International Ombudsman Association 2019 Practice and Compensation Report

(Data collected Spring 2020)

1

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Demographics 4

Cases and Issues 12

Policies and Standards 17

Services and Accomplishments 18

Compensation 22

2

Introduction

Purpose of Survey The IOA Practice Survey provides an important snapshot of the contemporary field of organizational ombuds based on responses from members of the International Ombudsman Association (IOA) who were practitioners for the full year of 2019. Those who were not in an ombudsman role for the entire reference period (January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019) had the opportunity to make note of that within the survey and were excluded.

The Practice Report provides general demographic information about the ombuds who participated in the study and information about the ways in which ombuds practice and function. The survey data, over time, will allow us to position ourselves as a profession as effectively as possible. The survey data also permit us to offer individual support to our members and those organizations interested in creating an ombudsman office.

In this report, you will see data that reflect the responses of participants in the order in which the items were presented on the survey. With respect to response rate and the reporting of data in this report, please note that to protect the anonymity of participants, most data are reported in the aggregate. We would advise the reader to interpret this survey report with appropriate care. If you have specific questions about data that seem to be omitted from this report, the survey team will do its best to clarify while being careful to protect individual participants and convey only that which can be appropriately generalized. The team’s contact information is listed at the end of the Introduction.

Methodology As in previous years, we invited and included members and associate members of IOA who were practicing ombuds as of December 31, 2019 to participate in the survey. Previous survey results and IOA member feedback were considered at length in the development of this survey.

In Spring 2020, email notices were sent to IOA members and associate members with a read-only copy of the survey, instructions for completing the survey, and the link to the online survey. In total, 235 members of IOA participated meaningfully in the survey. You may notice that, since this report reflects the order of the actual survey items, the total number of respondents gradually decreases reflecting survey attrition. The survey team will adjust the length of future surveys to reduce the incidents of survey abandonment.

Response Rate The invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 780 eligible IOA members; therefore, the 235 survey respondents represent 30% of the eligible survey population. This is a significant increase in participation from previous years, and the survey team wishes to extend its sincere appreciation to those who contributed.

Reporting actual numbers/percentages or best estimates. Because no single universal method for tracking ombuds case information exists, participants were asked to either provide actual numbers and percentages or to provide their best estimate.

3

Key Terms and Definitions

Ombudsman/Ombuds/Ombudsperson: Consistent with IOA practice, the term ombudsman is used to communicate to the widest possible community and is not intended to discourage others from using alternatives. IOA respectfully acknowledges that many practitioners use alternative forms of this word. In the survey, we are using the terms ombuds and ombudsman interchangeably.

Constituency: Those people who reasonably might contact the ombudsman office in a given year; those the OO is expected to serve on a regular basis.

Contact: An interaction with a constituent that does not require action by the ombudsman. For instance, we did not ask about the number of phone calls made or emails sent to schedule an appointment, or when an ombudsman is simply asked to provide referral information.

Visitor: An individual who first contacts the ombudsman office. In some practices, a visitor might be called an inquirer or first contact. For our purposes, the visitor could be a single individual or a group of individuals contacting the ombuds together or individually, but knowingly as part of a group, with the same issue or issues.

Other party/parties: The individual (or individuals) with whom the visitor has a concern or issue, or with whom the visitor is in conflict. We are not using the term “responder” (a term which some ombuds use for people they call for information or advice in working with a visitor).

Case: A case occurs when a new visitor or group, or a previous visitor or group, presents a new problem or issue to the ombudsman that results in a discussion where the ombudsman helps to develop, discuss, and offer options. A case may or may not require multiple appointments with the visitor and/or other parties. We asked about caseload in this survey.

