Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Assessing ombudsman performance: Two case studies in North America
/
Assessing ombudsman performance: Two case studies in North America
(USC Thesis Other)
Assessing ombudsman performance: Two case studies in North America
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ASSESSING OMBUDSMAN PERFORMANCE:
TWO CASE STUDIES IN NORTH AMERICA
by
Barbara Detrick Male
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
December 1999
Copyright 1999 Barbara Detrick Male
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3073732
Copyright 1999 by
Male, Barbara Detrick
All rights reserved.
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 3073732
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL OF POLICY. PLANNING. AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90089
This dissertation, written by
B arbara D e t r ic k M ale
under the direction o f h&n.... Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its
members, has been presented to and
accepted by the Faculty o f the School o f
Policy, Planning, and Development, in
partial fulfillment o f requirements for the
degree o f
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Dean
'WJfSsIW.............
J L / l f / f . f
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
To my special ones: Mary H. Lyon, fo r providing a glimpse into
the difference that wisdom and strength makes; and Joan and
Barna Male, in arming me fo r life's lessons with humor and
independence. To Lou Gehrig Wood, fo r helping me to realize
that I am a better person fo r loving and being loved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to several in the learning community
with whom I have crossed paths and emerged better from the experience. To
Gerald Caiden, whose deep commitment to the importance of democratic
accountability made this effort blossom; to Joe Wholey, whose indefatigable push
for professional standards resulted in a better piece of research; and to Maria
Aristigueta, whose friendship and sage counsel knows no equal. I thank Jake
Barkdoll, who offered thoughtful insights which contributed to a viable evaluation
design. I also want to thank Chet Newland for reminding all the Washington
Center students that learning is inextricably correlated with humility, as we begin
to finally understand the magnitude of all we do not know.
I am deeply grateful to the people and organizations that allowed themselves
to be evaluated as part of this research. The Ombudsman Ontario and the FDIC
Office of the Ombudsman staffs set the exemplar of committed and dedicated
public service. Special thanks to Duncan Newport, Fiona Crean, Roberta Jamieson,
Arleas Upton Kea, Jerie Kitchens, and Leslie Crawford for allowing me to explore
their organizations. Their willingness to participate in this research serves as a
testament to their collective commitment in advancing the role of the public
ombudsman.
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I am deeply grateful to my friends and family who understood that writing
this dissertation meant giving up much of my life for a long period of time.
Thanks to Bob Haase, my colleague at the National Reconnaissance Office who
kept things running while I wrote. Special thanks to my brother, Christopher
Male, for serving as a transcriber par excellence. I am forever grateful to my
husband, Lou Wood, who demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the cause
and patience with the process!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................. xii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW................................................ I
Introduction.................................................................................... 1
Exploring the Questions of Research............................................. 4
The Research Context..................................................................... 7
Key Findings from the Rapid Assessment..................................... 11
Overview of the Dissertation.......................................................... 13
Definition of Key T erm s................................................................ 15
H. LAYING THE CONTEXTUAL GROUNDWORK............................. 17
Focusing on Government's “Customers” ....................................... 18
The Demands of Balanced Governance......................................... 24
Evaluation: Linking Accountability to Impacts ............................ 29
Beyond Self-Reporting and Demographics .................................. 36
Summary ........................................................................................ 48
HI. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................ 50
Qualitative Research....................................................................... 50
Developing a Pilot-Test Methodology........................................... 52
Ensuring Program Improvement and Use ..................................... 57
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Building on the Research Design....................................................... 60
Collection of New Program D a ta .............................................. 62
Collection of Existing Data ....................................................... 75
Preliminary Assessment............................................................. 76
Suggestions for Alternative Assessment T o o ls........................ 77
Recommendation for Outcome M easures................................. 78
Data Analysis.................................................................................... 78
Research Constraints ....................................................................... 84
Summary ........................................................................................... 86
IV. ASSESSING THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT'S
OMBUDSMAN ...................................................................................... 88
Introduction...................................................................................... 88
Nature of Program ......................................................................... 89
Context of the Office ....................................................................... 93
Political Origins.......................................................................... 93
The Current Environment ......................................................... 96
The Evaluative Pilot T e s t................................................................ 100
Collection of New Program Data (Interview Results) 100
Collection of Existing Data ..................................................... 161
Preliminary Assessment of the O ffice....................................... 188
Suggestions for Alternative Assessment T o o ls....................... 197
Recommendation for Outcome Measures................................ 206
V. ASSESSING THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION'S OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN....................... 211
Introduction..................................................................................... 211
Nature of Program .......................................................................... 212
Context of Office ............................................................................. 213
Political Origins of the Office of the Ombudsman................... 214
The Current Environment ....................................................... 216
The Evaluative Pilot T e s t................................................................ 219
Collection of New Program Data (Interview Results) 219
Collection of Existing Data ..................................................... 287
Preliminary Assessment of the O ffice...................................... 301
Suggestions for Alternative Assessment T o o ls....................... 312
Recommendation for Outcome Measures................................ 317
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
VI. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE OMBUDSMAN ROLE IN
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE............................................................322
Introduction.........................................................................................322
The Need for Exploring the Public Ombudsman..............................322
The Research Results.......................................................................... 325
Perceptions of Access..................................................................326
Perceptions of Satisfaction..........................................................327
Perceptions of Complaint Resolution (Effectiveness
and Efficiency)......................................................................... 327
Ability To Affect Change in the Government............................328
Governmental Accountability.................................................... 329
Comparing the Two Offices...............................................................332
The Common Threads.................................................................333
Principal Differences...................................................................338
Providing the Research Results......................................................... 341
Future Research Implications.............................................................345
Conclusion.......................................................................................... 347
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................... 350
APPENDDCES
1. Briefing: Draft Results of the Ombudsman Ontario's Rapid
Assessment.................................................................................. 377
2. Briefing: Draft Results of the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman's
Rapid Assessment.......................................................................383
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
1. Research Matrix .......................................................................................... 10
2. Summary of Care Descriptions.................................................................... 57
3. Summary of Five-Step Assessment P rocess............................................... 62
4. Interview Participants ................................................................................. 63
5. Framework of Candidate Questions for Interview ................................... 66
6. Sample Key Issues for First Respondent G ro u p ........................................ 71
7. Sample Key Issues for Second Respondent G roup.................................... 72
8. Sample Key Issues for Third Respondent Group ...................................... 73
9. Coding System ........................................................................................... 80
10. Data Sources Correlation............................................................................ 83
11. Foundation of Ombudsman O ntario........................................................... 92
12. Summary of Rapid Assessment Process..................................................... 100
13. Expanded Taxonomy of Research Variables.............................................. 102
14. Expanded Taxonomy of New Research Variables .................................... 103
15. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of Public Access..................... 106
16. Interview Table Regarding Perceptions of Outreach.................................. 110
17. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of Political A ccess................. 113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of Language A ccess.............. 114
19. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of Public Education.............. 115
20. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of Public Satisfaction 117
21. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of Satisfaction with
Communications .................................................................................... 123
22. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of Satisfaction with Political
Relationships.......................................................................................... 125
23. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of Complaint and
Investigation Resolution ....................................................................... 127
24. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions About Complaint
Feedback................................................................................................ 130
25. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of External Relationships . . . 132
26. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions About Duplicative Effects .. 134
27. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of Effectiveness and
Efficiency .............................................................................................. 135
28. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions Related to Investigations . . . 137
29. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of Systemic Government
Changes.................................................................................................. 139
30. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions About Citizen Awareness . . . 142
31. Interview Excerpts Regarding Perceptions of Trend Communication . . . 143
32. Interview Excerpts Regarding Accountability and Evaluation........... 147
33. Interview Excerpts Regarding Performance Information ......................... 149
34. Interview Excerpts Regarding Changes in Jurisdiction..................... 152
35. Interview Excerpts Pertaining to Staff Competencies....................... 154
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36. Interview Excerpts Pertaining to Outreach Challenges............................. 157
37. Interview Excerpts Pertaining to Political Challenges............................... 158
38. Selected Questions from Ombudsman Ontario Survey (March 1999) . . . 165
39. Trend Analysis Report from the Management Information System 177
40. Common Types of Jurisdictional Complaints............................................ 180
41. Written Complaints Against Key Provincial Organizations....................... 181
42. Public Complaints Against Office............................................................... 183
43. Performance Accountability Standards....................................................... 184
44. Candidate Outcomes for Ombudsman Consideration................................ 207
45. Summary of Rapid Assessment Process..................................................... 219
46. Expanded Taxonomy of Research Variables............................................... 222
47. Expanded Taxonomy of New Research Variables .................................... 223
48. Interview Excerpts Related to Constituent A ccess................................... 225
49. Interview Excerpts Related to Outreach.................................................... 228
50. Interview Excerpts Related to Constituent Satisfaction ........................... 233
51. Interview Excerpts Related to Internal and External Relationships 239
52. Interview Excerpts Related to Resolution ................................................ 244
53. Interview Excerpts Related to Responsiveness.......................................... 248
54. Interview Excerpts Related to Management Feedback and
Communications ................................................................................... 252
55. Interview Excerpts Related to Ombudsman's R o le .................................... 255
56. Interview Excerpts Related to Efficiency of Resolution ............................ 262
x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57. Interview Excerpts Related to Systemic Program s.................................... 268
58. Interview Excerpts Related to Trend Analysis ........................................... 273
59. Interview Excerpts Related to Performance Information and
Evaluation.............................................................................................. 276
60. Interview Excerpts Related to Accountability............................................ 280
61. Interview Excerpts Related to Scope and Resources of the
Ombudsman............................................................................................ 283
62. Interview Excerpts Related to Key Challenges........................................... 286
63. Contact/Compliant Trend for Third Quarter of 1998 ................................. 296
64. Contact Number, Type, and A ction........................................................... 297
65. Candidate O utcom es................................................................................... 318
66. Comparative Snapshot................................................................................. 332
xi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Access to Ombudsman Ontario—Survey of 1999..................................... 167
2. Satisfaction with Ombudsman Ontario—Survey of 1999 ......................... 170
3. Ombudsman W orkflow.............................................................................. 179
4. Top Provincial Government Complaints by Percentage in 1998/1999 . . . 182
5. Perceptions of Satisfaction by FDIC Respondent Group........................... 232
6. FDIC Corporate Planning Process............................................................. 289
7. FDIC Contacts in 1998 .............................................................................. 293
8. FDIC Contacts in 1997 .............................................................................. 294
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The need for accountability mechanisms has grown in the past decade with
key changes in legislative, political, and public performance expectations. The
public ombudsman plays a viable role in ensuring an increasingly responsive
government. Yet, the ombudsman function is increasingly unfocused and diluted, as
evidenced by inconsistent jurisdiction, questions of perceived value, and role clarity.
This study explores important variables associated with ombudsman role.
Five research questions are explored:
1. Do citizens perceive they achieve access to their government as a result
of interaction with the ombudsman?
2. Are they satisfied with their government as a result of their involvement
with the ombudsman?
3. Do interactions with the ombudsman impact citizen perceptions of
complaint resolution?
4. Does the ombudsman affect changes to agency and programs?
5. What emerges in a comparison between an American and Canadian public
organization?
xiii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The research designs and tests a rapid assessment methodology that explores
perceptions focused on variables of access, satisfaction, complaint resolution, and
governmental changes. The assessment examines the ombudsman through the
perceptions of the public complainants, ombudsman staff and stakeholders. The
assessment allows insights to be gained from the three respondent groups about
political access, complaint feedback, political and public communications, the
unintended consequences of government support, and the need for accountability.
Two ombudsman offices are examined: the Ontario Provincial Government’s
Ombudsman and the United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC)
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman Ontario represents a classical ombudsman whereas
the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman is representative of a hybrid that provides
support to many constituent groups.
The importance of context, complex community linkages, the environment,
political implications associated with democratic access, and perceptions of service
are reflected in the findings. The rapid assessment is impacted by stakeholder and
public expectations of the role, the needs of the constituents served, resource
challenges, emerging external trends, and past performance. The assessment results
are found to be of use by members of the respective organizations. The process and
design demonstrate value for an ombudsman community that increasingly recognizes
the importance of evaluation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Introduction
The foundation of individual and citizenry rights serves as a philosophical and
legal cornerstone of the democratic framework of government. Several mechanisms
exist that serve as guarantors of citizen rights and to expand avenues of greater public
access in the governmental structure. The current use of the public ombudsman,
which independently investigates public complaints and serves as a bureaucratic
monitoring mechanism (Hill, 1998), is one such example. By providing a process for
informal and accessible redress of public concerns, the populace has an avenue for
asking questions, seeking independent investigations and recommendations, and
finding solutions to administrative concerns. The relevance of the ombudsman’s role
is based on the premise that governmental administration is enhanced when the public
and their service officials can directly and informally work towards a resolution of
problems. Complaint resolution, intum, increases the public’s perception of having
opportunities for accountable redress and governmental access. The primary
characteristics of an ombudsman office are “independence, the ability to investigate
complaints, which often includes subpoena power, the ability to criticize government
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
agencies and to recommend changes that may be issued in public reports. An
ombudsman, however, has no enforcement or disciplinary power.. . . It is a paradox,
being both powerful and powerless at the same time” (United States Ombudsman
Association, n.d., p. 1).
Recent federal government reform initiatives in the United States are rooted in
the belief that the system of government should be customer/client-focused, by
requiring agencies to determine from members of the public the kind and quality of
services they require. The move to be increasingly customer-focused has ironically
occurred at a time when major resource realignments and reductions have markedly
impacted governmental service. The focus on public satisfaction, which has grown
during the past decade, has been concurrently tied to demands for greater public
access to government services and representatives. Likewise, the need for greater
accountability to stakeholders and, ultimately, to the public has been inextricably
linked with these recent reform initiatives. The philosophical underpinning of citizenfocused governance has increasingly become based on the premise that “democratic
governments exist to serve their citizens,” requiring the bureaucracy to become less
arrogant, more entrepreneurial and responsive (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992, pp. 166-
167). The implementation of recent Federal legislation, such as the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the Chief Financial Officers (CFO)
Act of 1990, provides clear indicators that agencies are to be held accountable for
outcomes, which requires the ability to measure the results of government programs
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
by the “differences they make . . . in the economy or program participants’ lives”
(GAO/GGD-96-118, 1996, p. 7).
A primary reason for the establishment of ombudsman offices throughout
North America was to provide the citizenry with a mechanism that possessed the
powers of investigation and the ability to respond to external complaints about agency
behavior. The common motivation for employing an ombudsman centered on
“governments who recognized the ability of ombudsman to advance the cause of
human rights, to control the public bureaucracy, to remedy individual grievances
against public maladministration, and to draw public attention to administrative
maladies in public organizations” (Caiden, 1983, vol. 1, p. S). Some of the initial
discussions about the relevance of the public ombudsman occurred with the Western
American Assembly on the Ombudsman, which was among the first groups to
advocate the creation of public ombudsman positions in 1968. Their four-part
rationale equated the need for the ombudsman with the essence of responsive,
accessible and accountable governance:
a. All citizens do not enjoy equal access to existing mechanisms
for the redress of grievances. Voices do not speak with similar
clarity nor do they fall on equally receptive ears.
b. Elected officials, in responding to selected complaints often
provide solutions for specific cases, but may not solve the
underlying causes of the problem itself. The result is often to
provide a special service for some constituents rather than to bring
equity among all citizens.
c. Where complaint mechanisms exist in administrative
agencies, their operation may tend to reinforce current procedures
and to condone employee actions rather than to meet the problems
causing the grievances.
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
d. Judicial resolution of citizen grievances is an important but
limited and costly remedy. (Institute of Governmental Studies, as
cited in Anderson and Stockton, 1991, p. 281)
Yet, the ombudsman continues to be inconsistently used throughout the world,
particularly in the United States. Role jurisdiction, results, and perceived impacts
vary greatly between international, federal, state, and local government sectors.
Attempts to qualitatively assess the benefits derived from the use of ombudsman
intervention have been negligible, which could be a significant reason for the decline
in the use of federal ombudsman in the United States during recent years.
The use of the public ombudsman in the United States is increasingly besieged
by inconsistencies in jurisdiction, structure, definition and role despite a generalized
sense that responsiveness to the public is important. Evidence of the inconsistency
lies in the following words: “These quasi-ombudsman may be executive ombudsman,
public relations spinmeisters, consumer advocates, mediators, or other kind of
altemative-dispute-resolution practitioners” (Hill, 1998, p. 29).
Exploring the Questions of Research
The ombudsman function has been successfully used in universities; corporate
businesses; and international, state, and local governments (International Ombudsman
Institute, dcallen@law.ualberta.ca, 1999; The Ombudsman Association, 1999).
However, a serious problem connected with ombudsman implementation exists in the
United States, in terms of unfocused jurisdiction, role execution, independence, and
perceived value. Few initiatives have been undertaken that systematically measure the
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
impact of the public ombudsman through a results-oriented evaluation that extends
beyond the prevailing mode of evaluation most commonly used, which is selfreporting (Rowe, as cited in Breslin & Rubin, 1991; Meltzer, 1996).
A key research hypothesis is that the public-sector ombudsman allows citizens
to have increased access to their government and greater opportunities to seek
redress of complaints. The citizen feels a greater degree of satisfaction with the
government as a result of the interaction with the ombudsman. In order to explore
the research hypothesis in greater depth, five key research questions were examined:
1. Did citizens perceive they had achieved access to their government as a
result of interaction with the public ombudsman?
2. Did citizens perceive they were satisfied with their government as a result
of their involvement with the public ombudsman?
