UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Coalition of Federal Ombudsman Endorsement and Practice Commentary for 

Administrative Conference of the United States Recommendation 2016-5, 

“The Use of Ombuds in Federal Agencies”

On December 14, 2016, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), a federal 

agency dedicated to improving federal administrative process, adopted Recommendation 2016-5, 

“The Use of Ombuds in Federal Agencies”. ACUS urged those agencies that already have 

ombuds or are contemplating creating ombuds offices to align their office standards and 

practices with those included in Recommendation 2016-5. The Coalition of Federal 

Ombudsman (COFO) strongly supports this recommendation. 

As COFO is the principal interagency forum providing collaboration, advice, and guidance on 

federal ombuds standards, skills development, program development, and effectiveness, this 

document elaborates on a subset of the 16 approved recommendations within ACUS

Recommendation 2016-5. It focuses on providing additional clarity and specific examples for 

the practical application of the three core standards (independence, confidentiality, and

impartiality) and the three common characteristics (informality, a commitment to fairness, 

and credible process) of an ombuds function within the federal sector. 

Background

COFO is comprised of both external ombuds mainly interfacing with the public and their 

respective agencies, and internal organizational ombuds, largely assisting internal inquirers. 

When COFO held its first meeting in July 1996, there were 11 members. In 2016, the ACUS 

research team identified over 150 unique federal ombuds programs. Given the significant 

transformative impact ombuds programs have on federal agencies, combined with new 

government-sponsored research within our community of practice, we anticipate additional

growth in the number of new federal ombuds programs in the upcoming years.

ACUS Recommendation 2016-5 notes “the far broader array of federal ombuds that have been 

established”1since their previous recommendation on ombuds in 1990 and, citing the “more 

polarized ... milieu in which government operates”2, “urge[s] Congress and the President to 

create, fund, and otherwise support ombuds offices across the government consistent with [this] 

recommendation”.

3 ACUS also urged agencies that already have ombuds or are contemplating 

creating ombuds offices to align their office standards and practices with those included in the

recommendation and that “[e]xisting offices with the ombuds title that do not adhere to the

standards should consider modifying their title, where permitted, to avoid any confusion”.

4

Recommendation 2016-5 is consistent with established standards of ombuds practice as 

articulated by the two broad-based professional ombuds associations in the United States – the 

International Ombudsman Association (IOA)5and the United States Ombudsman Association 

 

1 Retrieved from https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202016-5.pdf, page 1

2 ACUS, page 2

3 ACUS, page 3

4 ACUS, page 6

5 Retrieved from 

https://www.ombudsassociation.org/IOA_Main/media/SiteFiles/IOA_Standards_of_Practice_Oct09.pdf
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

(USOA)6– as well as the American Bar Association’s (ABA) 2004 “Standards for the 

Establishment and Operation of Ombuds Offices”7and the standards cited in the Government 

Accountability Office’s (GAO) 2001 report GAO-01-466, "The Role of the Ombudsmen in 

Dispute Resolution".

8

COFO therefore expresses its strong support for ACUS Recommendation 2016-5 and, 

recognizing that its elements must be applied in practice, issues this document to provide further 

guidance, detail, and clarity for the establishment and support of ombuds programs in federal

agencies.

Three Core Standards of Practice and Three Common Characteristics

Citing the IOA, USOA, and ABA, ACUS Recommendation 2016-5 delineates three core 

standards of ombuds practice – independence, confidentiality, and impartiality. Additionally, 

ACUS also cites three characteristics common to all ombuds: informality (including not making 

decisions binding on an agency), a commitment to fairness, and a credible process for resolving 

issues.

9

 

Following each core standard and common characteristic as defined in ACUS Recommendation 

2016-5 is additional guidance from COFO on its practical application in the federal workplace. 

Independence (ACUS language in italics)

a. To promote the effectiveness and independence of ombuds offices, agencies should 

consider structuring ombuds offices so that they are perceived to have the necessary 

independence and are separate from other units of the agency. To ensure adequate 

support from agency leadership, ombuds offices should report to an agency official at the 

highest level of senior leadership. Ombuds offices should not have duties within the 

agency that might create a conflict with their responsibilities as a neutral, and their 

budgets should be publicly disclosed.

b. The agency should ensure that the ombuds has direct access to the agency head and to 

other senior agency officials, as appropriate. Whether by statute, regulation, or charter, 

ombuds should expressly be given access to agency information and records pertinent to 

the ombuds’ responsibilities as permitted by law.

c. Ombuds and the agencies in which they are located should clearly articulate in all

communications about the ombuds that the ombuds office is independent and specifically 

not a conduit for notice to the agency.

