A variety of offices at the federal level respond to complaints, grievances, and concerns from the public about government programs, services, and operations. These entities, which differ in important respects, are variously referred to as complaint-handling, advocacy, public counsel, coordinative, and ombudsman offices. Despite their differences, they exhibit a common purpose—to represent the public in such matters—which is reflected in the classic ombudsman: that is, a high-ranking official who may be situated outside the executive and possessing independent resources and powers. This notion, which has developed over more than a century, has its modern genesis in Sweden and its evolution largely in European parliamentary regimes. An "ombudsman," which is a Swedish word that broadly means "one who represents someone," is viewed as a servant of the public. As such, the position has been described as follows: an independent high-level officer who receives complaints, who pursues inquires [sic] into the maters [sic] involved, and who makes recommendations for suitable action. He may also investigate on his own motion. He makes periodic public reports. His remedial weapons are persuasion, criticism and publicity. He cannot as a matter of law reverse administrative action. In brief, the concept of ombudsman has come to mean, in the words of former Senator Edward Long, "a guardian of the people's rights against abuses and malfunctions by government, its programs, and its officials—a sort of watchman over the law's watchmen." The U.S. federal government has not adopted the "classic" ombudsman. Instead, the government has multifarious forms of ombudsmen-like offices. Even the entities that carry the same title (of "ombudsman," for example) differ in their powers, functions, duties, activities, jurisdictions, independence, and resources. In comparison to one another, for instance, some offices are limited to receiving complaints or grievances from the public and passing them on to relevant units within the agency—without necessarily following up on them. Other complaint-handling entities do follow up on such charges, examine the agency's operations, and, in some cases, mediate or resolve disputes between the aggrieved party and the agency. Still other entities may be proactive; that is, they seek out certain clientele groups to notify them about relevant government services, assist them in gaining access to these, and ensure that such services are delivered properly and fully. Separate from these functions and duties, some ombudsman-like offices issue reports (periodic and/or episodic) to agency officials, Congress, and/or the public, while others have no such obligation or practice. Several recent statutes reflect these different characteristics, as well as varying position titles. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which expanded the government's powers to combat terrorism, established a new entity or added to the responsibilities and roles of existing ones to help protect civil rights and civil liberties. Three with enhanced responsibilities are in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): a Privacy Officer and an Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, along with additional special duties for the inspector general (IG). In addition, a new position—the Civil Liberties Protection Officer—was created in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), to help protect civil liberties and privacy in policies and procedures under the ODNI. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 incorporated a number of separate bills, including the Wounded Warrior Act. The legislation is designed to aid returning wounded military personnel in receiving appropriate medical care, when they are in the service (and in the Department of Defense), as well as after they are discharged (and under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs). The provisions—based on the recommendations of several governmental commissions (notably, the Dole-Shalala Commission) and congressional panels that were highly critical of the care given to injured veterans —established Federal Recovery Coordinators and Transition Patient Advocates to assist them. These positions are intended to reduce, if not prevent, complications, uncertainties, and delays from arising in the first place and, if they do arise, mitigate their impact. If such problems arise, the coordinators and advocates are positioned to respond on their own or at the behest of the veterans. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) amendments signed into law on December 31, 2007, created several new positions to assist the public in gaining access to government information. Public Liaisons in each federal agency are to be designated by a Chief FOIA Officer, who is also responsible for monitoring FOIA implementation and facilitating public understanding of the purposes of FOIA's exemptions. The purposes of the Public Liaisons are to serve as an official to whom a FOIA requester can raise concerns about service from the FOIA Requester Center; to assist in reducing agency delays in responding to requests and increase the transparency and understanding of the status of requests; and to assist in the resolution of disputes between a requester and the agency. The law also required the creation of an Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) in the National Archives and Records Administration; it is to review executive-branch agency compliance with FOIA policies, recommend FOIA policy changes to Congress and the President, offer mediation services between FOIA requesters and administrative agencies, and issue advisory opinions if mediation has not resolved a dispute. The American National Red Cross Governance Modernization Act of 2007 established an ombudsman in the American National Red Cross (ANRC). Although it is not a federal agency, the ANRC is federally chartered and charged with assisting federal government efforts in disaster relief. The ombudsman's office, while modest at this stage, serves as a neutral party that provides voluntary, confidential, and informal processes designed to facilitate the resolution of problems between the ANRC and others. Illustrating the ad hoc and specialized focus of ombudsmen-like offices at the federal level is one advanced in the 111 th Congress by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It has proposed an Ombudsman for Intelligence Community (IC) Security Clearances, who would be appointed by the Director of National Intelligence. Applicants for a security clearance in any component in the IC would be given contact information for the ombudsman, who would report annually to the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence with regard to the number of persons contacting the ombudsman and a summary of their concerns, complaints, and questions. Attempts to establish a government-wide ombudsman at the federal level or to standardize ombudsman-like offices have received attention—from Congress, the executive, international organizations, academia, relevant professional societies, and the press—sporadically since at least the mid-1960s. These across-the-board plans, however, have remained on the drawing board. By comparison, national-level offices of ombudsman have proliferated in Sweden and elsewhere. Finland established such an office nearly 100 years ago. In the 1960s, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Spain, Tanzania, Great Britain, and Northern Ireland established ombudsmen. In the 1970s, France, Portugal, and Austria established such offices. Countries including South Africa, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Columbia, the Republic of Georgia, and Zimbabwe have established national or sub-national offices of ombudsman in the last 20 years to curb human rights abuses and aid in democratic transitions. According to the International Ombudsman Institute, about 120 countries currently employ ombudsmen at the national or sub-national level of government. The European Union appointed its first European Ombudsman on July 12, 1995. Some of the ombudsmen in other countries serve at the national level and have broader jurisdictions and a greater degree of independence—especially those in parliamentary regimes—than their American namesakes. This overview is not a comprehensive study of various complaint-handling, ombudsman, or advocacy offices. Instead, it examines and provides examples of ombudsman-like offices, recognizing their variations. Differences among these instrumentalities include those noted below. Origins: Was the office created internally within an agency, or mandated by Congress or the President? Powers and duties: Does the entity simply receive complaints and pass them along, or does it also follow up on complaints after an agency response; does it resolve disputes between the agency and the complainant, or does it engage in proactive efforts, such as providing outreach and special assistance to individuals? Jurisdictions: Is there one complaint-handling entity for an entire agency, or several entities with separate jurisdictions; if the latter, how confined are these? Locations: Is the ombudsman-like office situated within a "parent" agency or made independent of it? Resources: What is the level of funding and resources that the entity receives? Controls: Who appoints and removes the officer, and who determines the office's budget and spending priorities? These criteria are not discrete. The characteristics overlap and are utilized in a variety of combinations in federal agencies and organizations, offering a gamut of ways and means for the public to petition the government. The variations among the attributes also suggest important differences in the capacity and capability of each office. Interest in institutionalizing a centralized or standardized complaint-handling role in the federal government began in the mid-1960s. Although no proposals along these lines have been adopted, a number of studies and recommendations have emerged over the years. These have come from Members of Congress, executive and administrative officers, and nongovernmental organizations. Over the past five decades, Congress has periodically looked into legislating complaint-handling mechanisms with intense interest in the 1960s and sporadic attention in the following decades. Legislative proposals for complaint-handling mechanisms began in 1963.