3. Did interactions with the ombudsman impact citizen perceptions of
complaint or issue resolution?
4. Has the ombudsman been able to affect changes to agency and programs?
5. What factors emerged in a comparative analysis of the public ombudsman
between an American and Canadian public organization?1
*For the purposes o f this research effort, the term “citizen” is used to connote all members of the
public who are recipients o f ombudsman service at both research sites. The term is intended to represent
those members o f the public who reside in Ontario province and who participate in or are recipients of
the services o f the provincial government The term is not intended to connote only those public
members who have achieved specific legal or citizenship status. Likewise, the term is used generally to
represent all members o f the Ombudsman’s constituency groups at the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, including members o f the public, the banking industry, and FDIC employees.
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In addition to exploring perceptions associated with citizen satisfaction and
access, other research variables that were explored included the effectiveness of
complaint resolution; the efficiency of complaint resolution; and changes in
governmental agencies or programs as a result of ombudsman diagnosis. The
variables were addressed through specific research questions that were measured by a
rapid assessment methodology. The rapid assessment process was utilized because of
the participating organizations' interest in obtaining program feedback that could be
of immediate use. The rapid assessment examined the perceptions of the public
complainants and members of other constituency groups, ombudsman staff, and
stakeholders. Key data sources included document analysis and an in-depth,
unstructured interview process that utilized a 360-degree assessment methodology.
Two public-sector Ombudsman Offices were examined: Canada’s Ontario Provincial
Government’s Ombudsman and the United States Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation’s (FDIC) Office of the Ombudsman. Both Offices were explored
through use of an assessment design that was developed and pilot-tested to evaluate
the public ombudsman function. Key descriptive information about the research
variables was explored through the examination of the data sources:
1. Description of the Ombudsman Office, which explored service delivery,
jurisdiction, program quality, professional qualifications and standards, focus, and
functional organization;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. Perceptions regarding access to government, which explored ease of
accessibility, ombudsman involvement in the community, governmental
responsiveness to the citizen’s need, known use of office by others.;
3. Perceptions regarding satisfaction with government, which explored
satisfaction with the process, satisfaction with the Ombudsman interpersonal
relationship, and satisfaction with outcomes and results o f service.
4. Perceptions regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of complaint or
issue resolution, which explored the nature of the outcomes, durability of the
resolution, and effect on environment, costs, timeliness, and decrease in adversarial
impacts to the organization.; and
5. Perceptions regarding changes in agency and program operations,
which identified the ombudsman impacts on uncovering possible bureaupathologies
and occurrences o f maladministration in an organization, ascertaining if changes to
procedures and processes have occurred, and identifying systemic trends.
The Research Context
The research consisted of four main components: (1) an analysis of relevant
literature and related theories, (2) comparative analysis of data gathered from a
national and international setting, (3) development of research implications that may
be used to increase program effectiveness, and (4) development of general
conclusions and implications for future research initiatives. This research effort will
support additional and future research in several important areas of the public
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ombudsman. Issues such as stakeholder advocacy, perceptions of fairness and equity,
and dispute prevention and resolution are inextricably linked to the exploration of the
public-sector ombudsman effectiveness. Determining ombudsman accountability to
the public and programmatic “worth” have yet to be evaluated through a rigorous
research methodology. Effective democratic governance requires confidence in the
conduct of government’s business through citizen access to accountability instruments
(Uhr, 1998; March & Olsen, 1995). This research was conducted with an awareness
of these issues and explored dimensions that were believed to be the most relevant in
building an evaluative framework for public ombudsman offices.
The theoretical context of democratic participation and democratic theory
served as the underlying theoretical construct, encompassing the social theories
addressing participatory social systems. The values associated with the
multidimensional, dynamic social policy implications of participation and the social
science research on the phenomenon of participation were explored. Participatory
democracy has functioned as a social value in and of itself, as based on the historical
contention that the democratic process ultimately educates and develops its citizenry
(Thompson, 1970; Dachler & Wilpert, 1978).
Qualitative research served as the mode of inquiry because of the exploratory
focus o f this effort. The importance of context, complex organizational and
community linkages, the environment, policy and political implications associated
with democratic access, and participant perceptions of service were critical to the
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
research (Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Wilson, 1977). The nature of the researcher’s
relationship with the research sites and the inability to control the research
environment led to a determination that a qualitative study employing a pilot test to
provide a preliminary assessment of the ombudsman office was the appropriate
research methodology. The rapid assessment was deemed to be more appropriate
than an in-depth evaluative study for this specific research effort.
The assessment framework possessed key components of evaluability
assessment and rapid feedback evaluation. The results of each rapid assessment were
used to build a preliminary assessment of program performance. The actual
assessment methodology was also examined for its potential use in the evaluation of
public ombudsman. A comparative analysis between the two organizations was able
to be drawn. The research design matrix is summarized in Table 1. Table 1 depicts
the integration between research questions, strategies, and data collection techniques:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 1
RESEARCH MATRIX
Purpose of
Study
Research Questions Research Strategy Date Collection
Techniques
Exploratory
- to identify important
variables
- to conduct comparative
analysis
- to generate research
implicationsforfurther
evaluation
- to recommend
alternative assessment
tools for program
improvement
(1) Did citizens perceive
access to government?
(2) Did citizens perceive
satisfaction with
government?
(3) How was resolution of
compliant or issue perceived
(in terms of effectiveness or
efficiency)?
(4) Evidence of changes in
agency/ programs?
(5) What comparative
factors emerged between a
federal and international
environment?
Pilot Tests of
Assessment Design and
Comparative Analysis
- In-depth Interviews
- Document Analysis
• Follow-up Interviews
(for clarification)
- Limited Site
Observations
This research focused on existing data, examination of operations, and
interviews with users, stakeholders, and ombudsman staff to produce a preliminary
assessment of service activities and impacts. Suggestions for alternative assessment
tools were identified, designed to support an increasingly comprehensive evaluation
design. The assessment framework was developed to explore the perceptions of all
three respondent groups in order to gain insight into the unique performance
information needed by each group. The process used in building this evaluative pilot
test incorporated the following steps: (1) collection of new program data;
(2) collection of existing data; (3) conduct of a preliminary assessment;
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(4) suggestions for alternative assessment tools; and (S) recommendations of outcome
measures. The pilot test identified the user’s service needs and objectives, integrating
existing data and collecting new data focused on key research variables.
Key Findings from the Rapid Assessment
The primary difficulty in proposing a common evaluative framework is that no
two ombudsman offices are alike. Each ombudsman exists in its own political and
environmental context. Answers to the research questions emerged through the
conduct of the rapid assessment. Stakeholder expectations, the needs of the
constituents served, emerging external trends, resource challenges and the past history
and performance of each Office impacted the assessment results.
One key finding shows that citizens and constituent members feel that they
have greater access to their government as a result of the public ombudsman. Having
a mechanism for redress makes a notable difference to the users o f the Offices.
Effective use of the Offices is clearly tied to mechanisms for service delivery, such as
technology tools, physical location of offices, adequate staff levels, hours of
operation, outreach, public education, and communication vehicles. Clarifying
ombudsman purpose and role are critical. Two unexpected findings were explored,
relating to the need for greater political access to the Office by key stakeholders and
the need for targeted outreach to selected segments of the public.
The degree of satisfaction citizens feel as a result of their involvement with the
ombudsman proved to be more difficult to characterize. Typically the sense of
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
satisfaction was found to be dependent on the resolution of the finding and the
member's positive or negative reaction to the finding. Apparent misperceptions about
the role of the ombudsman are noted in that public members confuse the functional
attributes of impartiality and neutrality with those of advocacy. The need for greater
communication, strengthening relationships across government programs and
agencies, and the use of feedback tools are critical in ascertaining changes in
governmental satisfaction as a result of ombudsman involvement.
The effectiveness and efficiency with which complaints and the resolution
process are handled have notable impacts on citizens. The ability to reach resolution
is clearly impacted by cross-government relationships, the need for ongoing
communication, and continued feedback from the Offices about resolution status and
outcomes. Both organizations use automated tracking processes to capture critical
data about the types of complaints received, the length of time spent in resolving
concerns, and the final disposition of the issue. Both organizations performed limited
exploration into the unintended consequences and intangible costs associated with
their service or with other governmental programs. Yet, this data serves as a
powerful tool in diagnosing governmental or ombudsman service gaps and identifying
population segments most in need of assistance and service.
One of the most important roles performed by the ombudsman involves the
systemic diagnosis of governmental maladministration, procedures or processes,
which can potentially impact the lives of the populace. Yet, the only respondent
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
group able to describe changes to government programs, policies, or procedures as a
result of ombudsman involvement are the ombudsman staff themselves. In both
cases, no examples of change are identified by citizens, key stakeholders, or members
of the public service, other than a references to an intuitive sense that things are
different. These findings have significant impacts on strengthening communication
modalities, and the quality of cross-government and political relationships.
Finally, all agreed that the ombudsman accountability is critical to Office
effectiveness and credibility. The use of performance data, trend analysis, reporting
systems, demographic data, and preliminary evaluation processes are key factors in
enhancing organizational accountability. Both organizations would benefit from the
development of a systemic strategic framework that identifies desired outcomes and
key goals in consultation with key stakeholders.
Overview of the Dissertation
Chapter II continues with a review of extant literature, exploring issues of
democratic governance, conflict resolution, program evaluation, and the current state
of ombudsman evaluative research. The review highlights issues associated with
public performance, mechanisms for redress, and improved civic responsiveness,
which assume greater importance as federal managers move to implement critical
legislation aimed at enhancing public accountability. Evaluation is critical to building
a framework that can provide additional insights into the value of the public-sector
ombudsman. It explores key questions about program value, intractable government
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
problems, and citizen interests (Weiss, 1972). Likewise, the need to incorporate
multiple perceptions, such as public stakeholders and service recipients, into an
evaluative process ensures that the framework is ultimately of greater use (Patton,
1987; Wholey, 1994). Chapter II concludes by noting that the public ombudsman has
suffered from being unable to clearly articulate its contribution through a rigorous
process of evaluation, at a time of increasing need for public accountability.
Chapter m describes the research design and methodology used for this
dissertation. The qualitative research incorporates key concepts o f evaluability
assessment and rapid feedback evaluation (Wholey, 1979, 1983), resulting in the
development and pilot-test of an assessment design. The assessment provides a
preliminary assessment of ombudsman performance and may be of use in
recommending subsequent strategies for further evaluation of the public ombudsman.
The pilot test research strategy relies on in-depth interviewing and document analysis
as the primary source of data collection. The process used to build the evaluative
pilot test includes the following five steps: (1) collection of new data on program
performance; (2) collection of existing program data; (3) preliminary assessment of
program performance; (4) suggestions for alternative assessment tools; and
(S) recommendations for outcome measures. The chapter concludes with a
discussion o f the utility of weighing perceptions as a method for assessing the public
ombudsman.
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter IV provides the results of the rapid assessment of the Ombudsman
Ontario, an organization that closely follows the tenets associated with the classical
ombudsman role.
Chapter V provides the results of the rapid assessment of the FDIC Office of
the Ombudsman, an organization categorized as a hybrid in its delivery of services to
members of the public, the banking industry, and internal employees.
Chapter VI provides a discussion of the comparative analysis between both
organizations and discusses implications for future research. Key conclusions and
contributions of this dissertation are presented.
Definition of Key Terms
The following key terms identified in the relevant program evaluation,
performance-based management, conflict resolution, and public satisfaction research
are defined below: .
Ombudsman: A Swedish term, meaning “agent” or “representative,”
that describes a special type of official who investigates citizen
complaints against administrative agencies. Depending on the
outcome of the investigation, the ombudsman may recommend relief
or affirm that the government acted properly. In the case of system
failures, the ombudsman may recommend agency reforms. The
ombudsman is considered to be an example offacilitated alternative
dispute resolution. The concept of ombudsman had its genesis in 1809.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): A process for increasing
opportunities for individuals or parties experiencing conflict to resolve
disputes prior to formal judicial procedures. ADR ranges from
mediation and arbitration to procedures such as mini-trials, factfinding, ombudsman, and negotiated rule-making. The continuum
ranges from processes that allow the disputants to have the most
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
control, as in mediation, to those where they have little control, such
as in binding arbitration (ACUS, 199S).
Conflict Resolution: Any number of processes that help individuals or
parties understand their own actions and those of others, and how
perceptions effect the course of a conflict. Resolution techniques can
involve self-help, joint problem-solving, or third-party intervention.
Evaluability Assessment (EA): An evaluative process used to clarify
program design and explore program reality. An EA provides insights
into whether a program can be meaningfully evaluated and can
improve performance in light of evaluation results.
Rapid-Feedback Evaluation: A process that uses evaluation design
activities to produce an initial evaluation of program performance and
a design for a full-scale evaluation (Wholey, 1979).
Stakeholder: A term used to describe either individuals or groups that
have a vested interest in a program or in the evaluation of a program.
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER H
LAYING THE CONTEXTUAL GROUNDWORK
The management of public organizations is increasingly challenged by the need
to be accountable while faced with a growing public frustration and anger. The
dilemma is inextricably complicated by a public environment that continues to
advocate the reduction of resources with expectations of minimal impact on service
provision. The public anger with the federal government is paradoxically occurring at
a time when the national economy is thriving, personal satisfaction is at record high
levels, and confidence in state and local governments is growing (The Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press, 1998). The atmosphere of distrust has serious
national impacts, to include the health of our citizenship, a growing sense of
alienation, lowered confidence in federal government, and the provision of public
services (The Pew Center, 1998; Tolchin, 1996; Susskind & Field, 1996). According
to Susskind and Field (1996, p. 238), “Angry publics, conflict and litigation will only
drain limited funds that ought to be used instead to accomplish the tasks government
has been empowered to do.” Leaders must attempt to achieve mutually satisfying
outcomes where public concerns are acknowledged, fact-finding is encouraged, and
public managers strive to build long-term relationships, trust, and both individual and
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organizational commitment to honesty (Tolchin, 1996; PA Times, 1999; Susskind &
Field, 1996). Building public trust requires fostering communication and feedback
mechanisms that ultimately ensure bureaucratic responsiveness, access, and public
accountability focusing on governmental performance.
The intent of this chapter is to review the key literature and research that form
the contextual discussion involved in evaluating the public-sector ombudsman. A
thorough exploration of ombudsman evaluation cannot be conducted through an
isolated approach which only considers key aspects of evaluative research. This
review relies on an expanded inquiry into pertinent literature, focusing on issues of
democratic governance, public accountability, performance measurement, and the
fields of evaluation and conflict resolution. Discussing proposed evaluation
methodology of ombudsman functions would be without merit if not considered in the
larger context of public need and accountability.
Focusing on Government’s “Customers”
Much has changed in the landscape of public accountability and customer
satisfaction during the past decade. One of the principal reforms that rippled
throughout public agencies during the 1990’s centers on the need to satisfy the
citizens, who have become increasingly referred to as customers (Osborne & Gaebler,
1992; NPR, 1993). The term “customer” is considered a misnomer by many,
representing a very limited perspective of the public citizen’s role in society
(Frederickson, 1992; Moe, 1994; Kirlin, 1995; Moe& Gilmore, 1995; Denhardt,
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1999). Mintzberg (1996) examines the government’s role in mediating between
competing interests as an example of a client-centered model, while rejecting the
customer model that looks at citizens as customer/service recipients. The term
“customer” is viewed as being an inaccurate depiction of governmental relationships,
since the concept denotes a simple recipient of services. It does not confer the status
of one who has a responsibility to the larger community or one who “owns” the
government, as does the term “citizen” (Frederickson, 1992; Denhardt, 1999). The
issue of public accountability to its citizenry has long been a cornerstone of public
administration, or whatever is the descriptive phrase used to describe members of the
public.
Both the Executive and the Legislative leadership have challenged federal
departments and agencies through federal reform initiatives such as the National
Performance Review (NPR), the Administrative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act of
1990 and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. Federal
leadership must understand what the public needs and expects from the government in
terms of public dispute resolution, public accountability, and expanded partnerships.
These pieces of legislative and executive guidance are relevant to the use and scope of
ombudsman services and to public satisfaction with federal programs. The ADR Act
of 1990 (Public Law 101-552, as amended by Public Law 102-354) encourages
federal agencies with public interactions to resolve public grievances through
alternative dispute practices. The Act is designed to resolve conflicts collaboratively,
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
typically through the assistance of a neutral third party. The basis for the Act rests
with the belief that ADR techniques result in cost and time savings when compared to
traditional litigation. ADR practices are also believed to result in better working
relationships, enduring conflict resolution results, and the ability to achieve parity in
meeting the interests of all parties (ACUS, 199S).
A key recommendation generated by the Administrative Conference of the
United States (ACUS 90-2, 1990), and referenced in the ADR Act of 1990, calls for
the establishment of the public ombudsman as both a “means of inquiring into citizen
grievances about administrative acts or failures to act and, in suitable cases, to
criticize or to make recommendations concerning future official conduct” (ACUS 90-
2, 1990, p. 1). The ACUS recommendation further contends that a relationship can
be drawn between the use of an effective ombudsman and improved citizen
satisfaction with government services and support in the case of several federal
agencies. The purported public benefits of having a governmental ombudsman
include increased voluntary compliance with the government, impartial investigations
o f citizenry complaints, reduced instances of litigation, and the production o f key
information to resolve instances of maladministration (ACUS 90-2, 1990; Hill, 1997;
Caiden, vol.l, 1983). The premise of the Act centers on the viability of alternative
dispute resolution in countering the increased costs, timeliness, and adversarial nature
of traditional legal processes. The probability of achieving more efficient and creative
outcomes, decreased ambiguity in agency authority, and better service delivery are
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
posited to be benefits of the federal movement to ADR (P.L. 101-552, 1990). One
unintended by-product of this Act has been the increasing erosion of the classical
features of the United States Ombudsman role, as more organizations have moved
away from the external investigatory foundation of the ombudsman and towards an
internal dispute resolution focus (Hill, 1998; Dolan, as cited in Hill, 1997).