 

6 Retrieved from http://www.usombudsman.org/site-usoa/wp-content/uploads/USOA-STANDARDS1.pdf

7 Retrieved from http://apps.americanbar.org/webupload/commupload/AL322500/newsletterpubs/115.pdf

8 Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/231398.pdf

9 ACUS, page 4
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

d. Federal ombuds should not be subject to retaliation, up to and including removal from 

the ombuds office, based on their looking into and assisting with the resolution of any 

issues within the ombuds’ area of jurisdiction.10

Programmatic independence ensures that the ombuds has no conflict of interest. The ombuds

should not report to the agency’s business offices, so it is unlikely that he/she will be influenced 

by the statements or actions of the senior managers of those offices. Thus, it would not be 

appropriate for an ombuds who is called upon to provide options for the resolution of 

employment related matters to report to the agency’s head of human resources, administration, 

equal opportunity, civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, counsel, or inspector general, nor should 

an ombuds assisting in the resolution of the concerns of external stakeholders report to any of the 

operating units or be within any of the business lines/program offices of an agency.11 

In all circumstances, federal ombuds should report to the highest person possible, such as the 

departmental secretary or agency director/administrator. The ombuds should have unfettered and 

direct access to all officials, including the agency head, and interacts at all levels without regard 

to the chain of command. 

The federal ombuds should: 

 Have access to all agency records, people, and information needed to perform duties12

 Have sole discretion to pursue any issue within his/her purview13

 Be protected from retaliation and made free from real and perceived interference from 

performing his/her duties. In assessing whether an ombuds is independent in structure, 

function, and appearance, the following factors are important: whether anyone who may 

be affected by actions of the ombuds office (a) can control or limit the ombuds’

performance of assigned duties, or (b) can eliminate the office, remove the ombuds, or 

reduce the budget or resources of the office for retaliatory purposes.14

 Be free from other positions or duties that compromise independence15

 Be independent from control, limitation, or penalty by a person who may be the subject 

of a complaint or inquiry.16

 Have access to legal counsel which is free of conflicts of interest.

17

 

10 ACUS, pages 7-8

11 These lists are not exhaustive. Ombuds should not report to an operating unit or business line of an agency.

12 ACUS, pages 7-8

13 IOA, page 1; USOA, pages 4 & 10; ABA, page 2

14 ACUS, pages 7-8

15 ACUS, page 7

16 IOA, page 1; USOA, pages 2 & 4; ABA, page 3

17 ACUS, page 10. “To protect the independence and confidentiality of federal ombuds, agencies should ensure, 

consistent with available resources, that ombuds have access to legal counsel for matters within the purview of the 

ombuds, whether provided within the agency with appropriate safeguards for confidentiality, by direct hiring of 

attorneys by the ombuds office, or under an arrangement enabling the sharing across agencies of counsel for this 

purpose. Such counsel should be free of conflicts of interest”
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Confidentiality (ACUS language in italics)

a. Consistent with the generally accepted interpretation of ADRA § 574, as applied to 

alternative dispute resolution offices, agencies should understand and support that the 

Act’s requirements for confidentiality attach to communications that occur at intake and 

continue until the issue has been resolved or is otherwise no longer being handled by the 

ombuds, whether or not the constituent ever engages in mediation facilitated by the 

ombuds office. Restrictions on disclosure of such communications, however, should not 

cease with issue resolution or other indicia of closure within the ombuds office.

b. Agencies (or other authorizers) should articulate the scope and limits of the

confidentiality offered by ombuds offices in their enabling documents (whether statute, 

regulation, charter or other memoranda), as well as on the agency website, in brochures, 

and in any other descriptions or public communications about the office utilized by the 

office or the agency. 

c. Agency leadership and management should not ask for information falling within the 

scope of confidentiality offered by the ombuds office.

d. If information is requested from an ombuds during discovery in litigation, or in the 

context of an internal administrative proceeding in connection with a grievance or 

complaint, then the ombuds should seek to protect confidentiality to the fullest extent 

possible under the provisions of ADRA § 574, unless otherwise provided by law. 

Agencies should vigorously defend the confidentiality offered by ombuds offices.18

Confidentiality is central to ombuds practice, allowing the ombuds to create a safe space to raise 

issues and concerns without fear of reprisal or retribution. Therefore, without express permission 

of the inquirer and at the discretion of the ombuds, the federal ombuds shall not disclose, inside 

or outside the agency, any inquirer names or information provided in confidence except to 

address a threat of imminent physical harm or as otherwise required by law.19 The ombuds

maintains information (e.g., notes, phone messages, appointment calendars) in a physically 

secure location and manner20, protected from inspection by others, including management, and 

has a consistent, standard practice for the destruction of such information. Practitioners should 

also establish a records schedule approved by the National Archives and Records Administration 

consistent with these standards.21

COFO concurs with Recommendation 2016-5 that ombuds discussion and inquiries constitute 

dispute resolution proceedings as defined in the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 

(ADRA) and that ombuds themselves are neutrals as defined by ADRA. ACUS states that “the 

1996 addition of the words ‘use of ombuds’ to the definition of ‘means of alternative dispute 

 

18 ACUS, pages 8-9

19 As with Freedom of Information Act requests or information 

20 ACUS, page 11, “To reinforce confidentiality and the perception of independence, to the fullest extent possible 

and consistent with agency resources, the agency should ensure that the physical ombuds office and telephonic and 

online communications systems and documentation enable discreet meetings and conversations”

21 ACUS, page 11, “Federal ombuds offices should work with agency records officials to ensure appropriate 

confidentiality protections for the records created in the course of the office’s work and to ensure that ombuds 

records are included in appropriate records schedules”
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

resolution’ in ADRA clarifies that, when the ombuds office is assisting in the resolution of issues 

that are raised to it under its mandate, it is covered by the Act’s provisions.”22 Therefore, 

COFO’s position is that the ombuds should not voluntarily disclose or be required to disclose 

through discovery or compulsory process any oral or written communications prepared for an 

ombuds inquiry except as provided for by ADRA.