2020 Survey Team:

Tim Hedeen, Kennesaw University – tkhedeen@kennesaw.edu Mary Rowe, Massachusetts Institute of Technology – jmprf@comcast.net Jennifer Schneider, University of South Florida – jaschnei@usf.edu

4

Demographics

How long have you served as an ombuds within your current organization? [N=235]

0 to 3 years 55.3%

4 to 6 years 16.6%

7 to 10 years 17.0%

11 or more 11.1%

How long have you worked at your organization, as ombuds or otherwise? [N=235]

0 to 3 years 36.6%

4 to 6 years 11.9%

7 to 10 years 18.7%

11 or more years 32.8%

How many years total have you worked as an ombuds anywhere, including at your present and any prior organizations? [N=235]

0 to 3 years 39.6%

4 to 6 years 19.1%

7 to 10 years 21.7%

11 or more years 19.6%

How is your position configured? [N=235]

Full-time as ombuds 74.5%

Half-time as ombuds 9.4%

Collateral duty as ombuds (on-call, as needed) 4.3%

Less than half-time as ombuds 11.9%

How would you describe your employment arrangement? [N=235]

Employed by a single organization as an ombuds 92.3%

Self-employed as a consultant or contract ombuds 4.7%

Other (please specify) 2.6%

5

What is the highest level of education you have completed? [N=235]

High school (or equivalent) 1.3%

Associates degree 0.4%

Bachelors degree 3.0%

Bachelors degree with some graduate work 3.8%

Masters degree 48.1%

Law degree 22.6%

Medical degree 1.7%

Doctoral degree 18.7%

Other (please specify) 0.4%

Ombudsman Role, Mandate, Structures, Budget My ombudsman position is best described as: [N=234]

A solo practitioner 43.2%

One of several co-equal ombuds 14.1%

An assistant or associate ombuds, reporting to a senior or managing ombuds

15.8%

One of several ombuds but with formally-recognized seniority (i.e., senior ombuds, non-management)

7.7%

A managing or co-managing ombuds, with other ombuds reporting to me

15.4%

Other (please describe) 3.8%

Is there a formal written job description, Charter, or Terms of Reference for your ombuds office? [N=233]

Yes 92.2%

No 7.8%

6

To whom do you report in your organization (check all that apply) [N=234]

My organization's Board/Chairperson of Board or Board Committee (or equivalent) 10.7%

My organization's CEO/COO/Secretary General (or equivalent) 14.5%

My organization's President/Chancellor (i.e., academic CEO) 26.5%

My organization's Vice President/Provost (i.e., academic COO) 26.9%

A more senior or managing ombuds 17.1%

The head of my local sector/subsidiary/region (who is not a senior or managing ombuds)

1.3%

Other (please describe) 8.1%

A compliance office or officer (e.g., ethics, general counsel, or human resources) 5.6%

In your ombuds role, does anyone report to you? [N=234]

Yes 31.2%

No 68.8%

Did you receive a formal performance review in 2019? [N=234]

Yes 61.5%

No 38.5%

My 2019 performance review(s) as an organizational ombuds was/were conducted by: (check all that apply) [N=141]

My organization's Board/Chairperson of Board or Board Committee (or equivalent) 2.8%

My organization's CEO/COO/Secretary General (or equivalent) 12.1%

My organization's President/Chancellor (i.e., academic CEO) 20.6%

My organization's Vice President/Provost (i.e., academic COO) 27.0%

A more senior or managing ombudsman 28.4%

The head of my local sector/subsidiary/region/other major unit (who was not a senior or managing ombudsman)

5.7%

Other 17.7%

7

My performance review is based on: (check all that apply) [N=142]

Completion of stated goals and objectives 75.4%

Metrics 19.7%

Employee surveys 6.3%

360 degree evaluation 7.0%

Cost effectiveness or other analysis of costs and benefits 4.9%

Standard review given to all employees of the organization 59.2%

I don't know how I was evaluated 1.4%

Other (please describe) 9.2%

In your role as an ombuds, did you conduct a structured self-assessment in 2019? [N=233]

Yes, as part of my formal performance review 41.2%

Yes, for my own awareness and/or development 19.3%

No, I did not conduct a structured self-assessment 39.5%

Does your office prepare an annual report? [N=233]

Yes, available only to select individuals or bodies 43.8%

Yes, distributed broadly or publicly 43.3%

No 12.9%

Employment Sector

In which sector does your organization best fit? [N=234]

Academic (Higher Education, college/university) 63.7%

ADR 0.4%

Consulting firm 0.4%

Corporate 6.0%

Education (i.e., K-12 schools or administration; schools for children or youth) 3.4%