The NPR’s report, “From Red Tape to Results; Creating a Government that
Works Better and Costs Less,” recommends that federal agencies “expand their use
o f alternative dispute resolution techniques” to avoid the costs associated with
traditional litigation and because “those that have used ADR have saved time and
money and avoided generating ill will” (NPR, 1993, p. 119). President Clinton’s
Executive Order 12862 of 1993, titled “Setting Customer Service Standards,”
endorses the credo of “putting customers first” by asserting the need for the federal
system to be customer-focused (NPR, 1997, p. 1). The Executive Order again
stresses the requirement for agencies to establish accessible complaint systems and
provide means to address customer complaints. The Executive message has become
increasingly clear; federal agencies must increasingly build points of entry for citizens
to express concerns and opportunities for redress outside of a formal litigious
environment.
The federal focus on customer satisfaction resulted in the identification of
customer-driven “best practices” that are evident in top-performing organizations, to
include; (1) the examination of products, services, and processes through the eyes of
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the customer; (2) the establishment of standards for performance, timeliness, and cost
based on customer requirements; and (3) the development of independent information
about customers and their preferences that ultimately drive an agency’s future
planning and direction (NPR, 1997). Responsive government can be asserted as the
satisfaction of citizen preferences where, as one approaches a consumer model,
citizens become consumers of policy outputs and officials base their actions on citizen
evaluation (Sharp, as cited in Saltzstein, 1992, p. 179). Ironically, in a recent reform
initiative advocated by the NPR, Vice President A1 Gore called for the identification
of “high impact agencies,” which includes those agencies that have the most
interaction with the public and business. High impact agencies are asked to focus on
providing results in three major areas over the next three years: partnerships, the use
of information technology, and customer service. These agencies are considered to
be those that shape public opinion of government and can “redeem the promise of
self-government” (NPR, 1998, p. 1). The designated federal agencies are expected to
transform themselves into customer-focused organizations and include organizations
such as the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of
Commerce, Department of Defense, and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Yet, only a very small number of these federal agencies employ
ombudsman functions that focus on citizenry interfaces. Those federal agencies
designated as “high impact” with ombudsman functions often focus on such areas as
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
employee grievances and complaints, as opposed to enhancing citizen participation or
improving access to agencies and redress.
The United Kingdom’s commitment to a more open and accountable
government predates attempts in the United States by a few years. At the heart of the
changes lies the Citizen’s Charter program, begun by Prime Minister Major in 1991.
The Citizen’s Charter is designed to improve public service standards and
responsiveness to the citizenry. Four key principles that underpin the charter include:
(1) creating, monitoring, and publishing explicit service standards that citizens can
expect from public organizations; (2) providing full and accurate information available
in comprehensible language about how public services are executed; (3) regular and
systematic consultations with service users; and (4) developing clear complaint
procedures with independent review mechanisms that ensure apologies and effective
remedies when service “goes wrong” (Central Office of Information, 1996). The
Parliamentary Ombudsman, referred to as the Parliamentary Commissioner for
Administration, investigates public complaints of maladministration that involve
central government departments and a number of public bodies when injustices
against the complainant are alleged (Central Office of Information, 1996). The
inclusion of citizen avenues of redress, through mandated powers given to the
ombudsman function, support Britain’s plan for increasing the accountability and
openness of governmental systems. This approach invites interesting points of
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
comparison with the United States' implementation strategies for a more customerfocused government.
Public agencies have responded favorably to the push for greater
accountability by most accounts. According to Weiss (1998), there were several
reasons for this: (1) it is logical that agencies report on what has been achieved;
(2) collaboration is strengthened when staff has standards for accomplishment on
which to focus; (3) successful results-based accountability reduces the role and
scrutiny of oversight organizations in micro managing programs; and
(4) accountability has the potential to restore confidence and ultimately justify
program investments. Wholey (1999) asserts that the use of performance information
provides a sense of accountability by documenting the progress towards goal
accomplishment and by communicating the value of the program activities to
stakeholders and the public. Accountability is ultimately enhanced through a rigorous
measurement program that evaluates the effects of the programs on persons served,
on agencies, on the larger systems, and on the public (Weiss, 1998; Chelimsky, 1994;
Wholey, 1983, 1999).
The Demands of Balanced Governance
Public administration has struggled for decades with how to best bring citizens
and citizen groups into the administrative process (Thomas, 1999). The need to
provide public accountability and produce results represents a subset of the larger
issues and challenges associated with democratic responsiveness and access. Kelly
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(1995, as cited in Kaboolian, 1998, p. 191) posits that it is one thing to satisfy
individual customers and another to be accountable for civic goals that involve our
citizenry. If governmental processes do not provide full satisfaction to its citizenry,
alternatives must be considered that ensure citizens remain engaged in civic life
(Kelly, 1995; Kirlin, 1995).
An understanding of the relationship between governmental responsiveness,
public dispute resolution, and the role played by the ombudsman in expanding public
satisfaction through a perceived sense of “being heard” are complex and complicated
by the lack of integrated research rigor. Yet, many leading theorists note that a key
public administrative issue of the future will be to make democracy suitable for
modem conditions (Denhardt, 1999; Frederickson, 1994). Administrators will be
responsible for making government work, with a critical criterion of success being the
need to learn to trust citizens. New roles involving citizens will evolve, requiring new
skills in negotiating, bargaining, brokering, creating, and caring that create an
environment of the future centered on the need for resolving conflicts (Denhardt,
1999). The public administrator’s role of the future will evolve from one of extensive
decision-making authority to one that provides technical information and facilitation
which allows citizens to “select the substantive results they prefer” (Box, 1998,
p. 140). The need to build mechanisms for connecting government to the citizenry is
commonly projected as a future challenge for public administration.
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Throughout the evolution of the field of public administration, social needs
and issues of legitimate, responsive government grow increasingly complex,
particularly when weighed against themes of effective, efficient, and equitable public
management (Rohr, 1986; Wilson, 1989; Serra, 1995). What becomes an
increasingly important theme is the sense of control and participation citizens feel
over both the development and implementation of public policy and the service they
receive from public programs (Goodsell, 1994; Frederickson, 1982).
Redford (1969) argues that democratic morality is underpinned with a
fundamental premise—that the individual is the basic unit of human value. Citizens
have the right to expect attention by our system of government. Participation, to
include the decision-making process, is essential in developing citizenship, which
requires access to information, the ability to share one’s concerns, and have concerns
considered through public forums (Frederickson, 1982; Barber, 1985; Bellone &
Goerl, 1992). The legitimacy of government rests on a demonstrated commitment to
individual worth, equality for all citizens, social equity, and participation in its
processes and action (Redford, 1969; Cooper, 1984; Mitchell & Scott, 1987;
Frederickson, 1994).
Democratic governance is framed in the context of public interest, where
citizens are afforded the opportunity to be involved in the work of the government
(Frederickson, 1991). As espoused by the New Public Administration movement,
public involvement is ultimately optimized through such vehicles as public hearings,
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
citizen advisory boards, ombudsman programs, and commissions. Public
administrators have a deeper responsibility to help the populace articulate their needs,
identify new needs, and build solutions (Denhardt, 1993; Cooper, 1984). The
government’s ability to be responsive, using antiquated structures that are not
conducive to participation or without fully understanding the complexities of
democratic values, is questionable. The issue of responsive government to its
citizenry is at the core of modem organizational theory and is framed in issues of
public policy and implementation (Denhardt, 1993). Administrative responsibility,
which facilitates increased citizen education and involvement, is at the heart of the
effort to “recover civism,” which advocates self-aware citizens and more responsive
government and lists greater cooperation between the administrator and the citizen as
a key goal (Frederickson, 1982; Barber, 198S; Bellone & Goerl, 1992). The concept
o f “civic capital” is conceptually equated to the concept of “intellectual capital,”
speaking to the problem-solving knowledge possessed by citizens that guide action
and increase capacity for governance (McGregor, 1984, p. 128). Resultant benefits
include an increase of citizenry trust in its government, a sense of efficacy, and an
emerging sense of common good (Levine, 1984). However, as noted by Waldo
(1984), attempts at increasing citizen participation and a sense of governmental access
and involvement can be driven by self-interest and manipulative intent. Contrary
voices emerge about the public’s inability to meaningfully participate because of the
lack of knowledge, the influences of groups, and the prevalence of mass
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
communication (Emery & Emery, 1976; Selznick, 1949). Authentic participation
requires empowering and educating community members, which ultimately depends
on access to skill-building and information, re-educating public administrators, and
ensuring administrative structures and processes that facilitate democratic
involvement (King, Feltey, & O’Neill-Susel, 1998). Participation in democratic
systems is significantly impaired by contextual factors such as complex issues, the
need for specialists, and the dynamics of conflicting interests and power bases (Emery
& Emery, 1976; Eckstein, as cited in Dachler & Wilpert, 1978, p. 79). Selznick
(1949) argues that, what often passes as citizen participation, is actually cooptation.
An important question in democratic governance continues to be not whether
“bureaucracy is responsive, but to whom, and under what conditions” (Salamon &
Wamsley, as cited in Saltzstein, 1992, p. 183).
Substantial gaps exist in the understanding of citizens’ bureaucratic encounters
and the degree of satisfaction correlated with the encounter. Relatively few studies
have examined citizen interfaces with government bureaucracy, including the impact
of the sources of citizen contacts or their satisfaction with the contact (Peterson, as
cited in Serra, 1995, p. 176). One empirical study conducted by George Serra in
1995 examined six key independent variables associated with citizen contacts with
unelected officials and their subsequent satisfaction with the contacts. Results show
that awareness of government and its services, and social involvement with the
bureaucracy, are the most important variables in satisfactory citizen contacts. Citizen
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
satisfaction with its bureaucratic encounters is associated with the agency’s processes
in terms of prompt, efficient, and fair support; the assessment of the behaviors
demonstrated by the front-line bureaucrats; and the demonstrable degree of
courteousness, knowledge, and openness to criticism (Serra, 199S). The importance
of participation, performance, and efficacy are also positively associated with
satisfaction.
Box (1998) suggests that public administrators must increasingly address a
variety o f methods for listening to and acting on what citizens think. He suggests
several ways for enhancing citizen governance, including such tools as public
meetings and hearings, citizen surveys, focus groups, and citizen commissions. An
important source of bureaucratic power lies with the ability to affect the decisionmaking process through control of information flow, limiting citizen access, and the
timing o f decisions (Hill, 1992). A prime mechanism for enhancing the governance of
the country by expanding the public relationship lies with the ombudsman, which
Rowat (1968, p. 292) asserts is an important “addition to the armory of democratic
government.”
Evaluation: Linking Accountability to Impacts
The goal of program evaluation is to make a difference in the quality of public
programs and policies by informing of the decisions of policy makers through the
findings of the evaluative effort (Chelimsky, as cited in Wholey, Hatry & Newcomer,
1994). A fundamentally important aspect of evaluation is to ultimately improve
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
government performance and public confidence by answering some basic questions:
what should a program be doing; how should a program’s performance be measured;
how is it currently performing; and what is the estimated probability of success
(Wholey, 1979; Posavac & Carey, 1997). Aufrecht and Hertogh (1999) assert that
the evaluation of the ombudsman function continues to be focused on prescriptive and
descriptive methodologies but that, as a community, few steps have been made
towards engaging in a rigorous assessment of effectiveness. Four answers to the
question “why evaluate the ombudsman” are offered: (1) public ombudsman offices
must be accountable to their stakeholders, which include members of the public, to
promote a responsive bureaucracy; (2) evaluation leads to a better understanding of
public need and of the impact the Office has on others; (3) evaluation improves
organizational performance; and (4) evaluation forces the ombudsman to “walk the
talk,” in that an office charged with the investigation and evaluation of others must
also be willing to be the subject of evaluation (p. 13). Meaningful evaluation is
inherently impacted by the political realities of differing expectations and perspectives
of stakeholders, clear purpose, and evaluation methodology (Aufrecht & Hertogh,
1999; Weiss, 1998; Posavac & Carey, 1997).
The importance of capturing stakeholder and public perceptions and values is
relevant for the public-sector Ombudsman, when evaluation must focus on more than
user demographics, service use, and other empirical, output-oriented data (Weiss,
1998; Stake, 1975; Patton, 1997). The reality of political influences and multiple
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stakeholders serves to increase the complexity of the evaluation effort but makes it
more meaningful as well. An effectively designed and executed evaluation allows the
program history to be recorded, provides feedback to practitioners, expands
accountability, and allows the social interventions to be more clearly understood
(Weiss, 1998). By recognizing that evaluations must capture the perceptions and
needs of the stakeholders, the range of possibilities grows considerably, to include
increasing demands for fair and equitable service delivery to cost-effective programs
(Posavac & Carey, 1997).
Capturing stakeholder perceptions of satisfaction with an understanding of the
ombudsman process is imperative to the development of a viable framework that
evaluates the complexities of public dispute resolution. The importance of
stakeholder involvement in the evaluation of effective, impartial conflict intervention
is reiterated by several authors. The need for each stakeholder to analyze a dispute
from his or her perspective is critical. This inquiry determines whether a collaborative
approach is effective and meets stakeholder interests (Hall, 1993; Fisher & Ury,
1981). Customer- and stakeholder-validated goals help ensure that programs are
focused on the needs, priorities, and interests of importance to the customers and
stakeholders, as opposed to those of the governmental bureaucracy (Mihm, 1995).
Roth (1997), in describing her pilot study of stakeholder-based evaluation at the
Conflict Resolution Center in Roanoke, Virginia, advocates the incorporation of the
stakeholders into the evaluation process. The integration of stakeholders into the
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluation process allows for personal benefits to be shared, provides ongoing
feedback about impacts to service recipients, and results in more buy-in to the
evaluative results.
The writings of evaluation theorist Carol Weiss hold great relevance for the
field o f conflict resolution research because of her underlying premise of evaluation
being a tool for answering critical questions about program worth, intractable
government problems, prevailing political interests, and citizen interests. Weiss
(1972) raises critical questions about the purpose of evaluation being a process for
answering questions about a program’s continuation, expansion, and future. The
values of the stakeholders and criteria that judges the merit of a program, as opposed
to the outcomes, are stressed. Her points are important for several reasons. She
defines governmental programs as being subject to both supportive and hostile
pressures that arise from politics. What subsequently develops are program
advocates, lobbying interests, and stakeholders who can frequently have more vested
interest in service than in goal accomplishment (Weiss, 1998). The need to move
from an evaluative focus on short-term problem solving towards understanding the
deep-rooted and intractable problems with which a government grapples offers the
most insights into overall performance (Weiss, as cited in Shadish, Cook & Leviton,
1991). Weiss (1998) clearly articulates the benefits of how knowledge of a program
ultimately benefits both the organization and stakeholders in the following discussion:
In fact, experience has shown that evaluation findings often have
significant influence. They provide new concepts and angles of
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vision, new ways of making sense of events, new possible
directions. They puncture old myths. They show that some issues
expected to be important are not important and that unexpected
issues have become salient. They sometimes occasion a
reordering of priorities and a rethinking of program directions. As
they percolate into the consciousness of the program community,
they shape the ways in which people think about problems and
plan their responses.. . . This view celebrates the importance of
information, (p. 43)
Stakeholders gain an understanding of how to assess accountability and develop a
systematic way of reflecting on a program by being involved in the evaluative process.
Evaluation is made more relevant by acknowledging the range of concerns
surrounding a program. Stakeholder involvement affords greater insights into
“deeper issues of justice, power relations, and development of community capacity”
(Weiss, 1998, p. 112).
The reality of political influences and multiple stakeholders serves to increase
the complexity of the evaluation effort but make it more meaningful as well. The
methodologies endorsed by Weiss (1998) include the use of case study and, in
particular, evaluation synthesis to capture the richer details of a study dealing with
numerous external factors. The use of outcome monitoring with its focus on
increased accountability, the use of stakeholders in judging results, and the use of
public feedback and focus groups aids an evaluator in understanding the complexities
involved with program implementation.
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The relevance of examining performance-based management methodology
proved to be important to this research effort. Performance-based management
includes:
(a) developing a reasonable level of agreement on missions, goals,
and strategies for achieving the goals; (b) implementing
performance measurement systems of sufficient quality to
document performance and support decision making; and (c) using
performance information as a basis for decision-making at various
organizational levels. (Wholey, 1999, p. 289)
Information about program performance, outcomes and, ultimately, program value, is
critically important to federal executives. Such information aids in both present and
future decision-making regarding the continuation or modification of an
organization’s activities and leads ultimately to decisions of program value and
contribution. The use of evaluation methodologies that analyzes outcomes, activities,
and public impact is of particular importance to federal management by enhancing
both service accountability and visibility while providing a justification for resources
(Wholey, 1999). Behn (1995) suggests that the issue of measurement is one of the
three big questions in public management—specifically, how public managers measure
organizational achievement to help increase an agency’s achievement and public
responsiveness. He further questions how public managers help citizens define
realistic measures of achievement for which the managers and their agencies are held
responsible.
