIH and the Secret Service, because about 80 percent of the IBB
workforce belonged to collective bargaining units represented by three
unions. 21 According to both the ombudsman and union officials, the IBB
ombudsman?s office, in dealing with employees belonging to bargaining units,
respected the representational rights of the unions (provided for in the
Federal Service Labor- Management Statute) and the provisions of their labor
agreements with the agency and did not intervene without consent from the
client and the union. 22

21 There were no bargaining units at the Secret Service. Only a small number
of the NIH workforce belong to a bargaining unit and the NIH ombudsman will
not intervene without the union?s consent.

22 When there is union representation at an agency, like there is at IBB and
NIH, management and the ombudsman need to be mindful of the Federal Service
LaborManagement Relations Statute when establishing and operating an ombuds
program. The General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority has
issued guidance in this regard. The guidance points out, for example, that
the establishment of ADR programs designed to resolve EEO complaints and EEO
procedures constitute a condition of employment that cannot lawfully be
implemented or changed without fulfilling the statutory bargaining
obligation with an exclusive representative (the union). Additional guidance
discusses types of situations where a bargaining unit employee has a right
to representation by the exclusive representative at a meeting, and where
the union, as the exclusive representative of all bargaining unit employees,
has a right to be represented at a meeting. This applies to ?formal?
discussions involving EEO complaints and may also include ?informal?
discussions about informal EEO complaints that concern a personnel policy or
practice or general condition of employment. The General Counsel advises
that the most effective means to avoid disputes over representation at
discussions involving EEO complaints is for the union and the agency to work
together in establishing their ADR program and EEO processes that satisfy
the institutional interests of the agency and the union, as well as
respecting an individual?s right to file, and have processed, an EEO
complaint.

Page 20 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

We selected the three ombuds offices for case illustration in part because
our expert panel told us that these offices conformed to the standards of
practice for ombudsmen. Accordingly, the program literature, agency policy,
and the ombudsmen with whom we spoke said that they met the standards of
practice for ombudsmen, including the core principles of independence,
neutrality, and confidentiality. Information from the three ombudsman
offices specifically stated that they follow The Ombudsman Association code
of ethics and standards of practice.

One way in which the ombudsman offices said that they meet the independence
standard is by having a reporting relationship with the agency head. The
ombudsmen at NIH and IBB report directly to the office of their agency head.
The NIH principal deputy director said that the independence of the
ombudsman?s office is enhanced by the fact that the ombudsman is not part of
the management team, does not participate in setting policy or making
managerial decisions, except in the case of ADR, and has no other assigned
duties. The IBB ombudsman said that his office?s independence is enhanced
because he has no managerial or operational line authority. The situation at
Secret Service changed in 2000 as a result of a reorganization following an
efficiency review. Previously, the ombudsman had been a special assistant to
the director. Under the reorganization, the ombudsman?s office was
consolidated into the human resources and training office along with other
human capital- related offices, including the EEO and EAP offices. Secret
Service officials said that although the ombuds office had become a
component of the human resources and training office, the ombudsman would
still have

?unfettered? access to the director?s office. All three of the ombudsman
offices and their program literature also said they assert their neutrality
by not taking sides in disputes but by being advocates for resolution. In
addition, although the ombudsmen will make recommendations when appropriate,
they cannot require that the recommendations be adopted. As the former IBB
ombudsman said, he worked ?through persuasion.?

Literature of each of the ombudsman offices and the three ombudsmen were
explicit about providing for confidentiality in their dealings. The offices
maintain confidentiality in all but rare situations, such as when a person
may be a danger to themselves or others. The ombudsmen said that they do not
act on behalf of an individual without that person?s permission. The offices
also help to promote confidentiality by being located in remote areas and by
meeting or speaking to clients off site, if necessary. In addition, none of
the offices kept formal case records. Ombudsman Offices Took

Similar Approaches to Provide for Independence, Neutrality, and
Confidentiality

Page 21 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

However, the three ombudsmen said that they keep informal notes as memory
joggers but that these notes are eventually destroyed. None of the offices
kept a log of visitors? or callers? names, although the NIH ombudsman
tracked the number of complaints handled, kinds of issues involved, and the
types of resolutions achieved for statistical purposes.

As previously discussed, the ombudsman offices we studied did not keep
formal records, and their agencies gave only limited attention to evaluating
the programs, including determining user satisfaction. However, agency
officials generally viewed the ombudsman programs as beneficial,
particularly in helping to resolve conflicts and lighten the workloads of
other offices that handle complaints and grievances or provide other
assistance to employees. In addition, agency officials said that the work
environment had improved as a result of the ombudsman offices, allowing
employees to be more focused on accomplishing the agency?s mission. The
ombudsmen and other officials also identified lessons they learned in
establishing and operating an ombuds office.

The ability to evaluate ombudsman offices is limited because of the
constraints of confidentiality. As discussed earlier in this report, several
organizations? standards for ombudsmen stipulate the need for
confidentiality while also recommending that ombudsmen ensure their office?s
accountability by issuing periodic reports on their activities and outcomes.
These reports, however, can only contain data of a statistical nature and
not report any kind of case- related information that could divulge the
identity of complainants. Of the three ombuds offices studied, only one-
NIH- tracked statistical information on the number of complaints handled and
types of resolutions achieved and prepared an annual report. 23 According to
the NIH ombudsman?s first annual report, which covered 1999, the office
handled 328 cases, achieving full or partial resolution in 65 percent of
them. 24 The ombudsman also reported that the office closed about 40 percent
of the cases within 2 weeks and 60 percent within 6 weeks. Although NIH has
not evaluated the Office of the Ombudsman, officials were unanimous in their
views that the office had

23 In addition, the NIH ombudsman office prepares an annual business plan
that includes objectives, goals, and performance measures. 24 The three
ombuds offices used the term ?resolution? to describe cases in which the
ombudsmen believed that part or all of the concerns of individuals were
successfully addressed. Evaluation Limited but

Officials Perceived Ombuds Offices as Beneficial

Page 22 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

helped to both resolve and prevent disputes. For example, NIH?s acting
director said that the ombudsman?s intervention in scientific disputes saved
important scientific projects from near- certain dissolution. Two offices
that handle workplace disputes- the Office of Intramural Research and the
Office of Equal Opportunity- saw a drop in their caseloads after the
ombudsman office was established. Officials in those offices said that they
believed that at least some of the decrease was a result of the ombudsman
office.

Of the three offices that we studied, NIH was the only ombudsman office that
had attempted to measure user satisfaction and the effect of the processes
used on consumers. However, this initiative was abandoned because of low
response rates to questionnaires. The office is working with an expert to
develop measures of ombudsman effectiveness. To help determine perceptions
of the ombudsman function and its effectiveness, the plan for future
evaluation calls for assessing complaints processed using ombudsman services
compared with those processed by standard EEO complaint counseling, with
feedback to be obtained from complainants and respondents.