Government 14.1%

Healthcare 1.7%

International/multinational civil service 3.0%

International/multinational organization (non civil service) 3.0%

Nonprofit 0.4%

Other, please specify 1.7%

Quasi-government 1.3%

Self-employed consultant or contract ombudsman 0.9%

8

Academic Sector: Please indicate the best descriptor of your institution. [N=149]

Public college or university 95 63.8%

Private college or university (not faith-based) 23 15.4%

Research university with many schools and major labs 15 10.1%

Faith-based private college or university 4 2.7%

Professional school within a college/university (i.e., dedicated to a medical or law school)

2 1.3%

For profit college or university 2 1.3%

Other, please describe 8 5.4%

Academic Sector: Please indicate the internal constituencies with whom you are expected to work. (check all that apply) [N=149]

None 1 0.7%

Undergraduate students 82 55.0%

Graduate students 95 63.8%

Professional students (e.g., medical, dental, law) 64 43.0%

Staff 122 81.9%

Academic administrators 112 75.2%

Postdocs/Fellows 76 51.0%

Researchers (nonteaching) 83 55.7%

Faculty/lecturers/instructors 124 83.2%

Contract employees 73 49.0%

Trainees 61 40.9%

9

Academic Sector: Please indicate the external constituencies with whom you are expected to work. (check all that apply) [N=146]

None 72 49.3%

Alumni 63 43.2%

Parents 63 43.2%

Community members 49 33.6%

Volunteers 26 17.8%

Vendors 23 15.8%

Donors 22 15.1%

Landlords 8 5.5%

Government agencies 19 13.0%

Customers or other recipients of services 19 13.0%

Granting agencies 12 8.2%

Patients 7 4.8%

Corporate Sector: Which of the following industry(ies) best describe your institution or organization? (check all that apply) [N=19]

Oil and Gas 4 30.8%

Health Care (non-pharmaceutical) 1 7.7%

Aerospace 1 7.7%

Manufacturing 4 30.8%

Pharmaceutical 5 38.5%

Fast moving consumer goods 3 23.1%

R&D/Laboratory 1 7.7%

Corporate Sector: Please indicate the internal constituencies with whom you are expected to work. (check all that apply) [N=14]

An entire company/institution/agency/organization 10 71.4%

A large sector/subsidiary/region of the whole company/institution/agency/organization

3 21.4%

A department or group within the whole organization/company/institution/agency/organization

1 7.1%

10

Government Sector: Which of the following industry (ies) best describe your institution or organization? (check all that apply) [N=18]

Government 17 94.4%

Aerospace 2 11.1%

Other 2 11.1%

Health Care (non-pharmaceutical) 1 5.6%

Legal 1 5.6%

Non-Academic Sectors: Please indicate the internal constituencies with whom you are expected to work. (check all that apply) [N=18]

I did not work with internal constituents 1 5.6%

An entire company/institution/agency/organization 14 77.8%

A large sector/subsidiary/region of the whole company/institution/agency/organization

3 16.7%

Union members or representatives 3 16.7%

Other 3 16.7%

A department or group within the whole organization/company/institution/agency/org

2 11.1%

Constituency, Caseload and Geographics How many individuals comprise your ombuds constituency (that is, have access to your services)? [N=210]

Min 50

Mean 57,076

Median 15,000

Max 3,000,000

How many cases did your ombuds office (all ombuds) handle in 2019? [N=206]

Min 5

Mean 505

Median 282

Max 5,046

11

How many cases did you (as an individual ombuds) handle in 2019? [N=197]

Min 6

Mean 215

Median 150

Max 2,414

How many systemic reviews did your ombuds office handle in 2019? [N=179]

Min 0

Mean 20

Median 3

Max 600

Where was your primary office located as of December 31, 2019? [N=222]

NE U.S. 59

Western U.S. 43 SE U.S. 34

North/North Central U.S. 30

SW U.S. 16

Western Europe 11

NW U.S. 10

Canada 6

South Central U.S. 5

Australia/New Zealand 2

Asia 2

Africa 2

South East Europe 1

South America 1

12

Cases and Issues The types of cases you handled in 2019 include: (please check all that apply) [N=206]