Performance evaluation which clearly measures how the lives of citizens and
the community have changed as a result of a specific government program is
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
undeniably important. Such an evaluation ensures that political advocacy, resource
allocation, priority realignment, and governmental commitment continue in the face of
resource shrinkage and policy-posturing. A recent report from the National Academy
of Public Administration (NAPA) offers an agenda of key issues that are critical to the
restoration of trust felt by Americans about their government. Three of the ten
recommendations speak directly to the need for aggressive pursuit of a culture based
on performance and results. The adoption of technologies needed to measure and
enhance satisfaction and to grant citizens more governmental access and the
development of innovative strategies for determining accountability were also
described as key factors in enhancing the citizens' relationship to their government
(PA Times, 1999).
The reality of federal performance measurement lies in the commitment to
move beyond the problems inhibiting the use of evaluation. Wildavsky (1972) raised
provocative questions when he discussed the self-evaluation process and why
organizations choose not to evaluate their own activities or explore their
programmatic objectives. This decision to evaluate is a critical one for public
agencies that are increasingly being required to demonstrate their contribution and
worth. According to Wholey (1987), four problems limit the use of evaluation
intended to improve performance. The first problem is lack of definition of the
problem, the program, or the outcomes. The second problem is the lack of a plausible
program theory that links expenditures, program implementation, outcomes, and
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
impacts to a set of assumptions. Third is a lack of agreement about evaluation
priorities limits use. The fourth is the inability or reluctance to act on evaluation
information. Additional challenges in effective performance measurement occur in
multiprogram and multigoal systems, due to fragmentation, complexity, and vague
missions (Kravchuk & Schack, 1996). The use of performance measurement in
organizations that perform impartial oversight or investigatory functions over other
governmental offices will create unique challenges. Performance measurement will be
affected by “highly politicized external environments with explicit conflict between
various stakeholders in the effort,” according to Radin (1998, pp. 309-310).
Beyond Self-Reporting and Demographics
Limited empirical research about public satisfaction and the ombudsman
function has been conducted in the field of conflict resolution. The field has been
slow to execute a rigorous process for evaluation (Costantino & Merchant, 1996;
Aufrecht & Hertogh, 1999). Much of the conflict resolution literature focuses on the
interpersonal changes and transformations resulting from intervention, which is often
self-reported by the professional ombudsmen community and is unsubstantiated by the
public and stakeholders. The research generally suffers from a lack of details or
criteria in evaluating program or service outcomes, with output measures which cite
demographic patterns of usage and numbers of cases along designated time lines
being a common focus of evaluation. Frequently, the research focuses on limited end
outcomes (often defined by the “feelings” of the respondents), with little analysis of
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the initial inputs, unanticipated outcomes, the systemic organizational changes, or
durability of the resolution.
The ombudsman research has suffered from a similar lack of rigorous,
performance-based evaluation in much the same way that the role continues to
grapple with the realities of diffused purposes, standards, jurisdictions, and purposes.
Brenda Danet (1978) proposed an evaluation methodology for the ombudsman role
as a complaint-handling mechanism over twenty years ago. In her seminal piece, she
suggests the development of measures as a viable process for monitoring citizenry
feedback about public sector programs. Danet (1978) recommends that data on
public complaints be comprised of meaningful social indicators. Proposed
measurements are to be categorized into three groups: (1) the public, to include
measuring complaint rates, knowledge of ombudsman help, representativeness, and
appropriateness of form and content of complaint; (2) the administrative system, to
include measuring the target and subject of the complaint, overall fairness,
responsiveness to ombudsman’s findings, and targets of reform; and (3) the
ombudsman office, including annual caseload and staff workload, efficiency, ability to
help, fairness, and impact on reform (Danet, 1978). Her framework recognizes the
importance of capturing public perceptions of support, while marred by diffuse
descriptions of capturing empirical data such as fairness. It also serves as a pivotal
line in the sand. “Does the ombudsman deliver what it promised?” is the question
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ultimately asked, which requires an assessment of the effectiveness of ombudsman
systems (Aufrecht & Hertogh, 1999, p. 1).
Her work was closely followed by Larry B. Hill (1982), who explored the
opportunities for citizen access to administrative systems via ombudsman offices,
through an extensive process of self-reporting by complaints officials. His study
focused on three dimensions: accessibility to citizens’ complaint substance,
operational norms, and degree of political autonomy (Hill, as cited in Caiden, vol. 1,
1983, p. 44). The need for empirical investigation of the ombudsman function is
reflected in his statement:
On the one hand, for those who view participation as a
competitive process in which elites are influenced, interests
maximized, and rights protected, the ombudsman does cause some
values to be reallocated in the course of helping clients. On the
other hand, for those who view participation as an interactive
process in which values such as sharing, reciprocity,
communication, justice, and self-realization are prominent, the
ombudsman promotes a sense of self-community by... existing as
a symbol of government’s concern for citizens. In both senses of
the term, the ombudsman increases the amount of participation in
the political system. (Hill, 1982, p. 429)
The publication of both Hill’s and Danet's works laid critical foundations for
evaluating the ombudsman within a variety of contexts, including political
participation. However, no process for evaluating the effectiveness of the
ombudsman function or the citizenry satisfaction with its services that extends beyond
professional self-assessments or survey mechanisms has been systematically
employed. Strong advocacy for the use of a federal Ombudsman is evident in much
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of the literature through such representative writings as: “.. . an effective ombudsman
can materially improve citizen satisfaction with the workings of the government...
(Anderson & Stockton, 1991, p. 34S). However, what is significantly absent in the
literature is the demonstrable evidence underlying statements such as those, which
systematically examines citizenry and stakeholder perceptions of ombudsman use.
What comprises a substantive evaluation that captures the qualitative
contributions and impacts generated by public ombudsmen is an important question.
One consideration involves building an assessment strategy that systematically collects
feedback about a range of performance variables. The development of leadership is
considered to involve the expansion of individual capabilities through elements of
assessment, challenge, and support (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998). The
need for assessment is critical as a benchmark for continued change and ascertaining
the gap between current and desired development. The Center for Creative
Leadership espouses the importance of employing a 360-degree feedback mechanism
as a vital part of leadership development feedback, as well as other formal
assessments such as customer evaluations and organizational surveys. In much the
same way that leadership development has benefited from assessment tools that
gather multiple perspectives, the ombudsman community could be well-served by
incorporating aspects of a similar formative feedback assessment tool. The
Ombudsman has a unique opportunity to substantively evaluate the Office’s impact by
exploring how an ombudsman’s office performs by evaluating how well it meets its
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
goals. The Office can also be examined in the context of what could be learned from
and improved about program performance. A comprehensive design might include
examining the program from multiple perspectives, assessing multiple performance
variables, using several assessment methods to determine the service impact, and
reviewing changes in perceptions over time (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor,
1998).
As recently as 1996, a comprehensive case study of five federal agencies
employing ombudsman, utilizing a process of formal evaluation or a system of
performance measurement, found none (Meltzer, 1996). Yet, the statutory
requirements for performance accountability and the logical arguments for service
provision capable of demonstrating results have markedly grown in the past decade.
This may suggest that many in the public ombudsmen community have not developed
a system of mature, meaningful performance measurement which supports
accountability, program effectiveness, and management improvements.
The public-sector execution of ombudsman services and roles has become
increasingly unfocused in the past twenty years. This lack of consistency and focus
has direct impact on the development of frameworks relevant for assessing publicsector ombudsmen. According to Rowat (1985, p. v) the ombudsman serves as a
“unique mechanism of democratic control over bureaucracy. . . [with] unique
characteristics, the most important. . . is its independence from the executive, mainly
achieved by providing for [the ombudsman] by law and making it an arm of the
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
legislature.” He further defines the institution as an independent and nonpartisan
office of the legislature, provided for in the constitution by law; dealing with specific
complaints from the public against administrative injustice and maladministration; and
having the power to investigate, criticize, and publicize, but not to reverse,
administrative action (Rowat, 198S, p. 183). The classical Ombudsman, as defined by
Hill (as cited in Caiden, vol.l, 1983, pp. 43-44), is:
(1) legally established, (2) functionally autonomous, (3) external to
the administration, (4) operationally independent of both the
legislature and the executive, (S) specialist, (6) expert,
(7) nonpartisan, (8) normatively universalistic, (9) client-centered
but not anti-administration, and (10) both popularly accessible and
visible. The institution’s mission is to generate complaints against
government administration, to use its extensive powers of
investigation in performing a post-decision administrative audit, to
form judgments which criticize or vindicate administrators, and to
report publicly its findings and recommendations but not to change
administrative decisions.
The classical Ombudsman receives complaints against government agencies,
investigates citizenry complaints, and serves as an avenue of last resort. Its use exists
with increasingly less frequency at the federal level (Meltzer, 1996), a trend of
growing concern to the American Bar Association (ABA). The ABA notes the recent
proliferation of ombudsman offices that have been developed without the
consideration of established models. Given the ombudsman’s unique societal role as a
resource for justice, the dilution of the role into “legal service helpers, advocates,
social workers, Customer service representatives, and even public relations offices”
(ABA, 1999) impacts negatively on the function and its ultimate purpose. Therefore,
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the ABA offers another (draft) definition, which is intended to stem the role’s erosion
by providing conceptual guidance:
An ombudsman is an independent, impartial person occupying a
high status office who is authorized to receive and address in a
confidential manner, complaints and inquiries from a specified
constituency concerning acts, omissions, and alleged improprieties
of an administrative jurisdiction or associated individuals or
entities. Based either on such complaints or inquiries, or on the
ombudsman’s own initiative, the ombudsman may: (1) investigate
or otherwise examine the matter and (2) take appropriate action to
aid in the resolution of the specific issue or a broader, underlying
problem. The ombudsman is not authorized to make, change, or
set aside a law, policy, or administrative decision. (ABA, 1999)
To clearly depict the dilemmas associated with disparate role definitions and diluted
expectations, consider the following Standards of Practice offered by a non-profit,
international association of professional organizational ombudsmen named The
Ombudsman Association (TOA):
The mission of the organizational ombudsman is to provide a
confidential, neutral and informal process which facilitates fair and
equitable resolutions to concerns that arise in the organization. In
performing this mission, the ombudsman serves as an information
and communication resource, upward feedback channel, advisor,
dispute resolution expert and change agent. (Hill, 1997, p. 7)
The tenants of the classical, externally-focused role are clearly evident with the use of
the international ombudsmen. Examples of powerful execution of the ombudsman
office presently reside across the world. Ombudsman is currently responsible for
investigating the massacre of civilians in Bogota, Columbia (Inter Press Service,
1999), investigating incidences of Internet exploitation of pornography involving
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
children in Denmark (Agence France Press, 1998), examining government corruption
in Namibia (Staby, 1998), and police graft in the Philippines (Reuters, 1999).
In comparison, many federal organizational ombudsman frequently focus on
dispute resolution for internal employees of government agencies. This diversity o f
roles and wide range of functions and responsibilities often results in service provision
that more closely emulates Employee Assistance Programs and other grievance
mechanisms. In many cases, the primary focus of the office is to provide internal
grievance resolution services to agency personnel, in a role characterized as a
“confidential and informal information resource, communications channel, complainthandier and dispute resolver. . . [whose] purpose is to foster values and decent
behavior” (Rowe, as cited in Meltzer, 1996, p. 9). Access by citizens and the ability
to ensure public responsiveness becomes overtaken by the internal focus of interface
with employees in this example of role devolution.
The gradual, yet increasingly ambiguous, evolution and implementation of the
ombudsman function results in significant impacts on issues of effectiveness and
accountability. According to Hill (1997, p. 9), concerns about the erosion of the
function, predominantly in American organizations, is based on his contention that the
term “ombudsman” should denote “an institution involved in doing impartial
investigations of citizen’s complaints . . . searching for points of law and proper
procedure, and questioning whether a bureaucratic agency may have done an injustice
to a citizen.” Hill asserts that reformers across the federal government should be
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reluctant to create ombudsman roles based on TOA-models; since, by doing so, the
ability to increase public accountability is lessened in lieu of focusing on alternative
grievance processes for employees.
A critical question to explore is how the lack of a definitized model or
standardized implementation impacted ombudsman evaluation practices. Rowe (as
cited in Breslin & Rubin, 1991) cites major problems with the evaluation of
ombudsman services, which in the past has focused on anecdotal stories, word of
mouth, and “happy client” letters. Danet (1978) describes the difficulties in
comparatively evaluating different ombudsman offices and asserts that information
about the office’s impact on public administration is limited and fragmented. Caiden
(1983) concludes that ombudsmen have limited effectiveness, primarily due to a lack
of standards associated with the performance or credentials of ombudsman
practitioners.
The first case studies focusing on the United States federal use of ombudsman
were completed in 1991. They described ombudsmen functions in six agencies
(Anderson & Stockton, 1991), two of which were already defunct at the time of the
study. The case studies centered on the following federal departments and agencies:
(1) the Taxpayer’s Ombudsman Office of the Internal Revenue Service, (2) the Army
Materiel Command Ombudsman; (3) Department of Health and Human Services
Supported State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, (4) the Environmental Protection
Agency’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous Waste Ombudsman,
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and (S) the Interstate Commerce Commission Ombudsman. The case studies
addressed no process for evaluating the effectiveness or efficiency of the offices. As
described in the section of each case study titled “Assessment,” the Offices were
evaluated by how the individual ombudsmen thought they accomplished their jobs.
Critical concerns about ombudsman independence, jurisdictional authority,
inconsistent implementation, and qualifications were raised (Anderson & Stockton,
1991). Primary service descriptors for each agency centered on such issues as
client/user base, nature of cases, acceptance of cases, case load, and settlement rates.
Initial assessments from other boundary agencies, users, and Congress were stated in
a very broad, anecdotal context.
Additional agency case studies were completed in 1995, examining five more
agencies, including the United States Secret Service, United States Information
Agency (USIA), International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), the Smithsonian Institute,
The Department of Energy, and the Department of State (Meltzer, 1995). A
significant finding emerged from all of the case studies conducted over the four-year
period—not one of the federal agencies engaged in a definitive, comprehensive
process of evaluating the support provided by its ombudsmen offices. Nor did any
office have a systematic process for collecting substantive stakeholder feedback,
including users or legislative members. In the sections of each case study that
explained if the Office was working as intended, some excerpts aptly depicted the lack
of understanding about the utility of evaluating the ombudsman function, such as:
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The current Ombuds has not developed tools specifically for
evaluation purposes. He believes the value of his office is
underscored by several facts: he can cite to specific cases that he
resolved and so did not go forward, he interacts with enough
people to know that they feel positively about the program, and he
continuously gets a high number of referrals.
Because the Ombuds is quite confident of senior management’s
support of her office, she has not focused heavily on creating
documents to justify it.
At this time, the Ombuds does not feel the need to generate any
formal records or reports on the functioning of the office. She is
confident of the Secretary’s support and keeps her abreast of
relevant information as necessary.. . . (Meltzer, 1996, pp. 18, 23,
28)
Also noteworthy is that, of the five agencies examined in the 199S study, none
provided a scope of support similar to the classical ombudsman definition designed to
provide an independent avenue of redress to the public.
Some of the more substantive evaluations conducted to date of the publicsector ombudsman function have occurred in international settings, with all focused
on evaluating the classical ombudsman function. The studies did not focus on
performance-based outcomes but, rather, employed case-study descriptions of the
Offices. Hill was one of the first to evaluate a national ombudsman office in 1976 by
incorporating the observations of officials and politicians other than the Ombudsman.
His evaluation of the New Zealand office identified goals of the office, including such
issues as righting administrative wrongs, bringing humanity into bureaucracy,
lessening public alienation from government; reforming administration, and acting as a
bureaucratic watchdog (Hill, as cited in Aufrecht & Hertogh, 1999, p. 6). He
employed a range of evaluative data in his study, including observation, interviews,
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
case study analysis, and records analysis. The Ombudsman of Great Britain
underwent several evaluations, one that focused on the relationships with Parliament
and used a combination of survey data, analysis about access and publicity, existing
records, and case resolution (Gregory & Pearson, 1992, as cited in Aufrecht &
Hertogh, 1999, p. 6). Finally, the complainants of the National Ombudsman Office of
the Netherlands were evaluated, resulting in a psychological and sociological
composite of characteristics based on files, a survey, interviews, and an analysis of
postal codes (Jacobs, 1994, as cited in Aufrecht & Hertogh, 1999, p. 7). In cases of
comparative evaluations that have been conducted internationally, office documents,
observations, interviews, expert panels, and analysis of the offices’ informal
functioning have all served as data sources (Gellhom, 1966; Kempf & Mille, 1993, as
cited in Aufrecht & Hertogh, 1999). In the prior evaluative studies done to date,
neither the need for outcomes nor the need to assess the public ombudsman based on
principles of performance-based management were directly addressed.
The landscape of performance evaluation is slowly changing within the
expanded ombudsman community. Examples of performance assessment are evident
in isolated pockets throughout the United States' public ombudsmen offices, most
notably at the local and state levels of government. Examples of probing service
assessments include the Detroit Ombudsman’s examination of community impact,
completed in 1984, which assessed issues such as access, service satisfaction, changes
in confidence in Detroit’s city government, and perceptions of worth. This
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assessment relied on key Ombudsman staff interviews, staff from other ombudsman
offices, and a telephone survey of Detroit residents (City of Detroit, Office of the
Auditor General, March 1984). In 1991 the Ombudsman Office of the State of
Alaska conducted a citizen survey which quantitatively examined such factors as
service timeliness; information, including safeguarding and status of complaint; quality
of response; if harm resulted; and level of satisfaction (Miller et al., 1991). Cost
savings associated with corporate ombudsmen were identified in a survey conducted
in the early 1990’s. The savings per case examined in 1989 ranged from $7,000 to
$1,000,000, with the median savings ranging from $100,000 to $200,000.