Data about case activity and outcomes at IBB were less precise compared with
NIH. Except for a report he sent annually to the director of IBB?s Office of
Civil Rights about EEO- related cases, the ombudsman did not prepare reports
of his office?s activities. 25 However, he kept a rough tally of cases that
he and his assistant handled. He estimated that their combined workload was
between 150 and 175 cases in 1999, not including

?numerous? routine telephone calls and policy questions. The ombudsman
estimated that his office resolved between 60 and 70 percent of the cases
handled. In fiscal year 2000, resolutions included 25 cases that the
ombudsman believed were EEO related, according to his report to the Civil
Rights Office director. Other IBB officials perceived that the ombudsman
office added value by preventing some issues from growing to formal
complaints and grievances or having a greater adverse effect on the
workplace. The personnel director said that the ombudsman helped in
preventing some cases from rising to a formal grievance. The former senior
advisor to the IBB director said that the ombudsman alerted the director?s
office to emerging workplace problems. Union officials said that

25 The IBB ombudsman periodically prepared Ombudsman Advisory Papers for IBB
management to report perceived systemic problems or recurring conflicts.

Page 23 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

the ombudsman had helped to resolve ?many cases? before they grew into EEO
complaints or formal grievances.

Data about the operations of the Secret Service ombudsman were scant. The
ombudsman kept only a tally sheet of the number of cases he handled. During
his first 2 months as ombudsman (August and September 2000), he said that he
handled 48 cases, of which 3 or 4 had ?EEO overtones.? 26 He had no data on
the number of cases the collateral duty ombuds handled; however, one
collateral duty ombuds with whom we spoke estimated that she handled about
30 cases a year. The ombudsman said that he expects that his office will
resolve about 70 percent of the cases, an estimate consistent with that of a
former Secret Service ombudsman. Although the Secret Service has not
evaluated the ombudsman office, perceptions of the directorate that the
office is ?very effective? and helps to improve morale were reinforced
during the efficiency review conducted in 2000. In addition, the EAP
coordinator said he believed that the ombuds office might have lightened his
office?s workload.

The ombudsmen and other officials commented on lessons learned in
establishing and operating an ombuds office. Chief among these lessons is
the need for top- level support in not only establishing an office but also
in establishing the office?s credibility among senior managers and employees
alike. The NIH principal deputy director said that the fact that NIH
leadership promotes a program that is independent, neutral, and confidential
imparts a crucial message to the entire NIH community.

In order to build support, officials at NIH and IBB learned the importance
of collaborating with stakeholders on an ombuds program design. At NIH, a
working group of practitioners knowledgeable about dispute resolution
collaborated in developing and later piloting the ombudsman concept. In
contrast, IBB management unilaterally established that agency?s ombuds
program without consulting the unions. According to the ombudsman, the
unions consequently viewed the ombuds office as a ?management tool? and
resisted cooperating with him. The ombudsman said that it took several years
of ?fence mending? to develop credibility with the unions.

Officials at NIH and IBB said that it is important that the ombudsman and
EEO offices work closely to protect the redress rights of potential EEO

26 This total is in line with an estimate provided to us in 1996 by a former
Secret Service ombudsman. He said that he handled about 300 cases per year
(i. e., 25 cases per month). Some Lessons Learned

Page 24 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

complainants. According to EEO complaint process regulations, an employee
must contact the EEO office within 45 days of the alleged discrimination.
Therefore it is important that an ombudsman inform employees of this
requirement and make clear that contacting the ombudsman?s office does not
satisfy this requirement.

Another lesson that officials at the three agencies reported they learned is
that it takes time to develop respect and credibility. One Secret Service
official said that the frequent turnover of ombudsmen (there have been six
ombudsmen since the agency?s program was established in 1987) detracts from
the ombudsman?s ability to establish his credibility. However, other
officials said that the short tenure of ombudsmen at the Secret Service
helps to provide fresh perspectives and guard against ?burnout.?

Officials said it was also important to publicize the services of the ombuds
office. Each of the offices we studied had brochures and took other steps to
bring their services to the attention of their agency?s workforce. For
example, the NIH ombudsman office made numerous briefings to groups within
NIH and later developed a Web site. The IBB ombudsman wrote a column in the
agency?s bimonthly newsletter. At the Secret Service, the ombudsman made
presentations at training sessions and management meetings and distributed a
poster featuring the names, pictures, and contact numbers for the entire
ombuds corps.

A final lesson that officials at each of the three agencies reported was the
importance of the diversity of the ombuds staff. Ombudsmen said that it is
important for some employees that there be an ombuds with whom they can
identify. For example, the IBB ombudsman said that some employees tended to
seek the assistance of his female assistant ombuds.

The federal ombuds community has several forums it can turn to for sharing
information about best practices and lessons learned. Outside the federal
government, there are professional groups, such as The Ombudsman
Association, which have developed and published standards of practice for
ombudsmen and also provide forums for information sharing. Within the
federal community, the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen and the Interagency
ADR Working Group provide venues for Forums Exist for

Sharing Best Practices and Lessons Learned

Page 25 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

information sharing and training. 27 The ombudsmen from the three offices
selected for case illustration are actively involved in these
informationsharing networks. Some federal ADR experts expect the number of
federal ombudsman offices to grow and, at the same time, they are concerned
that there are dispute resolution practitioners or activities describing
themselves as ombuds or ombuds offices but that do not generally conform to
the standards of practice for ombudsmen, particularly with regard to
independence and neutrality. Consequently, the Coalition and the ADR Working
Group can play an important role in disseminating information on guidelines
for ombudsmen.

A frequently mentioned resource for information sharing outside the federal
government is The Ombudsman Association. The three ombudsmen in our study
said that they are members of The Ombudsman Association, a professional
association for practicing ombudsmen that provides a forum for sharing
professional experiences and knowledge. The Ombudsman Association, as noted
earlier, established a Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice for
ombudsmen. The association is also a source of continuing professional
education. Other professional organizations similar to The Ombudsman
Association include the U. S. Ombudsman Association and the University and
College Ombuds Association. 28

For federal ombuds, the primary vehicle for sharing information is the
Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen. The Coalition is an informal working group
that was formed by federal ombuds to provide a means for information sharing
and coordination. The Coalition?s membership, which included the three
offices we studied, is made up of workplace and external ombuds as well as
other dispute resolution practitioners

27 OPM?s Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Resource Guide is another source
of information for the federal dispute resolution community. The guide,
available on OPM?s Web site, provides descriptions of various ADR
techniques, summaries of workplace ADR programs and program contacts,
sources of ADR training, and an annotated bibliography. Information in the
guide is limited, however, to those agencies that responded to OPM?s
invitation to submit information about their ADR programs for the guide.

28 The chairman of the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen is past president of
The Ombudsman Association and the University and College Ombuds Association.
Another member of the Coalition, who also serves on the Interagency ADR
Working Group Steering Committee, is past president of the University and
College Ombuds Association and is a member of The Ombudsman Association
Board of Directors. She also served on the ABA?s Ombudsman Steering
Committee. Another coalition member, besides serving on the Interagency ADR
Working Group Steering Committee, was a member of the ABA?s Ombudsman
Steering Committee.