Peer 92.2%

Evaluative 90.8%

Compensation 90.3%

Values 85.4%

Career 84.0%

Service 80.1%

Safety 71.4%

Legal 69.9%

Strategic 61.7%

Compared to previous years, in 2019 did you see more, fewer, or about the same number of cases related to: [N=192]

Fewer Same More

Multigenerational 3.9% 70.1% 26%

More than three issues in a case 7% 60.6% 32.4%

Complex gender issues 6.7% 48.1% 45.2%

Multi-ethnic or multi-language/race issues 5% 50.7% 44.3%

Religious issues 20.2% 60.6% 19.2%

Cross organization or multi-unit issues 4.9% 52.1% 43.1%

Issues involving conflicting rules 6.4% 58.9% 34.8%

Compared to previous years, in 2019 did you see more, fewer, or about the same number of cases brought by: [N=192]

Fewer Same More

Internal constituents concerned about internal parties/issues

3.6% 57.7% 38.7%

Groups as visitors 11.8% 44.1% 44.1%

Groups as other party/parties to a visitor's conflict or concern

8.2% 65.6% 26.2%

Bystanders or third parties 10.4% 62.4% 27.2%

Internal constituents concerned about external parties

13.5% 64.4% 22.1%

Anonymous visitors 17% 63.4% 19.6%

External parties concerned about internal constituents

17.6% 63.5% 18.8%

13

Compared to previous years, in 2019 did you see more, fewer, or about the same number of cases which: [N=192]

Fewer Same More

Lasted three or more months 12.6% 55% 32.5%

Lasted longer than six months 23.5% 51.5% 25%

Became the impetus for a systemic response in a department

7.4% 45% 47.7%

Became the impetus for a systemic response in a division or college

4.8% 53.6% 41.6%

Became the impetus for a systemic response organization-wide

9.2% 59.5% 31.3%

Compared to previous years, in 2019 I did more, less, or about the same in relation to: [N varies]

Less Same More

Conducted training or briefings 12.1% 37.1% 50.7%

Served as a mediator between parties 13.7% 48.2% 38.1%

Served as an informal facilitator between parties 8.3% 42.4% 49.2%

Contacted a compliance office within organization for advice (such as HR,legal)

6.5% 63.8% 29.7%

Conducted shuttle diplomacy 10.5% 59.4% 30.1%

Contacted external legal counsel for advice 21.8% 70.9% 7.3%

14

How often did the ombuds office deal with these issues? [N=196]

Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Daily

Abuse/bullying 3.1% 19.4% 47.4% 27% 3.1%

Benefits 20.5% 38.5% 31.8% 6.7% 2.6%

Deliberate interference with others' work/sabotage

16.7% 49% 24.5% 9.4% .5%

Ethics and "core values" issues 4.1% 23.1% 49.7% 17.4% 5.6%

Excellence, integrity, and rigor in analytic thinking or work practice

15% 36.8% 28% 17.1% 3.1%

External constituent concerns about your organization

43.3% 39.7% 8.8% 3.6% 4.6%

Financial misconduct 28.7% 55.4% 11.3% 2.6% 2.1%

Gross negligence 43.1% 44.6% 9.7% 1.5% 1%

Harassment/discrimination based on ability/disability

10.9% 36.3% 43.5% 8.8% .5%

Harassment/discrimination based on age 16.5% 47.9% 33% 2.1% .5%

Harassment/discrimination based on sex/gender

10.8% 35.1% 43.8% 9.3% 1%

Harassment/discrimination based on race/ethnicity

11.4% 31.6% 46.6% 9.3% 1%

Harassment/discrimination based on religion

33.7% 51.8% 13.5% 1% 0%

Harassment/discrimination based on multiple characteristics

12.4% 47.2% 32.1% 7.3% 1%

Insider threat 54.7% 36.5% 6.3% 0% 2.6%

Intellectual property/non-compete 50.3% 32.6% 14.5% 1.6% 1%

Layoffs, reorganization, firings 29.2% 32.3% 27.1% 9.9% 1.6%

Leadership/management/supervisor skills 6.2% 7.2% 29.4% 41.8% 15.5%

National security 83.5% 12.4% 0.5% 1.0% 2.6%

Performance evaluations 14.9% 18.5% 48.2% 13.3% 5.1%

Promotion/demotion/transfer 16.5% 23.7% 47.9% 9.3% 2.6%

Retaliation/intimidation 5.6% 20% 44.1% 26.7% 3.6%

Safety issues (all kinds including fear) 13% 33.7% 38.9% 12.4% 2.1%

Scientific/academic research misconduct 36.8% 44.6% 14.5% 3.6% .5%

Suggestions for organizational improvement

3.6% 24.4% 43.5% 22.3% 6.2%

Waste/fraud/abuse 30.9% 49% 15.5% 3.6% 1%

Whistleblowing issues that require safe and effective routing to offices/managers

28.5% 44.6% 22.3% 4.1% .5%

Workload/overload 10.3% 16% 41.8% 24.7% 7.2%

15

Please think of last year's most serious cases (by your judgment). Of the five most serious, how many involved the following issues? [N=114]

Leadership/management/supervisor skills 90.60%

Abuse/bullying 86.10%

Retaliation/intimidation 80.50%

Harassment/discrimination based on sex/gender 67.80%

Ethics and "core values" issues 67.50%

Harassment/discrimination based on race/ethnicity 60.70%

Whistleblowing issues that require safe and effective routing to offices/managers

58.30%

Harassment/discrimination based on multiple characteristics 57.90%

Layoffs, reorganization, firings 57.70%

Performance Evaluations 55.20%

Suggestions for organizational improvement 54.90%

Workload/overload 54.80%

Safety issues (all kinds including fear) 54.70%

Scientific/academic research misconduct 50%

Promotion/demotion/transfer 47.30%

Harassment/discrimination based on ability 46.50%

Deliberate interference with others' work/sabotage 43.80%

Excellence, integrity, and rigor in analytic thinking or work practice

37.80%

Financial misconduct 36.80%

Benefits 33.80%

Gross negligence 33.30%

Waste/fraud/abuse 30.10%

Harassment/discrimination based on age 29.90%

Intellectual property/non-compete 29.70%

Harassment/discrimination based on religion 27%

External constituent concerns about your organization 21.80%

Insider threat 20.30%

National security 9.10%

16

Of those five (or fewer) most serious cases, from whom did you learn of them? (check up to five) [N=182]

Complainant (target of behaviors)

95.60%

Peer or bystander 35.20%

Supervisor 27.50%

Senior officer 17.60%

HR 13.70%

Health care practitioner 13.70%

Someone outside of my organization

7.10%

Counseling 5.50%

Perpetrator 4.40%

EAP 2.70%

Security/police 2.20%

In those five (or fewer) most serious cases, if you believed information needed to reach appropriate offices/authorities, what actions did you take? (check up to five) [N=181]

Received permission to convey the information (without identifying the source)

79%

Helped the visitor find some other way to get the information where it needed to go

71.8%

Received permission to convey the information (identifying the source)

64.1%

Found another way for the information to get where it needed to go

43.6%

Found an effective way for manager or compliance office to find the information itself

26%

Breached confidentiality (because you perceived an imminent risk)

6.1%

Breached confidentiality (because your organization requires the ombuds to report this issue)

2.2%

Did something else 4.4%

17

Policies and Standards The following questions concern policies around voluntariness and specific individuals. [N=197] Is working with the ombudsman voluntary for the complainant (or visitor, inquirer, initiator)?

Yes, always 94.4%

In some matters, not all 4.1%

No, never 1.5%

Is working with the ombudsman voluntary for the responder?

Yes, always 87.2%

In some matters, not all 8.7%

No, never 4.1%

Will you listen to an anonymous caller?

Yes, always 84.8%

In some matters, not all 12.2%

No, never 3.0%

Will you listen to third parties, including bystanders?