Additionally, during the time period surveyed, ombudsmen from 51 companies served
from 125 to 10,000 people annually, with approximately 150 formal cases handled per
year (Rowe, et al., as cited in CPR Model ADR Procedures and Practices series,
1994, p. 1-62).
Summary
The ombudsman is clearly considered an institution with marked potential for
enhancing the quality of governmental programs and impacting members of the
public. The need to demonstrate accountability through examining substantive
results, which exceed counting the number of calls received each year by the
ombudsman office, is routinely being discussed by an ombudsman serving in public
and corporate capacities. This chapter has explored the dimensions o f citizens’
mechanisms for redress that underlie the principles of democratic governance and
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
recent federal reform initiatives. The importance of including stakeholders and
members of the public in a systematic process for program assessment was explored.
The chapter also examined the factors of inconsistent and diluted implementation of
the ombudsman function, which must be understood in any effort to build an
evaluation framework. Finally, the current “state” of ombudsman evaluation
initiatives and challenges was explored. Important questions must be considered,
including how an evaluation framework can be built that is capable of assessing
various types of public ombudsman offices. How can the researcher build an
assessment tool that captures the substantive contribution of the ombudsman office?
How can performance measurement and results-based methodology be most
effectively incorporated into an evaluation schema? The methodological issues
associated with constructing a framework capable of assessing the function are
addressed in the next chapter.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER m
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research design used to develop and pilot-test an
assessment framework that had the potential for evaluating the public ombudsman.
The chapter begins with a discussion of the qualitative research design, which merges
key features of evaluability assessment and rapid feedback evaluation to create the
evaluative framework. The relevance of performance-based management, the specific
methodology employed in this research, and constraints that were encountered are
also addressed.
Qualitative Research
For several years the issue of public satisfaction with the government was
answered through feedback mechanisms such as customer surveys, focus groups, and
post-service questionnaires. Processes that provide substantive insight into the
quality of public service were used on a significantly less frequent basis. Three key
areas which begin to explore the quality of public service include issues associated
with democratic responsiveness and accountability, addressing flaws and abuses in
governmental programs, and enhancing public confidence in the government.
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Qualitative research was the appropriate form of inquiry to explore these
issues and set the context for discussion in both a theoretical and practical framework.
The appropriateness of relying on a qualitative approach was based on the underlying
characteristics of this research effort.
• Limited substantive exploration has been done to date on the linkage
between service and perceptions of stakeholders, citizens, and
ombudsman professionals on the issue of democratic access and public
satisfaction;
• The need to explore this topic in a broad context of political,
administrative, and organizational processes and complexities;
• The need to research this topic within the framework of context and
setting;
• The search for a deeper understanding of citizenry experience with the
Ombudsman function;
• The importance of environment, the nuances of service structure, and the
participants’ frame of reference; and
• The need to capture what the Ombudsman experience means to the
participant and stakeholder, in terms of rich description that captures
variation in implementation and results from a small number of people
(Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Wilson, 1977; Patton, 1997; Guba &
Lincoln, 1981; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994).
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As Lofland stated:
The commitment to get close, to be factual, descriptive, and
quotive, constitutes a significant commitment to represent the
participants in their own term s.. . . A major methodological
consequence of these commitments is that the qualitative study of
people in situ is a process of discovery.. . . (Lofland, as cited in
Patton, 1997, p. 274)
Qualitative research “studies people and events in their own context” (Weiss,
1998; p. 2S2), representing a holistic vantage point that seeks to understand the
interactive setting. Qualitative evaluation seeks to explain what a program did, the
course that was followed, the response by recipients, and the steps in realizing
outcomes (Weiss, 1998). The nature of this research focused on the “how and why”
of citizen and stakeholder perceptions as a result of ombudsman service, required no
control over the research participants, and evaluated key variables of citizen access,
satisfaction, resolution effectiveness and efficiency, and organizational diagnostic
capabilities of the public-sector ombudsman through examining current and historical
data. Therefore, the use of a 360-degree feedback tool that explored perceptions of
public ombudsman offices from three respondent groups was a critical component in
the preliminary assessment of the two ombudsman offices explored in this research
effort.
Developing a Pilot-Test Methodology
The goal of this research was to undertake an in-depth exploration of how the
public-sector ombudsman impacted the public’s perception of access to its
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
government and the degree of satisfaction with their governmental relationships. This
exploration of public ombudsman impact was built around a pilot test research
design, utilizing interviews and document analysis as the primary source of data
collection. The pilot test results were rolled into a larger analysis for comparative
purposes that discussed the organizational context, in addition to the data pertaining
to the research variables. Additionally, a comparative approach was used to allow for
multiple environments to be examined within an overall framework, proceeding from
a common design, where the same research questions were explored in each case
(AgranofF & Radin, 1991). The research process for the comparative analysis was
based on integrating the results from the interviews, documentation and report
analysis, and limited site observation. As suggested by AgranofF and Radin, the
comparative analysis contained central descriptive characteristics and competencies of
the researched Offices. This included structural contexts, operations, key actors, and
decision processes; office accomplishments and results; and communication
mechanisms. The intent of the comparative analysis was not to focus on the
similarities or differences between the two offices but, rather, as an analytical tool for
ascertaining the pilot-test applicability in two unique environments.
The two public ombudsman organizations used in this research effort were:
U.S. Federal Agency Canada
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Ontario Provincial Government
Office of the Ombudsman Ombudsman Ontario
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Several considerations served to guide case selection. First, an early research
intention was to design a rapid assessment and pilot test process for public
ombudsman offices that perform their functions in different ways and possess differing
levels of jurisdiction and authorities. The evaluative process was intended to be
relevant for an office focused on the classical implementation of ombudsman services,
as well as an office that had a greater diffusion of service recipients. By examining
the utility of the evaluative design in two different organizations, the ability to
generalize to an expanded number of public ombudsman offices at all levels of
government was potentially valid. Second, the cases were selected to ensure that an
American and international comparison could be made. Third, the cases needed to be
of an equivalent level and stature. The American case involved a federal agency,
which, in turn, required an international counterpart. While Canada is considering
proposals for having a federal Ombudsman with broad authorities, selected federal
Ombudsman are now limited to the areas of Freedom of Information and the military.
An ombudsman for the banking industry has been proposed but has not been
established. Canada has implemented the rigorous use of ombudsman within most
Provinces with broad scopes of responsibility. Therefore, the Ombudsman Ontario
was considered to be an appropriate counterpart to the FDIC’s Ombudsman for
general comparative purposes. Currently, most provincial governments in Canada
have ombudsman who serve as Officers of the Legislature and are appointed to
investigate complaints related to administrative decisions and actions of provincial
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
government organizations. Several federal departments and agencies in the United
States have appointed ombudsman, with all working for officials within the Executive
branch. Jurisdiction varies, with only selected federal Ombudsman appointed to
positions that investigate and resolve citizen complaints about the administrative
actions of the government.
The two organizations selected for this research shared common attributes but
were richly different in terms of regulatory establishment, jurisdiction, role definition,
and service execution. Nevertheless, both Ombudsman were enthusiastically
committed to participating in this research effort and were also committed to the
belief that measuring and evaluating their contribution was of paramount importance
to enhancing the credibility of their organizations. Both Ombudsman were actively
involved in numerous international and federal ombudsman organizations, with both
holding prominent positions of leadership in these professional organizations.
The FDIC employs an ombudsman structure with features most aptly
described as those of the organizational ombudsman. This particular federal office is
actually closely representative of the characteristics associated with a hybrid
government workplace ombudsman. As an office less than five years old, it is focused
in terms of its citizenry contacts, support to top management initiatives, and
jurisdictional authorities. The Office provides service to three contact groups:
members of the public, members of the banking industry, and internal FDIC
employees.
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Office of the Ombudsman (OO) demonstrated limited experience in
conducting evaluative functions or performance assessments. During the past few
years, the Office experienced significant downsizing, with dramatic cuts in staff* and
resources.
The Ontario Provincial Government’s Ombudsman is representative of a
mature ombudsman office, with a direct reporting chain to the Speaker of the Ontario
Parliament. The Ombudsman Ontario is representative of a classical ombudsman with
broad powers and responsibilities, to include the pursuance of complaint resolution
and investigations across the provincial government organizations. The Office
recently embarked on an aggressive effort to evaluate their programs, including
administering a survey mechanism, developing information technology tools which
capture service statistics, and designing new management processes intended to better
serve the citizenry. The Office has simultaneously experienced significant downsizing
and has successfully coped with resource reductions through major restructuring
initiatives.
Examining each Office in depth allowed the researcher to apply a common
framework of assessment to two different environments. These environments were
separated in focus, organizational and political maturity, jurisdiction, functions, and
responsibility. Likewise, prior experiences with evaluation and the political advocacy
engendered by each Office differed.
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2 provides a brief synopsis of key characteristics of each Office. A
detailed description of each case is presented in Chapters IV and V.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF CASE DESCRIPTIONS
Key Characteristics Ombudsman Ontario FDIC Office of the
Ombudsman
Compliant Group Member of Public Member of Public; Banking
Industry; FDIC Employees
Reporting Chain Speaker of the Legislative
Assembly (Parliament)
Chief Operating Officer
Cases in 1998 29,396 36,543*
(Resolutions) (98%) (not available)
Employees 85 36
Age of Office 24 years 4 years
Powers of Office • subpoena
• investigations
• own motion investigations
• record seizure
• power of persuasion
• limited investigations
*Majority of FDIC calls are of a general information nature.
Ensuring Program Improvement and Use
One of the major reasons for evaluating public-sector organizations is to help
officials improve their programs (Wholey, Hatry & Newcomer, 1994; Posavac &
Carey, 1997; Patton, 1997). Assessing methods to improve governmental programs
is a significant step in building an aggressive process for achieving accountability
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Posavac & Carey, 1997). The need to develop a sound methodology which provides
the information required for program improvement cannot be overemphasized. First
and foremost, the benefits for gaining more program insight must be recognized by an
organization’s leadership, staff, and especially by those who can effect the future of
the program—the stakeholders. The potential for greater use of evaluative
information is enhanced when it is obtained through an assessment designed to result
in greater program knowledge. Management-oriented evaluations should be designed
to:
. . . help produce agreement on sets of results-oriented program
objectives and performance indicators, to produce evidence on
program performance in terms of agrees-upon objectives and
performance indicators, and to help produce demonstrable
improvements in the design and performance of government
agencies and programs. (Wholey, 1983, p. 167)
The evaluability assessment, designed to provide critical information in
support o f the preliminary assessment, is a critical tool that provides insights into the
program’s capacity to be managed by results and for improvement (Wholey, 1983).
By building on key aspects of the evaluability assessment, the researcher can initially
ensure that several critical areas are integrated into the assessment effort, such as:
(1) the definition of program goals, objectives, and information needs; (2) the clarity
with which key stakeholders, managers and staff see the programmatic intent; (3) the
exploration of program reality through goals and objectives that are plausible;
(4) management’s use of evaluation information to improve design or performance;
and (5) the exploration of alternative measurement systems (Wholey, 1979). The
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
results of a modified evaluability assessment are intended to be used by public-sector
ombudsman offices to either maintain or change program design, goals, or structure;
to improve program management and quality of feedback mechanisms; and to
ultimately improve public confidence.
Typically, once results of an evaluability assessment are available, the rapid
feedback evaluation is the next evaluative tool intended to provide managers and
policy makers with a quick, preliminary assessment of program performance. This is
conducted by examining agreed-upon objectives and indicators and allowing for
design of full-scale evaluation (Wholey, 1979). While used infrequently, this type of
evaluation examines the feasibility and cost of specific performance measures and
allows an evaluation to be conducted based on a general framework. The five steps
in developing a rapid-feedback evaluation process include: (1) collection of existing
data on program performance; (2) collection of new program data; (3) preliminary
evaluation; (4) development and analysis of alternative full-scale evaluation designs;
and (5) assistance with management decisions (Wholey, 1983). By tailoring aspects
of evaluability assessment and rapid feedback, this research effort developed a
modified framework for the organizations that participated in this research. Both
organizations were committed at varying levels to building an environment of
performance-based management and saw utility in having a rapid assessment of
performance conducted.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Building on the Research Design
The qualitative research focus required development of an assessment
framework that incorporated key components of evaluability assessment and rapid
feedback evaluation. This resulted in the development and pilot-testing of an
assessment design that allowed for comparative analysis between the two
organizations. The use of a pilot test was appropriate, because substantive
knowledge was to be gained and put to practical application. This research focused
on existing data, examination of operations, and interaction with users, stakeholders,
and ombudsman staff to produce a preliminary assessment of service activities and
impacts. Suggestions for alternative assessment tools were identified, designed to
build an increasingly comprehensive evaluation design. The assessment framework
was developed to explore the perceptions of all three respondent groups in order to
gain insight into the unique performance information needed by each group. A
comprehensive program of performance measurement will serve the users of
performance information, but may require them to focus on data or informal
qualitative program assessments that examine outcomes, outputs, key external
factors, or unintended consequences (Wholey, 1999).
The use of performance-based management has direct implications on this
research in terms of using performance information to demonstrate the progress
towards organizational goals and communicating the value to stakeholders and the
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
public. In addition, being able to demonstrate effective performance supports
resulting resource allocation (Wholey, 1999).
For purposes of this research, the process used in building this evaluative pilot
test was modified to incorporate the following steps: (1) collection o f new program
data; (2) collection of existing data; (3) conduct of a preliminary assessment;
(4) suggestions for alternative assessment tools; and (S) recommendations of outcome
measures. The pilot test identified the user’s service needs and objectives, integrating
existing data and collecting new data focused on key research variables. Additionally,
the researcher suggested methods for using different types of assessment tools and
proposed potential performance measurement candidates relevant to each
environment. This technique was intended to minimize the time needed to obtain data
and was focused on obtaining critical programmatic information in a practical fashion.
The five steps of the assessment research process are shown in Table 3 and
are discussed in greater detail in subsequent segments:
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF FIVE-STEP ASSESSMENT PROCESS
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT DESIGN
1. Collection of New Program Data
2. Collection of Existing Data
3. Preliminary Assessment
4. Suggestions for Alternative Assessment Tools
S. Recommendation for Outcome Measures
Collection of New Program Data
The new data collected in this research effort included interviews with the
three respondent groups—members of the public/contact groups; Ombudsman staff,
and stakeholders. Follow-on interviews were conducted as necessary, primarily when
clarifying specific information was needed after the interviews. Limited site
observations also occurred at each research site, with the researcher being allowed to
attend selected staff meetings and other problem-solving discussions. The researcher
was not allowed to observe an actual meeting between a member of the ombudsman
staff and a complainant in either environment.
Interviews with members of the three respondent groups were conducted at
both sites and at the offices of the stakeholder and citizen interviewees. Additionally,
five interviews had to be conducted over the telephone due to the physical location of
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the respondents. Table 4 details the participants who were interviewed in support of
each case.
TABLE 4
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
Case Participants Number of
Interviews
Ombudsman Ontario Ombudsman 2(1*)
Staff Executive Director 2(1*)
Manager of Team 3 2(1*)
Manager of Team 1 1
Manager of Team 2 1
Manager of Team 4 1
Team Leader of Team 3
Team Leader of Team 1 1
Client Access Representative 1*
Ombudsman Representative of Team
-l
[«
J 1
Ombudsman Representative of Team
*5
1
1*
I
3
Investigator of Team 3
I
1
Investigator of Team 2 1
Investigator of Team 2
Programmer Analyst
Policy Advisor
I
Stakeholders Former Member of Parliament 1*
Former Member of Parliament 1**
Deputy Minister for Corrections 1*
Citizen Members President, Citizen Advocacy Group 1**
Executive Director, Citizen Advocacy I*
Group Total = 23
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Case Participants Number of
Interviews
FDIC Office of the
Ombudsman
Staff Ombudsman 2(1*)
Deputy Ombudsman I*
Senior Ombudsman Specialist I*
Senior Ombudsman Specialist \*
Ombudsman Specialist I*
Management Analyst 1
Stakeholders Deputy Chairman, FDIC and
Chief Operating Office !♦
Vice Chairman, FDIC 1*
Manager, Division of Resolutions and
Receiverships !♦
Contact Group
Representatives Bank President I*
President, Banking Industry Trade I*
Group I*
President, Banking Industry Trade Total - 13
Group Grand Total = 36
♦Recorded Interviews with Transcribed Records
♦♦Interviewees Who Could Be Categorized in More Than One Respondent Group.
Interviews ranged in time from thirty to ninety minutes, with the average interview
lasting sixty minutes. Permission was received from the interviewee to tape the
session prior to the commencement of each interview. The tapes were summarily
transcribed, with over 271 pages of transcribed reports generated from the formal
interviews. Field notes also supplemented the recordings and were of particular
importance when conducting preliminary interviews not formally captured on tape.
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The field notes were also important in capturing subject matter content and researcher
reaction to the staff meetings and informal staff sessions that were attended.
The interviews were conducted between December 14, 1998 and August 10,
1999, with thirty interviews conducted in person. Six interviews were conducted by
telephone with respondents in the following locations: Ottawa, Canada; Toronto,
Canada; Dallas, Texas (2); and Washington, DC (2). The interview process was
conducted as follows:
Open-ended Interviews: The process of building a relevant interview
framework required careful thought pertaining to the nature of the research, the
appropriate people to whom questions were to be directed, and to ensure the
questions were easy to answer (GAO, 1991, p. 6). A framework of potential
questions was built to ensure information would be elicited for further evaluation.