Page 26 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

interested in ombuds operations and practices. The members, most of whom are
located in the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area, meet bimonthly. Meeting
topics have included discussions on steps agencies take in establishing an
ombuds office; the relationship between ombuds and unions under the Federal
Service Labor- Management Relations Statute; how to handle sensitive
situations, such as harassment; and training opportunities for ombudsmen.
During our study, the Coalition was developing a charter, which, the
chairman said, would help ensure that ombuds offices conform to standards of
practice for ombudsmen. He also said that the Coalition was considering
developing guidance that would follow the standards of practice put out by
outside professional organizations. He said that such guidance is needed
because he believes that the term ombudsman is being used loosely among the
Coalition?s membership. Other experts also told us that there are dispute
resolution practitioners or activities that call themselves ombuds but who,
in their opinion, do not generally conform to the standards of practice for
ombudsmen. They said that some ombuds may lack independence because they do
not have a reporting relationship to the agency head. They also pointed to
an ombudsman position at one agency that is called

?employee advocate? that, in their view, was in conflict with the core
principle of neutrality.

Another vehicle for sharing information is the Interagency ADR Working
Group. The Working Group?s Steering Committee, whose membership includes the
chairman and other members of the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen, serves as
the central forum for the advancement of ADR in the federal government by
coordinating multiagency ADR initiatives, promoting best practices for
federal ADR, conducting discourse and disseminating information regarding
federal policy on ADR, and providing recommendations for policy guidance.
The ADR Working Group, which is chaired by the U. S. Attorney General, has
no regulatory power, and its role is to issue policy guidance on issues in
dispute resolution that have a governmentwide impact. At the time of our
study, the Steering Committee had undertaken a governmentwide survey to
determine, among other things, the number of offices that call themselves
ombuds, whether they deal with external or workplace issues, to whom they
report, and their organizational location. Members of the Steering Committee
said that this survey may lead to guidance on standards of practice,
suggesting opportunities for expanding the number of ombuds offices, and
disseminating information about best practices for establishing an ombuds
office.

Page 27 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

Federal ADR experts said that providing guidance and information resources
within the federal government is important because they believe that more
ombudsman offices will be established in the future. This will occur for
several reasons, they said. One reason agencies may consider establishing an
ombuds office is to meet the requirements of laws and regulations calling
for the availability of ADR. Another reason is that agencies may recognize
that many complaints brought into the EEO complaint system do not really
stem from unlawful discrimination issues. Still another reason is that there
are gaps in coverage by grievance and redress processes at agencies, which
become more evident when agencies adopt ?zero tolerance? policies about
behaviors and situations not covered under existing processes. Similarly,
the experts believe that agencies will see an ombudsman as an essential
component of an integrated conflict management system, providing an informal
and confidential resource to employees and management alike. 29

Modern human capital policies and practices offer the federal government a
means to improve its economy, efficiency, and effectiveness to better serve
the American people. Ombudsman offices can offer a useful option for
agencies to consider in developing their overall human capital management
policies and practices. In line with this tenet, federal agencies are using
ADR processes in response to legal and regulatory requirements as well as to
deal pragmatically with workplace conflict, particularly allegations of
discrimination. The three federal agencies we studied established ombuds
offices because other agency processes were not effectively dealing with
conflict and because agency personnel had no place to turn to for assistance
in some situations. Informality and flexibility characterized the approach
of the ombudsmen to dispute resolution, and they worked with other offices
to bring coherency to the agency?s dispute resolution strategy. Ombudsmen
were also in the position of being able to alert management to systemic
problems and thereby help correct organizationwide situations or develop
strategies for preventing conflict.

We believe that it is important that ombudsmen, like those in other
professions, conform to professional standards of practice. In the absence

29 As a resource, experts pointed to Guidelines For The Design Of Integrated
Conflict Management Systems Within Organizations prepared by the ADR in the
Workplace Committee of the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution
(SPIDR). Conclusions

Page 28 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

of clearly defined and transparent federal standards specific to ombudsmen,
the three ombuds offices we studied followed procedures that they said
allowed them to conform to standards of practice that are advocated by
professional organizations and built around the core principles of
independence, neutrality, and confidentiality. However, experts are
concerned that the standards of practice for ombudsmen are not consistently
followed among those within the federal dispute resolution community who
call themselves ombuds; specifically, they say that some practitioners may
lack the independence and neutrality expected of an ombudsman.
Accountability, in addition to being a cornerstone of performance management
principles embodied in GPRA, is another recommended standard that we believe
is important for ombudsman offices to follow. Although the three offices we
studied as case illustrations are not representative of the entire federal
ombuds community, we found it noteworthy that only one of the studied
offices kept statistics on the number of cases handled, issues presented,
and outcomes or prepared an annual report summarizing activities and
accomplishments. Moreover, each of the three offices fell short in
evaluating results. In this regard, we believe that the Interagency ADR
Working Group?s draft guidance on evaluating ADR programs is necessary and
timely. In addition, with experts expecting more ombuds offices to be
established in the future, the Working Group?s study of federal ombudsmen it
is undertaking is all the more important because it may lead to guidance on
standards of practice and dissemination of information on best practices. It
is our experience that the value of such guidance that the Working Group may
develop would be enhanced if it is clearly defined and transparent and
includes information on how the guidance can be consistently applied.

As the Interagency ADR Working Group moves forward with its study of federal
ombudsmen, we recommend that the Attorney General, as chairman of the
Working Group, see that any resulting guidance on professional standards of
practice that the Working Group develops be clearly defined and transparent
and, in addition to including the core principles of independence,
neutrality, and confidentiality, include standards for accountability and
contains information about how this new guidance can be consistently applied
within the federal ombuds community.

Because there is no single agency responsible for ADR policy development and
oversight, we obtained comments on a draft of our report from a panel
Recommendation to

the Attorney General Comments of Experts

Page 29 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

of federal experts recognized within the ADR community for their knowledge
of the ombudsman field. Overall, they were in agreement with our
presentation. We considered comments they offered of a technical or
clarifying nature and made changes as appropriate in finalizing this report.
In addition, one of the experts pointed out the importance unions play in
agency efforts to establish an ombuds program. She said that in some cases
there have been union concerns about an ombuds office encroaching on the
institutional rights of unions under the Federal Service Labor- Management
Relations Statute, while in other cases unions and ombuds offices have
worked collaboratively to resolve these kinds of concerns. We agree that
agencies and ombuds need to be mindful of statutory requirements, especially
in light of the fact that 60 percent of federal workers belong to bargaining
units represented by unions. In this regard, we added a discussion about
guidance issued by the General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority. Also, two members of the panel provided comments with regard to
evaluating ombuds programs. They said that this task is made difficult
because some ombuds results are intangible and therefore difficult to
assess. One of the experts said that the ombuds community needs to address
how outcomes could be assessed. This is a matter that we believe the
Interagency ADR Working Group could take up in its study of federal ombuds.