Yes, always 81.2%

In some matters, not all 17.3%

No, never 1.5%

Are there any issues which your ombuds office is obligated to report to management? (check all that apply) [N=144]

National security 47.2%

Sexual harassment or discrimination (e.g., per Title IX)

41%

Insider threat (internal sabotage, theft of ideas, or terrorism)

34%

Criminal behavior (other than those listed) 31.9%

Campus security/crime (per the Clery Act) 27.8%

Waste, fraud, and/or abuse 21.5%

Other 27.8%

18

Which standards of practice/codes of ethics do you follow? (check all that apply) [N=197]

IOA standards 98.0%

Other standards 11.7%

Services and Accomplishments How often, if at all, do you provide the following services? Working to be seen as fair, safe, accessible, credible [N=185]

Very frequently

Regularly Sometimes Virtually Never

Delivering respect with attention to the feelings of visitors

91.9% 7.6% 0% .5%

Providing an “opportunity to be heard” 91.9% 8.1% 0% 0%

Providing and explaining pertinent information or policies

68.6% 26.5% 4.% 0%

Providing a safe place to discuss information that needs to get to your organization

70.3% 22.7% 5.9% 1.1%

Reframing issues and developing increased awareness of others’ perspectives

74.1% 21.6% 3.8% 0%

Being alert to urgent issues and the possibility of an emergency

54.6% 28.1% 16.2% 1.1%

Helping to develop and evaluate appropriate options

77.8% 18.9% 3.2% 0%

Monitoring the accessibility of the ombuds office to diverse constituents

30.3% 28.6% 18.9% 22.2%

Helping people help themselves [N=185]

Very frequently

Regularly Sometimes Virtually Never

Offering the option of referrals to other resources

66.5% 29.7% 3.8% 0%

Helping visitors to collect, organize and understand information

62.5% 29.9% 7.1% 0.5%

Helping visitors to use a direct approach (e.g., with coaching and role-playing)

56.8% 31.9% 8.1% 3.2%

19

Informal intervention [N=184

Very frequently

Regularly Sometimes Virtually Never

Working with leaders so they may be seen as approachable and fair

15.8% 35.3% 41.8% 7.1%

Offering shuttle diplomacy (facilitating communication without bringing all parties together)

18.4% 36.2% 37.8% 7.6%

Offering mediation or coordinating internal mediators

14.1% 33.7% 37.5% 14.7%

Referring constituents to external mediators 4.3% 2.7% 26.1% 66.8%

Exploring a problem informally 55.4% 29.9% 13% 1.6%

Reviewing relevant information to make recommendations

44% 32.1% 20.7% 3.3%

Facilitating a generic approach to an individual problem to lead to a fair outcome while protecting the identity of the individual

22.3% 39.7% 32.1% 6%

Assisting with process issues involved in an appeals process

16.3% 16.8% 36.4% 30.4%

Following up on a specific case with relevant stakeholders

20.7% 37.5% 32.6% 9.2%

20

Working within the organization [N=184]

Very frequently

Regularly Sometimes Virtually Never

Providing early warning of new or emerging issues 12.5% 46.2% 35.3% 6%

Keeping non-identifying notes and statistics 63% 26.1% 7.1% 3.8%

Identifying and communicating about patterns of issues and their root causes

23.9% 54.9% 19% 2.2%

Providing training and briefings about policies and processes

10.9% 21.2% 36.4% 31.5%

Bringing together task forces to address emerging or ongoing issues

1.1% 9.2% 31.5% 58.2%

Meeting confidentially with individuals or groups to prepare an oral report or presentation to involved parties

6% 15.2% 42.4% 36.4%

Facilitating meetings for senior leaders 6% 12.5% 38.6% 42.9%

Working for specific systems change (e.g. recommending new policies, procedures, and structures)

9.2% 28.3% 45.1% 17.4%

Serving as a non-voting resource person for policy committees

9.8% 16.3% 34.2% 39.7%

Helping managers with technological change, professional development, and change management

7.6% 17.9% 39.7% 34.8%

Working to support specific, mission-related, organizational initiatives

7.1% 23.4% 43.5% 26.1%

Following up on system change recommendations that you have made

6.5% 27.2% 39.7% 26.6%

Helping informally to coordinate organizational resources or offices related to conflict management