The content and subject matter was developed to be relevant to the respondent. The
wording and procedure ensured both valid and reliable results when applied to an
unstructured interview format. The interviews commenced with a grouping of topics
to be covered, but wording of specific questions was left to the discretion of the
interviewer (Weiss, 1998, p. 167). This enabled the interviewer to craft questions to
suit the particular respondent and enhance the conversational flow. This technique
also allowed insights into areas of interviewee concern and allowed for the greater
exploration of perceptions among the three respondent groups.
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The following framework suggested by the GAO (1991, p. 21) provided a
useful framework for identifying, developing, and considering an initial pool of
questions for the unstructured interview phase and is depicted in Table S.
TABLE 5
FRAMEWORK OF CANDIDATE QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW
Task
POTENTIAL QUESTION FRAMEWORK
Research Context
Formulate Overall Questions 1) Perceptions of CHANGE in access to government?
2) Perceptions of CHANGE in satisfaction with government?
3) Perceptions of the effectiveness and efficiency of the resolution?
4) The organizational changes occurring as result of Ombudsman
Office?
Determine Kind of Information
Needed
1) Program Description: service delivery, function and purpose;
qualifications and standards used; program goals; evaluations employed.
2) Citizen Satisfaction: degree of satisfaction with process, results,
responsiveness, and relationship to the Ombudsman; degree of
satisfaction with access to democratic mechanisms.
3) Effectiveness of resolution: nature of outcomes, durability of results;
and efTect on environment
4) Efficiency of resolution: costs; timeliness; decrease in adversarial
impacts on life of citizen and on organization.
5) Evidence of Changes in Agency and Program Operations: systemic
impacts resulting from Ombudsman problem identification.
Identify Target Population 1) Citizens or members of groups who used Ombudsman Office
2) Ombudsman Stakeholders
3) Ombudsman and staff
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Task
POTENTIAL QUESTION FRAMEWORK
Research Context
Sample:
Create Question Pool
Proaram DesgQlft'pn
1.1- For what purpose was the Ombudsman Office established? What
is the jurisdiction?
1.2- How do citizens learn about and use Ombudsman service? What
is source of complaints?
13 - What existing guidelines and standards are used to define the
program?
1.4 • How are complaints or needs handled that are not appropriate for
Ombudsman review?
1.5 - What training, education and credentials does the Ombudsman
possess?
1.6 - What process is used in coordinating between agency, citizen
groups, and stakeholders?
1.7 - How is support provided to internal and external participants?
1.8 - What resources are provided to the Ombudsman Office?
1.9 - How is the Ombudsman Office evaluated by stakeholders? How
are results disseminated?
1.10 • What are the goals, values, mission, and performance outcomes
of the Office?
1.11- How does the Ombudsman report findings? To whom do they go
when completed?
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T ask
POTENTIAL QUESTION FRAMEWORK
Research Context
Sam ple; Citizen Access and Satisfaction
Create Question Pool 2.1 - What is your level of satisfaction with support from the
Ombudsman? What was the value added by dealing with the
ombudsman? How did you benefit from the results? What was your
involvement with crafling the resolution? What changes do you think
will occur as a result of your governmental issue?
2.2 - What is your level of satisfaction with the outcomes?
2.3 - Do you have more or less trust in your government as a result of
the support?
2.4 - Would you recommend the use of an Ombudsman to other
members of the public?
2.5 - Describe your perceptions about the access to Ombudsman office?
Has the access you experienced effected your feelings about the
government?
2.6 - Would you use the Ombudsman service again? Under what
conditions?
2.7 - How has communication between the public and agency personnel
been impacted by the Ombudsman?
2.8 • What is the degree of accessibility the Ombudsman projects to
citizens—is he/she deeply involved in the community?
• For the citizen groups: how did you learn of the oflice? How did
you contact the ombudsman?
- When did you meet to discuss your issue or concern? Who
contacted you? What did the contact tell you in terms o f the types
of service you could receive?
- How would you describe the degree of comfort and understanding
you felt at the first and subsequent meetings?
- Do you know of any others who have used the services o f the
Office?
2.9 - How is satisfaction measured in context of confidentiality? What
instruments are used to ensure neutrality, confidentiality, and
independence?
2.10 - Was there any value added, and if so, what?
Effectiveness ofRcsolution
3.1 • What are the resolution differences between ombudsman service
and litigation—both in terms of substance and quality of outcomes?
32 - What is the number of ‘repeat’ citizenry complains and
grievances?
3.3 - Has the perception or image o f the agency changed with the
introduction of the Office?
3.4 - What does the public or stakeholders perceive as changes in agency
accountability as result of the use o f Ombudsman?
3.5 - Has there been a change in citizen grievances or disputes?
3.6 - How are investigatory findings are reflected in agency procedures,
processes, and changes?
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Task
POTENTIAL QUESTION FRAMEWORK
Research Context
Sample; Efrectivenes3.2£RcsQ|iitj9n
Create Question Pool 4.1 - What change to inspections; fraud, waste and abuse inquiries, and
Congressional (and other stakeholder) inquiries have occurred as result
of Ombudsman service?
4 2 - What training have agency staff received on the conflict resolution
process?
4 3 - What baseline data is available to show how much time and
funding was used in handling public disputes and grievances before and
afler the introduction of the Ombudsman? Have the savings been
calculated that depict the costs associated with the use of Ombudsman
as opposed to the use of courts and litigation? Have targets been
established that address desired timeliness and costs savings?
4.4 - What intangible results from the use of Ombudsman are
documented, to include enhanced agency reputation, citizenry
satisfaction with “being heard,’’ identification of areas needing reform or
intervention?
S.l - What role does the Ombudsman play in administrative reform in
the agency?
52 - What evidence exists that problem identification has resulted in
changes to agency processes and operations?
53 - How are instances of programs or issues in need of reform
identified, authenticated, disseminated, and supported by the
Ombudsman?
5.4 - To what degree are cases of systemic concern disseminated to
stakeholders?
5.5 - Are tangible impacts evident that have resulted in improved
governmental programs?
Select Questions Determine what Question Set is relevant for categories of respondents
during Open-ended Interview Process.
The use of unstructured interviewing yielded more meaningful results than a
structured interview methodology. This technique revealed substantive qualitative
data that provided insight into respondent’s perceptions with open-ended questions..
The decision to use an open-ended technique was based on the researcher’s desire for
depth in exploring the respondents' perceptions and allowed issues to emerge that
were not originally considered in the research design. The unstructured technique
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
allowed the use of probing, oral inquiry and responses and resulted in more
information being derived about complex subject matter. The technique permitted
greater depth and probing to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the two
Ombudsman Offices, since one-on-one interviewing is time-consuming and costly.
From the candidate pool of questions, the interviewer went into each session
with a general list of topics for possible discussion, tailored for the respondent group.
Tables 6, 7, and 8 provide draft Interview Guides that were used to generally guide
the conversation with the three respondent groups, serving as a top-level framework:
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 6
SAMPLE KEY ISSUES FOR FIRST RESPONDENT GROUP
Guide for Ombudsman Staff Interviews
1. Description of Office, staffing, jurisdiction, special authorities, focus, resources, key
accomplishments?
2. The most serious challenges facing the Office over next five years?
3. Performance information—what form? Its use? How do senior management/other
stakeholders use information?
4. What data and records are maintained?
5. Types of cases? Who is served?
6. Primary sources of complaints handled in office?
7. Credentials—training and prior experience of staff?
8. Stakeholder relationship and advocacy of the Office?
9. Citizen contacts and access to Office (intended to capture the process and
responsiveness).
10. Self-assessment of constituent satisfaction with support—on a 0-5 scale (with 0=low,
5=high).
11. Resolution, to include repeat complaints; comparison of complaint-handling
before/after Ombudsman establishment
12. Communication—about Office as a resource, between Divisions, between Headquarters
and Regional Offices
13. Lasting changes in policies or reforms
Adapted from a handout titled “Guides for Interviews with Operating-Level Managers and
Staff,” provided for Dr. Joseph Wholey's PA 699 Course, USC/WPAC.
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 7
SAMPLE KEY ISSUES FOR SECOND RESPONDENT GROUP
Guide for Stakeholder Interviews
1. The key accomplishments and results of the Office?
2. The most serious challenges facing the organization and Office over next five years?
3. Performance information—what form? It’s use? How did you use information about
the Ombudsman?
4. Types of cases? Who is served?
5. What is the prospect of either increasing or decreasing the resource base for the Office?
6. Self-assessment of constituent satisfaction with support—on a 0-5 scale (with 0=low
and 5=high)
7. How has the organization been impacted after the Office’s establishment?
8. What are the lasting changes in policies or reforms as result of having an Ombudsman?
9. Would you expand the scope, if able?
Adapted from a handout titled “Guides for Interviews with Operating-Level Managers and
Staff,” provided for Dr. Joseph Wholey's PA 699 Course, USC/WPAC.
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 8
SAMPLE KEY ISSUES FOR THIRD RESPONDENT GROUP
Guide for Citizen and Other User Interviews
1. How did user learn of and communicate concern to this Office? Who contacted user;
was staff accessible to user?
2. Describe how the process worked—to include timeliness and responsiveness of staff?
3. What was user concern? User satisfaction with the process and with the Ombudsman
relationship?
4. What was the outcome? Benefits or drawbacks of using the Office?
5. What features of the Office made a difference in how concern was handled, i.e., the
confidentiality, independence, thorough investigation?
6. Self-assessment of individual satisfaction with support—on a 0-5 scale (0=low,
5=high)
7. Have your feelings about the government changed in any way because of this service?
8. What changes to government will occur as result of your complaint?
Adapted from a handout titled “Guides for Interviews with Operating-Level Managers and
Staff,” provided for Dr. Joseph Wholey's PA 699 Course, USC/WPAC.
The candidate interview script guides were pretested and reviewed with two
subject matter experts. One expert in the area of strategic and performance
measurement serves as one of the United States’ top senior Baldrige examiners. The
second expert serves as a corporate ombudsman with the Canadian banking industry.
Their suggestions for drawing out a richer assessment through questioning were
incorporated into the researcher’s actual interview sessions.
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
One of the key research challenges that arose during the interviewing process
involved the researcher’s access to individual complainants with both organizations.
The organizations were reticent to turn over names and other personal information,
although the researcher signed a Confidentiality Agreement with the Ombudsman
Ontario and offered to do the same with the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman. The
confidentiality challenges were handled in three ways. First, both organizations
drafted letters to potential interviewees that inquired of their interest in participating
in this research initiative. The Ombudsman or a designee followed up the letter with a
phone call. The researcher was then notified of a potential interviewee’s willingness
to discuss his/her experiences, whereupon the public member was called directly, and
a time was scheduled for the interview. Second, selected consumer groups who
routinely interfaced with the Ombudsman Offices, representing a larger aggregate of
users, were asked about their willingness to participate, such as labor union leadership
or a prisoner advocacy group. This approach afforded the opportunity to discuss
ombudsman support with a broader range of public members without getting into the
specific cases of individuals. The research approach was developed in conjunction
with each organization. Finally, the use of client survey data, including narrative
comments, and anecdotal letters of appreciation were provided to the researcher.
Ombudsman Ontario recently administered a client survey which looked at such
factors as service access (including locating the office and the first contact),
effectiveness of process, satisfaction with the process, service equity, and associated
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
demographics. The researcher was able to incorporate relevant narrative comments
into the assessment data. The FDIC Office of the Ombudsman provided various
letters that comprised an office document referred to as a “Brag Book,” which
contained several letters from members of the public and the banking industry. Where
appropriate, excerpts from the letters were used as data sources, with consideration
given to the fact that only positive letters about dealings with the Office were
provided to the researcher.
Collection of Existing Data
The examination of existing documentation provided information about
program goals and objectives, identified performance indicators used by the
ombudsman offices, and allowed insight and understanding into the programmatic
focus and priorities. The need to examine actual program activities and look at what
data was currently available served as a critical, preliminary baseline in this research
effort. A synthesis of existing data was obtained through the analysis of agency
records, reports, and web-based communications. The following data was examined
as part o f the document analysis review:
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FDIC
Office of the Ombudsman
• FDIC Strategic Plan
• FDIC Annual Performance Plan
• Key Authorizing Documentation
• Annual Reports
• Project Reports
• Financial Services Education Materials
• Automated Tracking System Manual
• Quarterly Reports
• Conference Brochures
• Model and Operating Intructions
• “Brag Book” Letters
(BOTH)
• New Releases
• General Information Material
• Outreach Brochures
Ontario Provincial Government
Ombudsman Ontario
• Strategic Plan
• Annual Reports
• Appendices to Annual Reports
• Complaints Resolution Manual
• Ontario Legislative Documents
• Newsletters
• Survey Documentation
• Restructuring/Transformation Report
• Training Program Report
• Accountability and Fairness Standards
• Annual Budgets
• Management Information Reports
• Protocol Agreement between Ombudsman
and Other Ministries
• Standing Committee Recommendations
and Ombudsman Responses
The examination of documents was a critical factor in the subsequent
interview discussions. The majority of documents that were examined covered the
past three years for both organizations, which allowed for greater insights into trends,
the focus of narrative documentation, and the evolution of data displays and analysis,
e.g., were the staff able to identify the key Office goals and objectives outlined in
strategic planning documents; did organizational records track access and
responsiveness; and what constituted the key responsibilities of the ombudsman?
Preliminary Assessment
A preliminary assessment of program performance was developed based on
key information obtained by the two primary data sources—interviews and key
documents. Since the assessment was based on limited data and designed to serve as a
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
rapid look, it merely estimated program performance and accomplishments. The
assessment also identified the extent of uncertainty with the review of performance.
The results generated from the interviews and document analysis are provided
in Chapters IV (Ombudsman Ontario) and V (FDIC Office of the Ombudsman).
Suggestions for Alternative Assessment Tools
A candidate design for more comprehensive tools was offered, including
candidate measures and associated costs; comparisons of performance and uncertainty
about proposed comparisons; and information uses. This was based on the
information generated from available source documents and, by collecting limited new
data focused on key variables, the researcher recommended additional tools that
could become the basis for later evaluations. A tool for assessing public ombudsman
programs via a 360-degree methodology that captures user and stakeholders’
perceptions was also generated from this research. Greater detail about assessment
tools is provided in Chapters IV and V, including examples of the types of
information that would be produced with a comprehensive set of performance
measurements, costs and resource implications, and assisting management decisions.
Management briefings based on the initial assessment findings and provided to the
Ombudsman of each organization are also contained in subsequent chapters.
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Recommendation for Outcome Measures
Ultimately, the pilot test results were intended to provide an initial assessment
of the strengths and weaknesses of the Ombudsman Offices, with the findings capable
of being used to build a more rigorous framework in which to remedy program
failings and capitalize on program strengths. As Weiss (1998, p. 325) contends, ..
what the issues are and which facets of the issues deserve attention, which of the
issues deserve priority, what comfortable assumptions are unfounded, and what
alternatives are possible” comprise a programmatically useful evaluation. The
researcher provided recommendations to the senior management of both Offices
which addressed outcome measures capable of improving performance accountability
and laid the groundwork for future evaluation efforts. The researcher identified new
performance indicators that had potential relevance to the offices; proposed a
framework for systematically identifying stakeholder and citizen/user perceptions on
several variables, including access and satisfaction; Ombudsman effectiveness and
efficiency, and changes in agency or programs. The researcher also offered some
initial thoughts on Office changes likely to improve service. These findings are
addressed in Chapter VI.
Data Analysis
The data collection and analysis included multiple sources of evidence, i.e.,
literature and document analysis; interviews with program participants, staff and
stakeholders; examination of resource records; and analysis of all unstructured
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
discussions (Yin, 1994). Data organization was critical due to the amount of textual
data to be collected and analyzed during the study. The organization of the data was
based on the research questions and the data activities. Coding placed narrative
information into a set of categories that captured the meaning. It required the
development of a set of descriptive categories that captured the main themes of the
data (Weiss, 1998). The coding system in Table 9 identified the process that was
used which allowed more rapid retrieval and analysis of information.
As suggested by Caudle (1994), coding provided the researcher with the
ability to unitize (identifying the smallest unit of information which can stand alone)
and categorize (allowing related units of information to be brought together). The
intent of the research was to use the coding schematic to identify and flag key
concepts related to the research variables that emerged during the interview and
document analysis data collection. The coding was performed once the interviews
were transcribed, which allowed the researcher to categorize the original key research
variables and sub-variables. It also provided the framework for adding variables.
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 9
CODING SYSTEM
Research Question and Potential Assessment
Activities
------—— — --— Code-.........-............
With the existence of an ombudsman function, do
citizens perceive access to government? 1
Ombudsman Involvement in Community a
Responsiveness to Need b
Known Use of Office by Others c
Communication about Services d
Degree of Comfort e
Willingness to Recommend to Others f
Change in Perception of Having Access 8
With the existence of an ombudsman function, do
citizens perceive satisfaction with the government? 2
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Process a
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with the Interpersonal k
Relationship D
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with the Professionalism C
of Staff d
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with A
Outcome
V
f
identification of Service Results
1
(f
Degree of Confidentiality 8
h
Sense for Fair Treatment
Change in Perception of Being
Satisfied
How do citizens characterize the effectiveness and
efficiency of the resolution? 3
Durability of Resolution a
Timeliness of Resolution b
Effect on Environment c
• improved agency perception 1
- decreased backlog of complaints 2
- decrease in adversarial impacts 3
Intangible Benefits d
Litigation or Grievance Savings e
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question and Potential Assessment
Activities
------------------------ Code------------------
Has the ombudsman been able to effect changes to
programs generated by the use of organizational
diagnosis, as perceived by staff and stakeholders? 4
Changes in Policies a
Reforms Initiated b
Changes in Senior Decision-Making c
Communication of Findings d
Tracking of Systemic Areas of Concern e
What factors emerge in a comparative analysis of
the publk-sector ombudsman between a U.S. and
Canadian environment? 5
Use of Performance Information a
Service Delivery b
Jurisdiction c
-Classical (Predominantly) 1
- Organizational (Predominantly) 2
Program Quality and Standards d
• Training, Education and Credentials 1
-ADR Expertise 2
- Support Procedures 3
• Complaints Tracking and Analysis 4
Clear Client/User e
Professional Organization Membership f
The analysis was conducted in four steps: (1) qualitative analysis and pilot test
of an ombudsman assessment process using documents and qualitative comments
from interviews; (2) analysis of the survey results using descriptive statistics;
(3) analysis of the relationships of the interview questions addressing selected
variables of the process; and (4) comparison of the analysis.