We received comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney General in
his capacity as chairman of the Interagency ADR Working Group. In his
letter, the Attorney General said that the Department of Justice had no
substantive comments on our report, and that, as chairman of the Working
Group, he will ensure that the group?s ongoing study of federal ombudsmen
will include guidance as we have recommended.

As agreed with your office, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after its issuance, unless you publicly release its contents
earlier. We will then send copies of this report to Senators Thad Cochran,
Joseph I. Lieberman, and Fred Thompson; and Representatives Dan Burton,
Danny K. Davis, Joe Scarborough, and Henry A. Waxman in their capacities as
Chair or Ranking Members of Senate and House Committees and Subcommittees.
We are also sending copies to The Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney General;
The Honorable Ida L. Castro, Chairwoman, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission; The Honorable Steven R. Cohen, Acting Director, Office of
Personnel Management; The Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director,
Office of Management and Budget; and Comments from the

Attorney General

Page 30 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

other interested parties. We will make copies of this report available to
others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me or Assistant Director Stephen Altman on (202) 512- 6806. Other
major contributors to this report were Anthony P. Lofaro and Katherine
Brentzel.

Sincerely yours, Carlotta C. Joyner Director, Strategic Issues

Appendix I: Ombudsman- Related Internet Resources

Page 31 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

The following is a list of selected ombudsman- related resources that can be
found on the Internet. 1 These sites also have links to other sites
providing information on ombuds and alternative dispute resolution.

The Ombudsman Association http:// www. ombuds- toa. org/ index. html

The Ombudsman Association Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice http://
www. ombuds- toa. org/ toa_ code& std. html

The United States Ombudsman Association http:// www. usombudsman. org/

The United States Ombudsman Association Model Ombudsman Act for State
Governments http:// www. usombudsman. org/ References/ modelombudact. htm

The University and College Ombuds Association http:// www. colorado. edu/
Ombuds/ UCOA/

The University and College Ombuds Association Standards of Practice http://
www. colorado. edu/ Ombuds/ UCOA/ SOP. html

Administrative Conference of the U. S. Recommendation for Ombudsmen in the
Federal Government http:// www. law. fsu. edu/ library/ admin/ acus/ 305902.
html

American Bar Association, Ombudsman Committee Homepage http:// www. abanet.
org/ adminlaw/ ombuds/ home. html

The Interagency ADR Working Group, Workplace Section http:// www.
financenet. gov/ financenet/ fed/ iadrwg/ workplace. htm

Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution Guidelines for the Design of
Integrated Conflict Management Systems Within Organizations http:// www.
spidr. org/ article/ icmsD. html

1 The Web addresses were valid at the time of our study. Appendix I:
Ombudsman- Related Internet

Resources

Appendix I: Ombudsman- Related Internet Resources

Page 32 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

Office of Personnel Management?s Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Resource
Guide http:// www. opm. gov/ er/ adrguide/ toc. htm

NIH Office of the Ombudsman, Center for Cooperative Resolution http:// www4.
od. nih. gov/ ccr/

Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (e- mail contact) gadlinh@ od. nih. gov

Appendix II: Federal Workplace Ombudsman Offices as of January 16, 2001

Page 33 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

Federal Workplace Ombudsman Offices

1. Department of Agriculture/ Food and Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) a 2.
Department of Energy (DOE) 3. DOE/ Bonneville Power Authority 4. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS)/ Public Health Service (PHS) - National
Institutes of Health (NIH) 5. HHS/ PHS/ NIH/ National Library of Medicine/
Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research 6. HHS/ PHS/ Centers for Disease
Control/ National Center for Health Statistics 7. Department of Justice
(DOJ) 8. DOJ/ Bureau of Prisons 9. DOJ/ Federal Bureau of Investigation 10.
Department of Labor 11. Department of the Navy/ Bethesda Naval Hospital 12.
Department of State 13. International Broadcasting Bureau 14. Department of
Treasury/ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 15. Department of
Treasury/ Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 16. Department of
Treasury/ Secret Service 17. Department of Veterans Affairs/ Office of
Resolution Management 18. Department of Veterans Affairs/ Inspector General
19. Central Intelligence Agency 20. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
21. Smithsonian Institute 22. U. S. Capitol Police a FSIS is setting up its
office; the ombudsman position has yet to be filled.

Appendix II: Federal Workplace Ombudsman Offices as of January 16, 2001

Appendix III: GAO?s Panel of Federal Experts Recognized for Their Knowledge
of the Ombudsman Field

Page 34 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

Howard Gadlin, Ombudsman and Director of the Center for Cooperative
Resolution, National Institutes of Health; member, Steering Committee,
Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group; Chairman,
Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen; past president of The Ombudsman Association
and the University and College Ombuds Association.

Carole Houk, ADR Counsel, Department of the Navy; member, Coalition of
Federal Ombudsmen; member, Steering Committee, Interagency Alternative
Dispute Resolution Working Group; member, ADR in the Workplace Committee,
Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution.

D. Leah Meltzer, Deputy Dispute Resolution Specialist, U. S. Securities and
Exchange Commission; member, Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen; member,
Steering Committee, Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working
Group; member, Ombudsman Steering Committee, American Bar Association.

Jeffrey M. Senger, Deputy Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute Resolution,
U. S. Department of Justice.

Peter R. Steenland, Jr., Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute Resolution,
U. S. Department of Justice.

Ella Phillips Wheaton, Ombudsperson, U. S. Department of Justice; member,
Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen; past president of the University and College
Ombuds Association; member, Board of Directors, The Ombudsman Association;
member, Ombudsman Steering Committee, American Bar Association. Appendix
III: GAO?s Panel of Federal Experts

Recognized for Their Knowledge of the Ombudsman Field

Appendix IV: Case Illustration: Ombudman?s Office, International
Broadcasting Bureau

Page 35 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

The International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), headquartered in Washington, D.
C., broadcasts nonmilitary international programming to various countries
around the world. IBB is composed of the Voice of America, Worldnet
Television and Film Service, Radio and TV Marti, and other elements that
support IBB?s broadcasting entities. 1 The Bureau employs a multinational
workforce to produce its foreign language programming; approximately one-
third of the Bureau?s 1,880 employees were not born in the United States. 2
The IBB?s Ombudsman Office was created in May 1988 to provide a neutral,
informal, and confidential alternative dispute resolution resource to all
employees, about 80 percent of whom belong to collective bargaining units
represented by unions.

The impetus for creating the IBB ombudsman?s office came from the Voice of
America director, at the time, in response to employee discontent over
formal grievance and redress processes at the agency. The office, which has
grown from one part- time ombuds to two full- time staff- the ombudsman and
an assistant ombuds- does not replace or circumvent formal grievance
complaint or appeal processes at the agency. The ombudsmen receive a variety
of cases, ranging from employee questions about promotions and work hours to
disputes between peers and perceived discrimination cases. A particular
focus of the ombudsman?s office is to respond to the issues and concerns of
IBB?s large foreign- born population, such as cultural misunderstandings and
questions about visa procedures. In addition to conflict resolution, the
ombudsman acts as a

?troubleshooter? or ?trend alerter.? He publishes Ombudsman Advisory Papers
for IBB management on an ad- hoc basis to report what he sees as systemic
problems or recurring conflicts. He also writes a column called

?Advice from the Ombudsman? in the bimonthly employee newsletter,

?Tune In.? The office publicizes its services through these columns, a
program brochure, and through word- of- mouth referrals.