Impartiality (ACUS language in italics)

Ombuds should conduct inquiries and investigations in an impartial manner, free from 

conflicts of interest. After impartial review, ombuds may appropriately advocate with regard 

to process. An ombuds established with advocacy responsibilities may also advocate for 

specific outcomes.23

The federal ombuds is a designated neutral who is free from bias, conflicts of interest, and 

conflicts of position. They do not advocate for the positions or preferred outcomes of employees, 

management, external stakeholders, or their agency. Rather, they build collaborative 

relationships with all these parties to facilitate dialogue about fair policies and practices and help 

identify resolution options as a neutral. The ombuds should have no personal interest or stake in, 

and incur no gain or loss from, the outcome of an issue. They remain objective in the conduct of 

business. They should be physically located outside of senior and administrative structures to 

ensure, and preserve the perception of, neutrality and independence. The ombuds neither serves 

in additional roles nor performs collateral responsibilities within the agency since that would 

compromise the ombuds’ impartiality. 

Three Common Characteristics (ACUS language in italics)

Informality

(1) Ombuds do not make decisions binding on the agency or provide formal rights-based

processes for redress24

The federal ombuds should not have structural alignment or functional responsibility with any 

formal investigative, adjudicative, managerial, or oversight element. It is imperative to create 

structures and responsibilities that do not create actual or perceived conflicts of interest for the 

ombuds. The ombuds does not speak on behalf of or receive notice on behalf of the agency. 

Similarly, the ombuds does not put the agency on notice. 

Ombuds use a flexible approach with regard to concerns brought to their offices. Options are 

tailored to individual circumstances. Multiple alternative dispute resolution techniques are 

utilized. 

The ombuds does not serve as a voting member on a search committee for agency hires (other 

than for ombuds staff); handle appeals of management actions; keep case records on behalf of 

the agency; or make, change, enforce or set aside a law, policy, rule or management decision.

 

22 ACUS, page 4

23 ACUS, page 9

24 ACUS, page 4
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Ombuds supplement, but do not replace, the agency’s existing formal channels. Use of ombuds 

offices is voluntary, and is not a required step in any grievance process or agency policy. It does 

not replace, supplant, or take the place of or otherwise delay timeframes or deadlines associated 

with formal complaint handling programs or included in law, regulation, or agency policy.

Fairness

(2) They have a commitment to fairness25

The federal ombuds advocates for process and procedural fairness in a dispute or conflict rather 

than any particular position. Furthermore, the ombuds should advocate for wider-scale systemic 

fairness both throughout their agency and as the public engages with the agency.

Ombuds, as an informal resource, facilitate resolution of concerns and look into procedural 

irregularities and/or broader systemic problems when appropriate. They identify trends, issues 

and concerns about policies and procedures (including potential future issues and concerns) and 

provide options for responsibly addressing them.

Credible Process

(3) They provide credible processes for receiving, reviewing, and assisting in the resolution 

of issues26

Agencies should not interfere with the conduct of ombuds inquiries nor ask for information 

falling within the scope of ombuds confidentiality. Federal agencies should provide ombuds 

access to those individuals and information it may reasonably need to address an individual’s 

concern

Federal ombuds offices should be led by personnel with sufficient stature, including an 

appropriately high positional grade and professional experience, to assist and advise on issues 

and concerns at the highest levels of an agency.27 Additionally, ombuds offices should strive to 

achieve a diversity of skills and backgrounds in order to credibly handle all matters presented to 

them.28 Agencies should provide training to ombuds with regard to standards and practice, 

whether offered by one of the ombuds professional organizations or working groups, or from 

within the government.29.

Federal agencies should ensure that employees seeking assistance from the office will be free 

from retaliation or reprisal for requesting or using the services of an ombuds office and should, 

where applicable, codify this in the ombuds office’s establishing documents. Furthermore, 

“federal ombuds should not be subject to retaliation, up to and including removal from the 

ombuds office, based on their looking into and assisting with the resolution of any issues within 

the ombuds’ area of jurisdiction”.30

 

25 ACUS, page 4

26 ACUS, page 4

27 ACUS, page 9

28 ACUS, page 9

29 ACUS, page 10

30 ACUS, page 8
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For additional information about the use of ombuds in federal agencies or to find contact 

information for COFO members or the COFO executive committee, please see the COFO 

website at http://federalombuds.ed.gov/federalombuds/index.html..