The researcher identified themes and trends from the coded qualitative
comments generated during the interviews. From these themes and trends, the
findings were examined, aiming first to delineate the “deep structure” and then to
integrate the data into an exploratory assessment framework (Miles & Huberman,
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1994). This approach required data reduction, data display, and drawing conclusions
and verification. Data reduction refers to “the process of selecting, focusing,
simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data that appear in write-up field notes
or transcriptions” (p. 10). Data were reduced through selection, summary or
paraphrasing, and incorporation into larger patterns and associated research variables.
Data sources, collection instruments, sample analytical formats, and an outline
of case reports were identified in an earlier research proposal. The design allowed
flexibility through the inclusion of additional information to include ombudsman
service characteristics, information pertaining to stakeholder experiences and results,
reasons for dissatisfaction, suggestions for service improvement, and impact of the
service. The interview and documentation data were coded, recorded, and
summarized by correlating the individual respondent or data source to the variable
being evaluated. The process tracked each data source to the key research questions
represented by Table 10.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 10
DATA SOURCES CORRELATION
Research Questions and Related Data Sources
(1) Access (2) Satisfaction
(3)
Effectiveness &
Efficiency
(4) Org.
Diagnosis
(5)
Comparative
Analysis
• Strategic Plan
• Annual Reports
• Program
Documents
• Interview Results
from 3 Groups
• Strategic Plan
• Annual Reports
• Interview Results
• Program
Documents
• Annual Reports
• Interview Results
• Strategic Plan
• Program
Documents
• Interview Results
from
Stakeholders and
Staff
• Program
Documents
• Annual Reports
• Program
Documents
• Limited Site
Observations
• Comparative
Analysis
A unique identification number was assigned to each separate source of data
(each interview, each piece of documentation). This allowed for all original
documents to be directly linked to the data source. The data from the documentation
analysis were analyzed by hand. A routine software feature that identified keywords
was used, although a log for each interview was maintained that tracked the
respondent identifier with the individual questions, which were cross-checked to the
key research variables.
Given the unstructured nature of the interviews, special attention was paid to
capturing and coding unanticipated major themes, categories, and issues to ensure the
data were captured in the narrative. Additionally, analytic tables were included to
graphically display the findings, where appropriate.
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Constraints
The researcher acknowledged that employing interviews posed inherent
limitations. Interviewer bias and subjectivity were potential threats to the research, if
left unacknowledged or if reliability was not planned in the design. Since reliability
increases with objectivity, a semi-structured interview approach, built around a core
of structured questions, provided additional opportunity to probe for underlying
factors or complex relationships. The possibility for overtly positive or negative
responses was acknowledged in those cases where the respondent felt the need to try
to impress the researcher or to cause reactions. This dilemma was checked by
comparing interview results against direct observation. Other common problems
associated with interviewing included the following: overly complex sentence
structure; lack of specificity in the articulation of questions and answers; lack of
truthfulness in responses; different interpretations resulting in impaired comparisons;
and inaccessible or unavailable information to the respondent (Douglas, 1976;
Marshall & Rossman, 199S). The use of an interview pretest was used to mitigate
many of the significant problems.
One of the key challenges included building a reliable, valid synopsis that
resulted from data generated from the ombudsman community itself. This had the
potential for impacting the researcher’s ability to evaluate the dimensions of client
satisfaction and the perceptions of ombudsman effectiveness from the recipient of the
service. However, only a portion of the respondents self-reported the results of their
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
service, which had the potential result of over-reporting and over-inflating the results
and outcomes generated from ombudsman support.
Given the unique authorities possessed by most ombudsman, such as the
power to subpoena, to criticize government agencies, and to recommend changes, the
ombudsman community is required to keep the identity of the complainants
confidential. Ombudsman service is routinely provided in a confidential environment,
where individual grievances and issues are nonattributional and often anonymous. All
interviews, as will be the case with all results, were coded by a numeric code as
opposed to using a method that identified specific individuals. The confidentiality
complexities must be acknowledged as a significant issue for any follow-along
evaluation efforts.
The most significant challenges associated with this research effort were
twofold: (1) the confidentiality factors associated with interviewing the public and
contact group members and (2) the political factors associated with interviewing the
stakeholder members. Both Ombudsman Offices were concerned about providing a
list of Office users, which would have enabled the researcher to contact respondents
through the use of unfiltered listings. Each Office offered to make the initial contact
with the respondents to gage their willingness in being interviewed. The potential for
each Office to select candidate interviewees who had positive experiences to report
was much greater, given this method of contact. Therefore, the researcher suggested
including advocacy group leaders who had broader levels of experience involving
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
multiple constituents for the respondent interviews. Initial contacts were handled in a
similar fashion, since the stakeholder interviews involved former Members of
Parliament, members of the Ministries, and top-level federal officials at the FDIC.
The Offices initiated contact and recommended specific individuals to be interviewed,
which reduced the possibility of getting an unfiltered perspective from the
stakeholders. As the interviews progressed and, in several instances, key members of
the stakeholder and citizen respondent groups were very forthright in their concerns
and recommendations, much of the “halo effect” concerns was dispelled. Slightly
fewer stakeholder interviews were conducted than were originally intended, which
impacted the balance of the respondent groups and the wealth of comparative data.
Summary
This research was significant for the following reasons: (1) it explored the
connectivity between increased government access and responsiveness to the degree
of citizenry satisfaction with their government, within three respondent groups; (2) it
allowed for an examination of comparisons and contrasts of the ombudsman function
in two different public settings; and (3) the results were capable of being used the
organizations and by the expanded public ombudsman community to design relevant
assessment methodologies. This effort provided new practical insights into the
effective use of alternative tools for assessing public ombudsman programs via a 360-
degree methodology that captured user and stakeholders’ perceptions. Additionally,
this research evaluated the utility and worth of the public ombudsman by weighing
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
perceptions of greater access with public satisfaction. Finally, the research allowed an
examination of the role as a possible mechanism for enhancing the government and its
public’s relationship.
The next three chapters contain the narrative study of the two organizations,
the results of the research, and recommendations for future research.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER IV
ASSESSING THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT'S
OMBUDSMAN
In Canada, as in a growing number of countries around the world,
the willingness of governments to subject their ongoing
administrative functions to the independent scrutiny of an
Ombudsman institution has become an important measure of the
quality of democratic governance.. . . Internationally, the
Ombudsman concept is being adopted by many countries as an
essential element to improve the quality of democracy.
(Ombudsman Ontario, Serving with Equity: Report o f a Journey
1996, pp. I, iv).
Introduction
This chapter provides the results of the rapid assessment of Ombudsman
Ontario. The results generated from the evaluative pilot test are explored, based on
perceptions from citizen complainants, staff and stakeholders of Ombudsman Ontario
acquired through interviews. The perceptions are compared according to several
variables: access to government, public satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness of the
resolution, changes in Ministry and program operations as a result of ombudsman
involvement, key ombudsman challenges, changes to scope and authority, use of
performance-based management, and staff competencies. Additionally, this chapter
reviews existing data used in building the preliminary assessment of the Ombudsman's
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
activities and contribution. The validity and potential usefulness of the assessment
design (developed and pilot-tested for application to the public ombudsman) are
evaluated as a result of the data analysis. The results of the rapid assessment are
intended to assess the relevance of gaining insights into ombudsman performance
through an evaluation methodology that uses a 360-degree feedback methodology
from the respondent groups. Finally, subsequent suggestions for alternative
assessment tools and performance outcomes are explored and identified, in order to
support an increasingly comprehensive evaluation design.
Nature of the Program
The Ombudsman was established as an Officer of the Legislature in 1975, with
a mandate outlined in the Ombudsman Act (Chapter 0.6) of 1990. The Ombudsman
is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The incumbent held office for a
term of ten years, until a recent legislative change in October of 1999 reduced the
term to five years. Ombudsman Ontario reports directly to the Legislature through the
Speaker, with general oversight provided by the Standing Committee on the
Legislative Assembly. The Standing Committee of the Ombudsman was recently
folded into the aforementioned Committee. Other independent offices that report to
the Speaker include The Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Provincial
Auditor, the Environment Commissioner’s Office, the Office of Elections, and the
Commissioner on Integrity. The Ombudsman investigates and resolves complaints
relating to the administrative decisions, recommendations, acts and omissions of
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ontario’s governmental organizations. The Ombudsman may also investigate
conduct which effects a person or a group based on “own motion” initiatives, in
addition to complaint investigation conducted at the request of the Members of
Provincial Parliament (MPP) or members of the public. Investigations based on the
Ombudsman ‘own motion’ are initiated for issues of concern to the public interest,
recurring complaints, systemic concerns, or complainant vulnerability.
Ombudsman Ontario is the office of last resort that investigates and resolves
complaints of maladministration about governmental ministries, boards, agencies,
commissions and Tribunals. The jurisdictional authority for the Ombudsman requires
that the organization being complained about must be a governmental organization;
that all statutory rights of appeal or review on the merits have been exhausted or
expired; the complaint must focus on the administrative conduct of a governmental
organization; and the complainant must be a person or a party personally effected by
the complaint. A complaint within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction must concern
administrative conduct of the government—specifically, a decision, recommendation,
act or omission considered to be “unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly
discriminatory” (Ombudsman Ontario, Complaints Resolution Manual, 1998,
p. 02 04 01).
The Office is committed to the creation of equity in service provision,
compensation and employment. Ombudsman Ontario, consistent with the other
provincial ombudsman, has been established as a protector of fairness and justice in
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the administration of government policy. The Office serves as a mechanism which
allows complaints by members of the public to be formally heard through a complaint
process that is directly accessible to the public and ensures the public’s right to
responsive governance. The role is designed to ensure that every public member
receives an independent and fair hearing of complaints against government
organizations (Oosting, 199S). As described by the current Ombudsman, Ms.
Roberta Jamieson:
The fundamental issue, as I see it, is the challenge of keeping
government accountable to the people. In particular, this means
ensuring that fair and equitable service is provided by all public
institutions, and the right to independent resolution of complaints
is preserved and enhanced. (Ombudsman Ontario, Annual Report
1998/1999, p. I).
Key elements of Ombudsman Ontario’s service foundation are depicted in
Table 11.
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 11
FOUNDATION OF OMBUDSMAN ONTARIO
• Accessibility to all people, including service provision at no cost;
• Service equity ensures that the Office is accessible and responsive to persons
particularly vulnerable to unfairness in public administration;
• Being independent of government, impartial in its role, and free to implement the
legislated Provincial mandate;
• Serving as Officer of Parliament with broad investigative powers;
• Possessing power to assist agencies and the public in resolving conflicts through
facilitation;
• Possessing power to launch investigations arising from individual complaints,
Ombudsman’s own initiatives, and Members of Parliament complaints;
• Having protection by provisions that shield the Ombudsman and staff in its role as
being the last recourse for citizens, with protections from civil actions and disclosure
orders pertaining to the information collected; and
• Possessing sufficient resources.
Ombudsman Ontario’s powers of investigation are limited and do not extend
to federal, municipal bodies or private agencies. Judges and courts, public complaints
that fall under the Police Services Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the
Protection of Privacy Act, Officers of the Legislature, and the Executive Council
(cabinet) cannot be investigated by the Ombudsman. These exemptions from
oversight create important gaps in the access and redress available to Ontario citizens.
Both the natural features and the populace composition of the Ontario
province must be understood to appreciate the challenges incurred by Ombudsman
Ontario. The Province includes over 412,000 square miles, with an estimated
population, according to current estimates, of over 11,000,000. The size of the land
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mass is daunting: the province “stretches one thousand miles from east to west and
one thousand miles from north to south .. . distances between urban centers are
immense” (Morand, as cited in Caiden, vol. 2, 1983, p. 63). The growing diversity of
the Canadian populace began to manifest significant changes to the demographic
composite in the mid 1980’s and early 1990’s. Not only was there growing sensitivity
towards members of the population who represented different cultural and linguistic
groups, but immigration patterns were changing. Increasing numbers of immigrants
from Africa, the Caribbean, Europe and Asia meant that more people spoke neither
French nor English, with an estimated 112 languages now spoken throughout the
province. In a two-year period, 186,000 immigrants moved to Toronto. Likewise, in
1986 fifteen percent of the population was estimated to have disabilities (Ombudsman
Ontario, Annual Report, 1996). A growing number of allegations and complaints
about culturally-appropriate public services occurred as people identified concerns
about discriminatory practices, public attitudes, and cultural misgivings. The growing
demographic diversity has continued to pose significant challenges to the Office as the
Ombudsman has wrestled with the critical issues of access and service equity.
Context of the Office
Political Origins
As a member of the Commonwealth countries, Canada shares the
characteristics of most parliamentary systems. These characteristics include executive
and legislative powers in a dominant cabinet; a system based on “rule of law,” a one93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
citizen, single-vote electoral system, and limited opportunities for appeals or reviews
of federal administrative decisions (Rowat & Llambias, 1968; Abel, 1968). It is a
constitutional monarchy which also serves as a federal state. As early as 1964,
legislation for a Canadian federal Ombudsman was introduced into The House of
Commons. Bill C-7, titled “An Act To Establish the Office of Parliamentary
Commissioner,” proposed legislation outlining a process to investigate the
administration, who may petition an investigation, authorized actions, official power
and authority that ensures the opportunity to be heard, and reporting requirements
(Bill C-7, as cited in Rowat, 1968). To date, this national office has never been
established and yet calls for the establishment of a Canadian federal Ombudsman
continue. The most frequent objection to the establishment of a Canadian federal
Ombudsman is that it is not necessary because “citizens' rights seem to be adequately
protected already, and one doesn’t hear about many cases of persons who have been
dealt with unfairly by the administration” (Rowat & Llambias, 1968, pp. 187-188).
Yet, a counter-argument offers that the lack of complaints is more clearly indicative
of the lack of insight allowed into federal administration actions, a frequent complaint
about the nature of public bureaucracy (Rowat & Llambias, 1968). In 1976, a task
force of eight federal deputy ministers readdressed the need for a federal Ombudsman
and officially recommended its establishment through government Bill C-43, which
died prior to any vote. The populace complaints not currently addressed through a
national ombudsman include such issues as employment insurance, income security,
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tax administration, public works, immigration matters and federally regulated
industries (Canadian Ombudsman Association, 1999). Of interesting note, Canada,
the United States and Switzerland are the only nations in the world that do not have a
national/federal Ombudsman.
Legislation for the establishment of provincial ombudsman was considered as
early as 1962. The introduction of the Ombudsman bill was introduced in 196S by a
Member of Parliament's Liberal party and was subsequently reintroduced ten more
times before passage in 1975 (Morand, as cited in Caiden, vol. 2, 1983). When the
bill was reintroduced to the Ontario Legislature in 1975, strong debates ensued over a
wide variety of issues: the qualifications of the Ombudsman, office administration and
resource levels, regionalization of the function, the need for generalized versus
specialized staff, provisions for multilingual services, reporting requirements, tenure in
Office, and jurisdictional issues ((Morand, as cited in Caiden, vol. 2, 1983). By 1978,
the Ombudsman Office received an annual budget of over $4 million, with 122 staff
members. Complaints averaged over 44,000 per year, with over 20,000 open
complaints. By 1980, the budget grew to $4.5 million, with the same staff
complement and the establishment of two regional offices in addition to the main
Toronto office. During the first fifteen years of the Office, attention was primarily
focused on streamlining operations, tracking the volume of jurisdictional versus
nonjurisdictional complaints, tracking the medium of initial contact, publicizing the
Office, holding public hearings, and contending with inconsistent media coverage.
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The second Ombudsman, the Honorable Donald Morand, noted in the early genesis of
the Office that “undoubtedly, the presence of an ombudsman has psychological value”
(Morand, as cited in Caiden, vol. 2, p. 68).
The Current Environment
The current Ombudsman has served with all three of Ontario’s primary parties
during the past ten years, including the New Democratic, Liberal, and Progressive
Conservative (PC) Parties. The Progressive Conservative party, which was reelected
in an election on June 6, 1999, has established the Common Sense Revolution as its
philosophical mantra, where government accountability and consistent levels of
service are emphasized in an environment of decreased resources. The political
emphasis is placed increasingly on examining the functions of selected government
candidates for privatization, which could have profound impacts on the Ombudsman's
continued role over most provincial public services. The Common Sense Revolution
committed to delivering the highest quality service through the most efficient means.
This political mandate has recently translated to lower taxes while reducing health and
educational services by closing selected hospitals and services, downsizing 20,000
nurses, and reducing the number of teachers during the past two years. The dramatic
cutbacks and resource shifts have been met with mixed reaction by the public.