The ombudsman?s office, which is organizationally placed within the IBB?s
director?s office, has no formal budget of its own. A management budget is
tapped for the ombudsmen?s travel or office administrative costs. The
ombudsman is a General Schedule (GS) grade 15. The former VOA

1 IBB reports to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an independent federal
agency. 2 The IBB Personnel Office reported that as of December 2000, IBB
had 1,880 employees, including 607 who were not born in the United States.
Of the foreign- born staff, 452 were naturalized U. S. citizens, 155 were
not. Appendix IV: Case Illustration: Ombudman?s

Office, International Broadcasting Bureau Origins and Operating
Characteristics

Appendix IV: Case Illustration: Ombudman?s Office, International
Broadcasting Bureau

Page 36 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

director selected the first IBB ombudsman from within the agency for his
past experience as Director of Administration and for his reputation as a
knowledgeable and impartial manager. There is no term limit for the
position; the first ombudsman remained in the job from the start of the
office in May 1988 until December 2000. His successor was also selected from
within IBB, with the belief that knowledge of the organization is important
to perform the ombudsman duties. When the ombudsman?s office was first
established, the position of ombudsman was part time because the workload
was initially small. After about a year, the position became full time. An
assistant ombuds (a GS- 13) was added in 1997. A female former broadcaster
was chosen for the post because she brought both gender and occupational
diversity. The ombudsman said that some employees feel more comfortable
talking to a female ombuds. Both ombudsmen?s performance is rated on their
ability to assist employees informally and confidentially and to communicate
systemic problems to management.

The ombudsman?s office works in tandem with other offices at IBB that handle
employee matters, such as the Advisory Referral and Counseling Service
(ARCS), the Office of Personnel, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), as well
as employee unions. The ombudsman reported that he interacts on a regular
basis with the ARCS and Personnel offices to share information and to make
and receive client referrals. The Director of Civil Rights said that in
addition to arranging meetings as case needs dictate, she and the ombudsman
are members of an EEO Advisory Committee that meets monthly to address
organizationwide issues.

Because 80 percent of IBB?s workforce belong to collective bargaining units,
3 the ombudsman interacts frequently with union officials. In dealing with
the unions, the ombudsman?s office brochure states that the office respects
the representational rights of the unions and the provisions of their labor
agreements. The ombudsman said that he does not encroach on issues within
their domain without consent from the client and union. The ombuds told us
that he believes in keeping union officials informed at all times when an
employee approaches the ombuds with a case in which the union should be
involved, he will notify the union, with employee consent.

3 The three unions at IBB are the American Federation of Government
Employees Local 1812, the American Foreign Service Association, and the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 1418.

Appendix IV: Case Illustration: Ombudman?s Office, International
Broadcasting Bureau

Page 37 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

Although IBB has three unions, the ombudsman said that he interacts
primarily with the largest of them- the American Federation of Government
Employees, which covers approximately 60 percent of IBB?s workforce,
including most of the foreign- born employees. That union?s vice- president
reported that she and the ombuds meet about once a week to discuss employee
disputes, with union officials usually initiating the contact. In fact,
union officials stated that they themselves have utilized the ombudsman to
act as a facilitator for union- management disputes.

The IBB ombudsman said that his office adheres to the fundamental ombudsman
principles of independence, neutrality, and confidentiality. The Ombudsman?s
Office program brochure states that the office is a member of the U. S.
Ombudsman Association and the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen and that it
?subscribes to the code of ethics and rules of professional conduct for
membership in those organizations.? The ombudsman said that his office
maintains its independence because he has no managerial or operational line
authority. He reports directly and only to the IBB director?s office.
Moreover, as an example of how he avoids any conflicts of interest, the
ombudsman told us that he does not accept invitations to socialize with IBB
management. According to the program brochure, the ombudsman?s neutrality is
supported by the fact that he does not function as an advocate or
representative of either management or employees; rather, the ombudsman
facilitates communication between all parties. The brochure states that all
interactions between the ombudsman and employees are confidential except in
the case of physical threat to the IBB, its employees, or to U. S. national
security. To help ensure this confidentiality, the ombudsman?s office is
located on a different floor from the IBB director?s office so it will not
be obvious who is meeting with the ombudsman. Employees can also reach the
ombudsmen through two private telephone lines that are either answered
personally by one of the ombuds or by a confidential and private answering
machine, according to the program brochure. The ombudsman said that he and
the assistant ombudsman keep informal, confidential case notes. The
ombudsman said that he retains his notes until he is certain that the case
is closed and that the employee will not be a repeat client; then the notes
are destroyed.

In 1999, the ombuds estimated that he and the assistant ombuds had together
handled approximately 150 to 175 cases. The ombudsman did not include in
this count the numerous telephone calls and policy questions they routinely
answer. Of the 150 to 175 cases, he said that they Approach to

Independence, Neutrality, and Confidentiality

Evaluation and Outcomes

Appendix IV: Case Illustration: Ombudman?s Office, International
Broadcasting Bureau

Page 38 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

successfully resolved 60 to 70 percent. He considered a case successful if

?all parties in the case achieved at least some degree of satisfaction or
partial accommodation regarding the outcome.? He reported that the cases
varied widely in the length of resolution time- from 1 day to several
months. The ombudsman?s office does not prepare formal reports of its
activities.

IBB has not formally evaluated the ombudsman program. However, officials
perceive that cases that are resolved successfully by the ombudsmen lessen
the burden of other dispute resolution bodies at IBB. The ombudsman reported
to the director of OCR that in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000,
there were 25 potential EEO- related cases that were handled and resolved by
the ombudsmen. The OCR Director told us that she believes that 25 cases is
an understatement. She thinks the number could be as high as 75. The
Director of Personnel said that he could not say whether the ombudsman had
lessened Personnel?s caseload. However, he said that the ombudsman has
?definitely helped some cases from becoming administrative grievances.? The
ombudsman also helped the Director?s Office save time. The former Senior
Advisor to the IBB Director, with whom the ombudsman interacted every couple
of weeks, reported that the ombuds was able to give her background
information on disputes and provide her with early warnings about upcoming
problems.

Union officials said that they and the ombudsman had resolved ?many

cases? together before they became formal EEO cases or administrative
grievances. Although the officials expressed concern that the ombudsman?s
neutrality might be compromised by his reporting relationship to the IBB
director, they both stated that the ombudsman had done an excellent job.

The only oversight mechanism over the ombudsman?s office is the IBB
director?s office. IBB had not formally evaluated the ombudsman?s office,
other than the performance evaluations of the two ombuds, which are
conducted by the director?s office. No IBB officials had estimated cost
savings as a result of the ombudsmen, although with a staff of two handling
a high volume of cases, the former Senior Advisor to the Director contended
that the ombudsman?s office ?must be cost- effective.?