8.7% 26.6% 37% 27.7%

Working informally to influence policies and procedures

15.2% 30.4% 39.7% 14.7%

Working informally to influence legislation and regulations

1.1% 7.6% 18.5% 72.8%

21

Other functions [N=184]

Very frequently

Regularly Sometimes Virtually Never

Participating as a voting member on committees 0% 1.6% 6.5% 91.8%

Keeping records for the office, to record outcomes 17.4% 18.5% 9.2% 54.9%

Keeping records for compliance purposes 5.4% 6.5% 7.6% 80.4%

Keeping records for an office records schedule (e.g., for the National Archives and Records Administration)

2.2% 3.3% 3.3% 91.3%

Writing formal investigatory reports for the purpose of decision-making by managers

.5% 1.1% 9.2% 89.1%

Acting as advocate or witness in a formal adjudicatory process

.5% 0% 1.1% 98.4%

Accompanying a party in a formal adjudicatory process

.5% 1.1% 4.3% 94%

Dealing with formal appeals 3.3% 2.7% 5.4% 88.6%

Acting as an arbitrator or judge 0% .5% 1.6% 97.8%

The work of an ombuds can lead to individual and systemic changes. In 2019, has the work of the ombuds office resulted in any of the following systemic changes (at least one time)? [N=176]

Identified significant patterns of concerns that were not well known or were being ignored 90.4%

Fostered an important "bridge" between colleagues, units or agencies 83.6%

Timely response induced for an urgent issue 82.6%

Significant improvement in morale in work unit 81.7%

Identified a significant "new issue" for the organization 78.4%

Change in a minor aspect of how a policy works 77.8%

Provided training and briefings to prevent specific problems for constituents 75%

Change in a procedure 72.9%

Significant cost savings from settling a serious dispute 66.5%

Change in a policy 61.4%

Fostered demonstrable improvement in excellence, integrity, and rigor in analytic thinking and work practice

60.6%

Significant cost savings from effective safe handling of an "early warning" or whistleblowing

51.1%

High probability of having helped to save a life 43.5%

Significant cost savings from reduction in FOIA/EEO/other formal complaints or suits 40.7%

Change in an organizational structure 35.8%

22

Compensation The 2020 International Ombudsman Association (IOA) Practice and Compensation Survey reported the following figures for full-time ombuds practitioners working in 2019—specifically, the mean, median, maximum, and interquartile range (those falling in the middle fifty-percent of all responses, thus setting aside outlier figures). For comparability, all salaries reported have been converted to US dollars (per rates posted at xe.com on 31Dec19). Some context about these figures: the IOA is the largest organization of organizational ombuds professionals in the world, and this survey of its members was conducted in Spring 2020. Some 235 ombuds professionals completed the survey, and only full-time ombuds who provided salary information are included in this analysis. Further, only sectors with five or more such responses are presented here: Full-time ombuds salary by sector

Sector (count)

Mean salary Median salary

Maximum salary

Interquartile range (25th – 75th percentile)

Corporate (n=11)

$162,343 $146,000 $315,000 $86,750 - $243,584

Higher educ. (n=102)

$104,758 $99,905 $225,000 $78,000 - $126,800

Government (n=28)

$125,962 $130,000 $173,000 $109,000 - $152,000

K-12 educ. (n=5)

$129,741 $113,000 $170,000 $113,000 - $169,000

- Full-time Higher Education ombuds salary by region

Region (count)

Mean salary Median salary

Maximum salary

Interquartile range (25th – 75th percentile)

Northeast (n=16)

$132,293 $124,300 $220,000 $107,750 - $166,127

Southeast (n=21)

$112,503 $104,000 $225,000 $87,750 - $123,453

North & North Central

(n=18) $92,512 $82,208 $168,666 $75,000 - $99,500

Southwest (n=8)

$79,201 $72,500 $132,000 $57,844 - $91,809

Western U.S. (n=30)

$115,196 $106,270 $200,000 $93,250 - $137,250

Please direct correspondence to Timothy Hedeen: tkhedeen@kennesaw.edu or 470-578-6879.