In citing lessons that they had learned about establishing and operating an
ombudsman?s office, IBB officials were unanimous in stating that the
ombudsman must be someone who is credible to both management and employees.
The Director of Personnel and union officials said that the Lessons Learned

Appendix IV: Case Illustration: Ombudman?s Office, International
Broadcasting Bureau

Page 39 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

personal skills and abilities of the ombudsman are crucial to the success of
the office. ?It?s not the office, it?s the person in the office that makes
it what it is,? said union officials. The ombudsman himself concurred,
stating that a respected senior employee should fill the position. The
Director of OCR stressed the importance of communication between offices
responsible for conflict management.

The ombudsman said that management should never establish an ombudsman
program without the support of unions and employee groups. Initially, the
relationship between the ombudsman and the three unions at IBB was volatile
because management had established the position without seeking union buy-
in. According to the ombudsman, the unions feared that management had
created a tool to take power away from them. The ombudsman said he worked
very hard to establish his credibility and demonstrate that he would work
with the unions to solve disputes and not work against them.

Appendix V: Case Illustration: The Office of The Ombudsman, Center For
Cooperative Resolution, National Institutes of Health

Page 40 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), one of the eight health agencies of
the U. S. Public Health Service, within the U. S. Department of Health and
Human Services, is the federal focal point for medical research in the
United States. NIH is comprised of 26 Institutes and Offices, and is
primarily located in Bethesda, MD. In addition to 17,000 federal employees,
the NIH workforce includes more than 3, 000 post- doctoral students engaged
in medical research. NIH?s Office of the Ombudsman, Center for Cooperative
Resolution, which began as a pilot program in 1997 to serve five institutes,
became permanent in 1999 and now serves the entire NIH community. 1
According to its mission statement, the Office of the Ombudsman, Center for
Cooperative Resolution, is committed to providing expert, neutral,
confidential, and independent assistance in resolving workplace disputes and
improving conflict management at NIH.

The directors of the Offices of Human Resource Management and Equal
Opportunity provided the initial impetus for an ombudsman when they
recognized the ineffectiveness of the traditional administrative dispute
resolution processes, including that many nondiscrimination cases were
burdening the equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint system. The
Office of Intramural Research later became a partner in this initiative,
believing that an ombudsman might offer a better way to deal with disputes
arising from NIH?s scientific research, such as disputes over credit for
authorship and intellectual property rights.

By fiscal year 2000, the Office of the Ombudsman had become the focal point
for conflict management at NIH, with a budget of $800, 000. As of December
2000, the office had five full time staff. 2 The office is authorized to
work with all members of the NIH community to resolve problems and its
responsibilities include developing and coordinating conflict management
initiatives. As part of NIH?s integrated conflict management system, the
ombudsman office is to complement, but not replace, the agency?s formal
dispute resolution processes. The office has publicized its services through
a Web site; brochures; presentations before special

1 Employees belonging to a bargaining unit represented by a union are not
eligible to participate in the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program
until the union has been informed of the ADR program and provided an
opportunity to negotiate any negotiable issues. Contractors working at NIH
are excluded and referred to their employers, except when a dispute involves
NIH staff.

2 The Office of the Ombudsman is considering establishing a collateral duty
ombudsman at one NIH institute site with about 800 employees in Raleigh, NC.
Appendix V: Case Illustration: The Office of

The Ombudsman, Center For Cooperative Resolution, National Institutes of
Health

Origins and Operating Characteristics

Appendix V: Case Illustration: The Office of The Ombudsman, Center For
Cooperative Resolution, National Institutes of Health

Page 41 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

interest, professional, and other groups; as well as through articles
appearing in the NIH Record.

The five- person ombudsman office staff consists of the ombudsman, three
associate ombudsmen, and a support person. The ombudsman said that he
considers the staff to be ?reasonably? diverse in its makeup. The ombudsman,
who was recruited following a nationwide search, is a senior level employee
operating under a 5- year renewable contract. The associate ombudsmen are
mid- level- General Schedule (GS) grade 14- permanent federal employees
hired from within and outside NIH. The ombudsman?s office has developed
performance elements and standards for the associate ombudsmen. The elements
and standards include responsibilities to act as a neutral in resolving
disputes and to develop appropriate conflict resolution programs or
initiatives.

Staff of the ombudsman office work in conflict intervention, conflict
prevention, and internal education on ways to manage individual and group
conflict. Most of their time- about 65 percent- is spent addressing
individual and multiparty and group conflicts and concerns using a wide
variety of dispute resolution techniques. Staff routinely coordinate with
other offices dealing with workplace disputes and in making and receiving
referrals. In particular, the Office of the Ombudsman serves as the on- site
provider of alternative dispute resolution services to the Office of Equal
Employment Opportunity in EEO matters. The ombudsman?s office is also
involved with training, conflict prevention, and dispute systems design
initiatives. Among these initiatives was the Executive Seminar Series for
institute and scientific directors and other senior executives on a variety
of conflict resolution topics. In addition, the office will administer and
conduct training to develop a pool of collateral duty mediators to mediate
EEO cases. The ombudsman?s office will be administering and training
facilitators and panelists for a peer resolution panel pilot to have
grievances heard and decided by a panel of employee peers. Further, the
office is developing a model for ?partnering agreements? to establish
dispute resolution protocols at the beginning of scientific collaborations.

The brochure for the Office of the Ombudsman states that the office operates
under the code of ethics and standards of practice of The Ombudsman
Association and, accordingly, adheres to the core values of independence,
neutrality, and confidentiality. The ombudsman?s office said that it
conforms to the independence standard because (1) it is an organizational
unit within the NIH director?s office, with the ombudsman reporting directly
to NIH?s acting director; (2) the ombudsman is not part Approach to

Independence, Neutrality, and Confidentiality

Appendix V: Case Illustration: The Office of The Ombudsman, Center For
Cooperative Resolution, National Institutes of Health

Page 42 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

of the management team, does not participate in setting policy or making
managerial decisions, except in the case of ADR, and has no other assigned
duties other than ombudsman; and (3) the ombudsman?s office has its own
budget financed through the NIH Management Fund. The office said that it
practices neutrality by serving as a facilitator to resolution and not as
the person who will make the final judgment. The office said that it
supports its commitment to confidentiality by not maintaining official
records of visitors? names, affiliations, or grievances. The ombudsman staff
will not identify or pass on a client?s confidences without permission. The
ombudsman said that any informal notes are destroyed. To track its
activities and outcomes, the office maintains statistical information on the
number of complaints handled, processes used, and types of resolutions
achieved.

For accountability purposes, the Office of the Ombudsman prepares annual
reports of its activities and accomplishments, including the number of
cases, issues involved, outcomes, and processing time. According to the
first annual report covering 1999, the office handled 328 cases, many with
multiple issues. The office categorized 32 percent of the issues as work
environment (e. g., relationship with coworkers, safety), 27 percent as
management (e. g., leadership behavior and judgment), and 15 percent as
personnel (e. g., promotion, job classification). Other issues were
categorized as discrimination/ harassment (7 percent), research- related
disputes (6 percent), ethics (4 percent), discipline (4 percent), benefits
(3 percent), and policy (2 percent). The annual report showed that the
Office of the Ombudsman achieved full or partial resolution in 65 percent of
the 328 cases handled in 1999. In addition, 12 percent of the cases were
referred to formal processes (e. g., the Equal Opportunity Office). The
ombudsman also reported that despite the office?s intervention, 4.5 percent
of the cases were not resolved. Further, the ombudsman found that not all
those who sought assistance wanted the office to intervene on their behalf,
as was true in 14 percent of the cases. In providing assistance, the annual
report states that ombudsman staff used coaching (54 percent of the cases)
and facilitation (23 percent of the cases) as the primary modes of
intervention. 3 However, the ombudsman said that most cases involved
multiple forms of intervention. The ombudsman reported that the office
closed about 40 percent of the cases within 2 weeks and 60 percent

3 Coaching involves working with individuals to develop options and devise
strategies to address their issues directly. Facilitation is a less formal
intervention than mediation. Evaluation and

Outcomes

Appendix V: Case Illustration: The Office of The Ombudsman, Center For
Cooperative Resolution, National Institutes of Health

Page 43 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

within 6 weeks. Cases that took longer than 6 weeks to close involved
multiple parties or numerous complex or contentious interpersonal
relationship issues, according to the annual report.

NIH has not evaluated the Office of the Ombudsman. An earlier attempt to
measure user satisfaction and effect of the processes used on consumers
during the pilot was abandoned because of low response rates to
questionnaires. The office is working with an expert to develop measures of
ombudsman effectiveness. To help determine perceptions of the ombudsman
function and its effectiveness, the plan for future evaluation calls for
assessing complaints processed using ombudsman services compared with those
processed by standard EEO complaint counseling, with feedback to be obtained
from complainants and respondents.

Although there has been no evaluation of the ombudsman office, NIH officials
were unanimous in their views that the office had helped to both resolve and
prevent disputes. For example, NIH?s principal deputy director said that ?In
many instances the ombudsman?s intervention in a scientific dispute saved an
important scientific project from near- certain dissolution? Many of these
projects represent an investment of hundreds of thousand or even millions of
dollars.? Two offices that handle workplace disputes- the Office of
Intramural Research and the Office of Equal Opportunity- saw a drop in their
caseloads since the ombudsman office was established. Officials in those
offices said that they believed that at least some of the decrease was a
result of the ombudsman office. For example, the Office of Intramural
Research reported that during a 43month period before the ombudsman office
was established, it received an average of 2.8 cases a month. During an 18-
month period after the ombudsman office became permanent, the average
declined to 1.9 cases per month, with fewer mentoring, authorship, or
property issue disputes. Data from the Office of Equal Opportunity showed
that the number of counseling contacts declined from 178 in fiscal year 1997
to 104 in fiscal year 1999, when the ombudsman office began to serve all of
NIH. Similarly, the number of formal EEO complaints declined from 94 to 72
during the same period.

NIH officials identified several lessons they learned. Chief among these is
that there must be top- level support for the program, with NIH leadership
promoting the program while respecting its autonomy. Also important was the
planning process that involved collaboration of different constituencies and
piloting the idea, which convinced people that the ombudsman?s office could
be effective and created buy- in for its Lessons Learned

Appendix V: Case Illustration: The Office of The Ombudsman, Center For
Cooperative Resolution, National Institutes of Health

Page 44 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

expansion. The officials also learned that it is important that the staff of
the ombudsman?s office be trained, experienced professionals in order to
command respect from top administrators and scientists. Similarly, the
ombudsman office staff needs to be diverse in order to respond to the needs
of a diverse workforce. Officials also learned the importance of early,
informal intervention to address potentially difficult conflicts in early
stages before they become intractable and working relationships irreparably
harmed. Officials also learned that while the program needs to be marketed
to the workforce, they found that the ?build it and they will come?
principle held true; that is, build a credible process and employees will
take advantage of it in more than expected numbers. One final lesson that
the officials learned is the importance of top administrators understanding
that it does not reflect adversely on them if they ask the ombudsman for
assistance.

For further information, visit the Office of the Ombudsman, Center for
Cooperative Resolution, Web site at http:// www4. od. nih. gov/ ccr.

Appendix VI: Case Illustration: The Ombudsman Program, U. S. Secret Service

Page 45 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

The U. S. Secret Service, a Department of Treasury bureau, is a federal law
enforcement agency responsible for (1) protecting the President, Vice
President, and other U. S. and foreign dignitaries and (2) conducting
criminal investigations into counterfeiting, financial institution fraud,
and other fraud. The agency?s 5,600 employees, including 2,800 special
agents and more than 1, 000 uniformed division officers, are located in its
Washington, D. C. headquarters and in over 125 offices throughout the U. S.
and abroad. The Secret Service piloted its ombudsman program in 1987 for
uniformed division officers. In 1989, the Director opened the program to all
Secret Service employees- special agents, uniformed officers, and support
staff.

Secret Service top management established the ombudsman?s office because of
the large number of equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints and
grievances in the uniformed division. On study, the agency determined that
many of the complaints were not EEO problems but instances of distrust
between management and the officers. The Secret Service found that the EEO
complaint process was sometimes used for non- EEO issues because employees
did not have a place to take these issues.

The ombudsman?s office serves all Secret Service employees. The program is
publicized through a program brochure, a poster with photographs and contact
information for all the ombudsmen, and information sessions the ombudsman
holds during new employee and supervisor training and management meetings.
The program?s brochure states that the ombudsman assists employees with
work- related questions and disputes and that he provides ?unfiltered
feedback to management by reporting issues and trends- without discussing
names.? The ombudsman?s services are not intended to replace or circumvent
formal grievance procedures.

The ombudsman?s office is organizationally within the Secret Service?s
Office of Human Resources and Training and draws its budgetary resources
from that office. Until 2000, however, the ombudsman position had been a
special assistant to the director of the Secret Service. Following an
efficiency review, the ombudsman?s office, along with the employee
assistance program (EAP) and EEO offices, was placed within the human
resources and training office in an effort to bring human capital- related
activities under one roof.

The ombudsman?s office has one full- time ombudsman in Washington, D. C. and
nine collateral- duty ombuds who work at headquarters or in field Appendix
VI: Case Illustration: The

Ombudsman Program, U. S. Secret Service Origins and Operating
Characteristics

Appendix VI: Case Illustration: The Ombudsman Program, U. S. Secret Service

Page 46 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

offices. The current ombudsman- a General Schedule (GS) grade 15- is the
sixth to hold that position since the program began in 1987. All have been
male special agents, typically serving in the position as a final
assignment. Applicants for the position bid on the job as part of their
rotational process, and the appointment is renewable yearly. According to
the Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Government Liaison and Public
Affairs, who represented the Secret Service director?s office, the director
selects a respected senior agent who has had a variety of assignments and
who understands the agency?s structure, processes, and culture. 1 This
official said that special agents are selected as ombudsmen because most of
the issues the ombudsman handles come from law- enforcement staff. The nine
collateral- duty ombudsmen bring gender, racial, and occupational diversity
to the program staff. Currently, there are special agent, uniformed
division, and support staff performing collateral- duty ombuds work. Clients
can choose which ombuds they would like to contact. The ombudsman said that
candidates for the collateral- duty positions bid on the job and are
selected for their seniority, the respect they receive from their coworkers,
and their work experience. Once selected, there is no term limit. In
addition, the ombudsman said that he is a member of The Ombudsman
Association and the Coalition of Federal Ombudsman and that all ombuds staff
have attended training provided by The Ombudsman Association.

The ombudsman said that collateral- duty staff spends approximately 10 to 30
percent of their workweek on ombuds duties. One collateral ombuds with whom
we spoke concurred, stating that she spends, on average, 4 hours a week on
ombuds tasks. She said that she has weekly telephone contact with the
ombudsman to report basic case statistics and to inform him of any cases
with which she is having difficulty. Furthermore, she said that, in the
past, the ombudsman and the collateral staff have met annually to discuss
cases they handled, as well as to receive notice of upcoming training and
seminars. The ombudsman often brings a representative from The Ombudsman
Association with him.

The ombudsman program is part of the total conflict management strategy at
Secret Service, and the ombudsman works together with the EAP and EEO
offices to share information and cross- refer cases. Similarly, a
collateral- duty ombuds said that collateral- duty staff make and receive

1 A position description for the ombudsman was not available; the ombudsman
told us that the agency is currently developing a ?functional statement of
responsibility.?

Appendix VI: Case Illustration: The Ombudsman Program, U. S. Secret Service

Page 47 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

referrals to the EAP and EEO offices. The EEO specialist said that his
office refers cases to the ombudsman?s office, which satisfies requirements
under the EEO complaint process regulations to make ADR services available.
He said that approximately half of all initial EEO contacts are referred to
the ombudsman.

The Secret Service ombudsman said that his office operates under the Code of
Ethics and Standards of Practice of The Ombudsman Association, thus adhering
to the basic ombudsman tenets of independence, neutrality, and
confidentiality. Although the ombudsman?s program is now housed in the
Office of Human Resources and Training, the ombudsman said that his
independence would not be compromised. The ombudsman said that while he
nominally reports to the assistant director for human resources and
training, he would continue to meet with the Secret Service Director and
Deputy Director on an as- needed basis. The Deputy Assistant Director of
Public Affairs said that the ombudsman continues to have complete and
unfettered access to the Director?s office. Similarly, the ombudsman said
his neutrality is still intact. The ombudsman said that he is not an
advocate for either management or employees- he said that he remains neutral
and promotes improved communication between parties and shared solutions.

A former ombudsman told us that ?confidentiality is the crux of the
ombudsman program? and that employees need to be 100 percent certain that
their interaction with the ombuds is confidential. The program brochure
states that ?Confidentiality is the rule. No formal written records are
kept. Ombudsmen take no action without permission unless criminal behavior
is involved, or a life has been threatened.? In an effort to provide
confidentiality, the ombudsman?s office is windowless and located on a
different floor from the Director?s office. A former ombudsman reported that
he also accepted client calls at his home telephone number after work hours.

The collateral- duty ombudsmen maintain the same standards of practice as
the ombudsman. One collateral ombuds said that she did not have a problem
maintaining her independence, neutrality, or confidentiality and that no one
had ever challenged her ability to do so.

The ombudsman said that his office keeps no formal records, which is
consistent with the program?s brochure and with the Secret Service?s
Administrative Procedures Manual. He informally tracks his cases for
statistical purposes, and in the future, he plans to create a computer
Approach to

Independence, Neutrality, and Confidentiality

Evaluation and Outcomes

Appendix VI: Case Illustration: The Ombudsman Program, U. S. Secret Service

Page 48 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

database to record the number and nature of cases. The ombudsman, who took
office in August 2000, said that during his first 2 months as ombudsman, he
worked on 48 cases, 3 or 4 of which had ?EEO

overtones.? 2 Other cases typically involved disagreements over management
styles and questions about promotions and job rotations. The collateral-
duty ombuds said that she usually handles 2 to 3 cases a month for a total
of about 30 cases a year. Both the ombudsman and the collateral- duty ombuds
reported that the program works well and that they have been able to detect
systemic problems at the agency and encourage management to make
comprehensive changes. The ombudsman considers himself to be the frontline
of dispute resolution and hopes to resolve 70 to 80 percent of his cases so
that they do not reach the EAP, EEO, or Inspections 3 offices. The current
ombudsman?s predecessor said that he believed the program saved the Secret
Service money, especially because of the ombudsman?s ability to deflect or
diffuse conflicts before they escalated.

The Secret Service has not formally evaluated its ombudsman program, but the
Deputy Assistant Director for Public Affairs stated that the perception in
the Director?s Office is that the program is ?very effective? and that it
helps improve employee morale. He said that this perception was reinforced
during a recent efficiency review. Although he could not make an estimate of
cost savings, he thinks the program saves the agency money by resolving
issues early, before they become formal EEO cases or administrative
grievances.

The EAP Coordinator said that he recognized some positive results stemming
from the ombudsman program but that these results are difficult to measure.
He said that the ombudsmen?s services might have lightened EAP?s caseload.

In citing lessons that the Secret Service has learned about the
establishment and operation of an ombudsman program, officials voiced
different opinions. A former ombudsman and the Deputy Assistant

2 This total is in line with an estimate provided to us in 1996 by a former
Secret Service ombudsman. He said that he handled about 300 cases per year
(i. e., 25 cases per month), resolving about 70 percent of them.

3 The Inspections Office handles any internal complaints or criminal
violations by any Secret Service employee. Lessons Learned

Appendix VI: Case Illustration: The Ombudsman Program, U. S. Secret Service

Page 49 GAO- 01- 466 The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution

Director for Public Affairs agreed that the ombudsman must be a credible,
trusted, and respected senior employee who knows the agency and its
policies. The Deputy Assistant Director stressed the value of the gender,
racial, and occupational diversity that the collateral- duty ombuds bring to
the program, as well as the additional insight they offer from being
stationed in the field.

There were differing views on the value of continuity in the ombudsman
position. The EAP Coordinator said that the frequent turnover of ombudsmen
detracts from the ombudsman?s ability to establish personal credibility and
a reputation for effective dispute resolution. He said that

?As soon as he [the ombudsman] knows the job, he leaves.? The Deputy
Assistant Director for Public Affairs and the ombudsman did not concur. They
said that the length of terms served helps provide fresh perspectives for
the program and helps avoid ombudsman burnout.

(410600)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:

Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

Contact one:

 Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

 E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov

 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***