In the Ombudsman’s Annual Reports to the Legislature, the downsizing of
public services and the increasing frustration of public administrators in having to “do
less with less” have been articulately addressed. In fact, in the most recent Annual
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Report, the Ombudsman contended that public administration in Ontario is in a state o f
crisis: “Many people are feeling betrayed and abandoned in the face o f several years of
dramatic cuts to critical services and overburdened public servants too busy to take the time
to treat them with respect and dignity” (The Canadian Press, June 17, 1999). She attributed
provincial problems to a bottom-line philosophy that sacrifices the well-being o f citizens in
favor o f saving public money. Ontario Premier Michael Harris recently responded to
Ombudsman concerns by saying, “You get what you pay for, I guess is what I’m saying”
(The Canadian Press, June 17, 1999). Yet, perceptions o f declining service yielded
significant impacts on the Ombudsman in terms o f increased volume o f complaints, greater
numbers o f people living at the margins who are at greatest societal risk, and perceptions of
greater conflict between the public and provincial government organizations.
Under the New Democratic and Liberal majority government, 50% to 60% o f the
Ombudsman’s recommendations were accepted in the early to mid-1990’s. None have been
accepted to date under the PC majority. In 1998, the Ombudsman undertook several
investigations focused on a number o f government organizations which evidenced growing
unresponsiveness. Four “own motion” investigations were supported and filed as a result of
the investigations. All o f the own motion investigations have been tabled to date.
In the early 1990’s, the Ombudsman built a unifying vision that focused the
organization on basic tenets o f service delivery. The vision strives to ensure that
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
people are served justly, equitably, and fairly by Ontario governmental organizations
and enables the Office to focus activities on the following strategic mission:
• Investigate and resolve complaints efficiently;
• Deliver relevant, timely, impartial and accessible services;
• Foster objective standards of governmental administration;
• Act as a resource to governmental organizations and the public to prevent
future complaints;
• Increase public awareness of Ombudsman Ontario’s services;
• Be ethical and accountable;
• Encourage teamwork through consultation and communication;
• Monitor and Evaluate our organizational performance; and
• Realize individual potential through proactive human resource practices.
The mission statements do not reflect the depth of the political challenges experienced
by the Office. Ombudsman Ontario has contended with significant cutbacks which
required changes to the way the Office “did business,” just as the other provincial
organizations throughout Ontario have had to face downsizing and a decreased
resource base.
The issue of resource reductions has created significant changes to the
Office’s budget, staffing levels, and work processes. For the period of 1997/98, the
budget actually totaled $8,415,812 and reflected several major restructuring
initiatives, including a centralized Client Access Centre for all incoming complaints
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and inquiries; integrated management of intake and investigation activities; the use of
the backlog management strategy; and a triage approach for assessing and prioritizing
complaints. Four regional offices were closed and public education programs have
been seriously curtailed. Staff was reduced in 1998 to 85 from a complement o f 129,
representing a reduction of over 35% of the workforce from the period of highest
staff allocations. Interestingly, complaints and inquiries reached an unprecedented
volume during this time.
For comparative purposes, examination of three time periods during the past
decade are offered in an attempt to show the steady reduction in resources being
incurred by the Office. Between 1990 and 1992, Ombudsman Ontario was aligned
into four directorates, a realignment that was reflected in all nine of the regional OO
offices. Staff totaled 129 and the Office had an annual budget of $9.3 million.
Between 1995 and 1996, the Office’s annual budget was $8,917,142. Nine regional
offices continued to provide a backbone of support to the Ontario public, and the staff
totaled 122. A review of present staffing and resource levels provides a marked
contrast: in 1998, the staff totaled 85, with an annual budget of $7,893,597. The
staff have recently been aligned into four Conflict Resolution Teams, which has
further flattened the organizational structure and has changed the scope of many
positions from one of specialist to generalist. Four of the regional offices were
closed, and significant reductions in the amount of public education and outreach
have been realized as a reality of the budget cuts. The resource impacts on such
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
issues as public access and service equity have become very real to the staff of the
Office.
The Evaluative Pilot Test
The results from the rapid assessment of Ombudsman Ontario are aligned
according to the five-step process used in the design and implementation of the
evaluative pilot test. The steps are outlined in Table 12.
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF RAPID ASSESSMENT PROCESS
1. Collection of New Program Data
2. Collection of Existing Data
3. Preliminary Assessment
4. Suggestions for Alternative Assessment Tools
S. Recommendation for Outcome Measures
Collection of New Program Data (Interview Results!
The new data collected about Ombudsman Ontario consisted primarily of
interviews conducted with the three respondent groups, public complainants,
Ombudsman staff, and stakeholders. Follow-up interviews were conducted only in
instances where clarifying information was required after the interviews. Limited site
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
observations also occurred at each research site or at the office locations of the
respondents. The formal interviews occurred between May 1 land August 10, 1999,
with nine conducted in face-to-face sessions. The remaining two formal interviews
were conducted by telephone. Full transcripts of all formal interviews were recorded
and filed. Additionally, informal interviews were conducted with selected staff from
May 11-13, 1999. Field notes were maintained from the twelve discussions that
occurred during that period. Where applicable, Ombudsman Ontario survey
comments were used to describe citizen perceptions on a wide range of issues, from
an instrument administered by the Office in 1999 to a random sample of complainants.
The researcher initially assumed that four variables would be explored in depth
in the interview process, including (1) greater access to the government, (2) public
satisfaction with use of the Ombudsman office, (3) the effectiveness and the efficiency
of complaint resolution, and (4) systemic changes in Ministry or program operations
as a result of Ombudsman diagnosis. However, as the research progressed, the need
to expand the taxonomy of variables and sub variables became evident based on the
breadth of issues discussed. In addition to the four preliminary variables, other
subvariables were explored, as represented by Table 13.
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 13
EXPANDED TAXONOMY OF RESEARCH VARIABLES
K E Y R E S E A R C H V A R IA B L E S S U B V A R IA B L E S
1. ACCESS
2. SATISFACTION
3. EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY
4. CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT
— Public Access
— Outreach
— Political Access
— Language Access
— Interactive Public Education
— Public Satisfaction
— Communications
— Political (MPP) Relationships
— Resolutions
— Complaint Feedback, Resolution &
Unintended Consequences
— Improving External Relationships
— Duplicative Efforts
— Cost Benefit
— Quality of Investigations
— Changes in Government Policies &
Program
— Expanding Awareness of Marginalized
Citizens
— External Communications of Trends
— Internal Communication of Trends
In addition, other areas were unexpectedly addressed as a part of this research,
including recommended changes to Ombudsman scope and jurisdiction, use of
performance-based management, staff competencies, and key challenges facing
Ombudsman Ontario. The research taxonomy was expanded to include these
additional areas of exploration (Table 14), as a result of the unstructured interviews.
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 14
EXPANDED TAXONOMY OF NEW RESEARCH VARIABLES
N E W R E S E A R C H V A R IA B L E S S U B V A R IA B L E S
1. PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT
2. CHANGES TO SCOPE & AUTHORITY
3. STAFF COMPETENCIES
4. KEY CHALLENGES
— Ombudsman Accountability
— Use of Performance Information
— Achieving Results
— Expansion of Jurisdiction
— Municipal Jurisdiction & More
— Political (MPP) Relationships
— Continuing Education
— Training Needs
— Staff Qualifications
— Outreach
— Political Challenges
— Privatization
The expansion of variables served to make the interview discussions more
comprehensive. Relevant excerpts from the interviews provided a rich spectrum of
concerns, insights, anecdotes, and opinions from the members of the three respondent
groups. The benefit of collecting this type of data was that it afforded members of an
organization the opportunity to see a “panorama of perceptions” rather than the
limitations associated with self-perception (McCauley, Moxley, & Velsor, 1998,
p. 32). This comprehensive snapshot ultimately provided more complex insights into
use, relationships, and perceived contributions of the Office. The taxonomies
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
presented in Table 12 and 13 will serve as the presentation format for displaying key
excerpts that generated from the interviews.
Perceptions of Access
The issue of access is critical to a public ombudsman’s office. Access is often
a clear gauge of the health of the relationship between the Office and the complainant
community in terms of perceived use, effective communications, and responsive
outreach mechanisms. Issues that were discussed during the interviews included
Ombudsman Ontario’s ease of accessibility, staff involvement with the community,
perceived responsiveness to the needs of citizens, public education, and the ongoing
need for equity outreach. Noteworthy issues generated during these discussions and
key interview excerpts were categorized into five major areas: Public Access,
Outreach, Political Access, Language Access, and Interactive Public Education. The
excerpts are included in TableslS through 19.
The perceptions of the staff and stakeholders were not consistent about the
issue of access. Most staff and citizen members, including survey participants,
indicated that improvements in access could be made. However, stakeholders
asserted their satisfaction with current levels of access available to members of the
public. Overwhelming staff satisfaction was noted with the development of the
Client Access Centre, designed to screen provincial complaints to determine the
appropriate routing of the call. It centrally screens, refers and reports all nonjurisdictional and non-provincial requests for information and complaints. Citizen
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
respondents from the survey cited a preference for more staff and longer hours of
service, which exceed the current schedule of eight hours of staff availability provided
five days a week. More detailed survey responses detailing public perceptions about
access to the Office are provided in the review of existing documents. Finally, both
staff and citizens noted the need for greater advertisement of the Office in a wide
assortment of media, as a way to ensure optimized exposure. Recent budgetary
reductions which have resulted in the closure of some regional offices have impacted
public perceptions of local access to the Office. Technological limitations were noted
that have impacted the public’s ability to access the Office in some instances,
specifically in the quality of telephone communications available throughout the
province. The associated logistical impacts of having calls routed throughout the
province, including areas where phone line capacities were not state-of-the-art, have
created concern and caused comment by staff. Relevant excerpts pertaining to public
access are presented in Table IS.
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 15
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING PERCEPTIONS
OF PUBLIC ACCESS
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT
Interviews Related to Public Access
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • We could have greater access. I think the fact that we
have a centralized call center, where calls can be
Public Access processed or given to the next available person, is a
good concept. There are times when people from
northern Ontario want to speak to someone in northern
Ontario, and 1 think we have to facilitate that for
them No matter where a call comes from.... It
could come from down by Detroit and sent to an
Ombudsman rep in Thunder Bay People do not
understand that, and they are sometimes frustrated.
There are regional offices so that people, at least in
those populated regions of this province (other than
Toronto), can go to them if they actually want to drop
in. It would be nice to have a greater presence. Maybe
one day we will have the money to reopen them.
• The public can phone, they can mail, they can use the
Internet now. I think service delivery, the response time
to those initial calls, is good. Yet, I think we could
improve access in places.
• I think the Client Access Center was a good idea.
The calls go to some of our regional offices. We have
had some problems with the phones, and we just have
not been able to sort that out because, I think, it is a
couple of generations of the call. Once the call is
transferred and transferred, there is another generation
in there, and the quality of the line is reduced. When
they go to Thunder Bay (and it is a couple of
generations later of the line), it [the quality of the call]
is harder to hear. So, that has been a logistical problem
that, as far as I know, they have not yet been able to
solve. But I think, overall, that has improved access to
complainants.
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT
Interviews Related to Public Access
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
• People being responded to in the language of their
choice. People being responded to in their particular
location because it is difficult to get into the office. All
of those things are very important. How do you
quantify that? How do you measure that? The whole
issue of access is a tough one, and there is no question
that that kind of access costs money. But the other way
to look at it is, we [have a budget] of $7 or 8 million; we
are a population of 1 i Vi million in this province; that is
less than a buck a person. It is a very cheap insurance
policy. How can a democracy not afford to do that? I
think that is the bottom-line for me.
• My impression is that they [the public] did not know
we existed, and I am surprised at that. I am surprised at
the lack of knowledge that this type of service exists.
Most of our calls are from outside Toronto. The
complaints come from people of different ethnic
origins, people who are less fortunate than me. I think
that through local means(local financial institutions,
local newspapers, local government offices), there
should a reminder in the literature that is available to
them that the Ombudsman Office exists and tells them
how to get help.
• I think it [access] is very good because 95% of the
time, the clients get a live response. In my own personal
opinion, that is very good because, sometimes, people
call to say that they are having difficulty accessing some
services. It would be ironic for us to put them on an
answering machine or have them have to wait to access
our service There is always one person at the front
desk so that some person can walk in and complain in
person.
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT
Interviews Related to Public Access
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Stakeholder • I do not think there is any problem at all [with
access]. Those are the important people—the people
Public Access that are illiterate, people that are too shy (especially
when you have new immigrants that come in, coming
from Communist regimes and other places where they
have been subjugated). It is a revelation for them to
come here to see what kind of service they can have.
That was the purpose of the Ombudsman: it was to go
and defend the little guy, go and defend the guy who
needs it most. I hope it stays that way—we need it.
Citizen • Survey Comments:
- Unbiased advocate and link between bureaucracy and
Public Access ordinary people effective at helping people access
information and files that are not accessible to ordinary
people.
- [The Office needs] Advertising and someone to answer
the phone—24-hour service.
- Could use more staff, publish location and phone
number better, advertise in other places than
government offices.
• Canada is a multicultural country, and many do not
know their rights; many do not respect others’ rights.
Ombudsman office can help with this.
- Would have preferred to go in for an appointment to
explain better. Maybe then she would have been able to
help me (as opposed to writing).
- [They were an] Important avenue of information in
dealing with government agencies. Helps get in direct
contact with relevant people. Makes you feel complaint
is valid even if they cannot help.
- Calls go now to central clearing systems resulting in
run-arounds. Suggest they revert to former system.
The issue of outreach is an important foundation of governmental access. Its
importance is reflected in the goals of the Equity Outreach Program, which strives to
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ensure that the people most in need of Ombudsman services be provided information
about the Office. Segments of the community most in need are considered to be
those groups who have traditionally been identified as experiencing service barriers.
Specific groups that have been identified for equity outreach include youth, seniors,
people with disabilities, First Nation and Aboriginal people, people of color,
Francophones, and those who are homosexual, poor, and facing literacy challenges.
Citizens noted the importance of Ombudsman interest to the outreach communities,
as evidenced by positive community reaction to staff attendance and active
engagement at outreach events. The power of personal relationships in effecting
perceptions of access and building an understanding of how to deal with provincial
services was also noted. Impacts to outreach initiatives due to budgetary reductions
were noted by staff Of interest is that no stakeholders expressed perceptions about
the need for or benefits derived from targeting outreach opportunities, despite being
asked questions about equity outreach initiatives by the interviewer. Also worth
noting was the very limited references to outreach in the survey responses, which
could possibly infer a lack of public awareness or a lack of public concern about
accessing those citizens most in need. Finally, the staff discussed discrepant
viewpoints about segments of the Ontario population the require additional outreach
efforts. Whereas some staff observed that Toronto was notably impacted by lack of
familiarity about Ombudsman Ontario, other staff commented that Toronto citizens
had the most knowledge of the Office. The data pertaining to Office usage is clearly
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
not understood by all staff. The major excerpts related to discussions of outreach are
included in Table 16.
TABLE 16
INTERVIEW TABLE REGARDING PERCEPTIONS OF OUTREACH
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT
Interviews Related to Outreach
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Citizen • The other thing that 1 thought was impressive was
that senior staff of the Ombudsman kept showing up at
Outreach events. I was doing a province-wide community
development exercise for people with disabilities.
Because of the contacts I had with the Ombudsman
Office, I just let their regional people know we would be
in town the next day, and several came to the meeting
and told people what they did or what they had just
learned. I was dead impressed with that.
• The Ombudsman came to address this crowd of
consumer/survivor leaders from across the whole
province. She took questions; she mixed in; and people
were so impressed. Well, she also has this wonderful
edge because she talks about being First Nation. Some
of that, of course, resonates very strongly with the
mental health community, who have caught some of the
same discrimination.
• The [Ombudsman] Office has helped me
tremendously. I guess because I learned the button to
push; not everybody knows that button So, I invited
the Ombudsman Office one day to the prison because I
do groups in the prison for life skills training with the
inmates. And [the Executive Director] came, and that
was my first hit to that door. It so happened there was a
situation that had occurred with one of the people who
was in the group Now, every time something
happens, I call her, and then she tells me the person I
should call in that particular area.
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT
Interviews Related to Outreach
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Citizen • Survey Comments:
• [The Office needs] More staff. I think there should be
Outreach an outreach to the community. I do not believe many
people are aware of the services provided by the
ombudsman’s office. I think they should distribute
brochures to community groups.
- More public education about their services for the
average person.
Staff • What we did was develop an equity outreach
guideline, during that time period when we did not have
Outreach the resources to do everything as to what areas we would
target. We targeted a lot of those groups that were
disenfranchised—the aboriginal First Nation population,
the gay and lesbian population, the Asian population,
the psychiatric survivors. I think that the client survey
we did and some of the demographic information we got
out of that showed that there were still geographic areas,
such as the greater Toronto area, [where] we were not
doing a lot of outreach. That is for two reasons. One is
we just do not have the resources to do it. Two, there
are a wealth of other community organizations that can
provide a lot of the support and the direction that we do
as well. So, we do a much better job in the rural areas.
• I think people in Toronto are more knowledgeable
about our service; I think it is the people in the region
who are not so knowledgeable about our services.
• Metro Toronto is a challenge—the diversity is here—
so I see a big challenge there. Public education and
equity outreach continue to be an issue. There are lots
of people out there who still do not know we exist, they
can come here, and they can get results—that is an
ongoing issue of access.
One interesting aspect of access not initially considered by the researcher as a
potential factor for consideration was the issue of political access. The need for
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ombudsman Ontario to systematically conduct what could best be described as
political outreach, with both the Members of Parliament and government Ministries
and Offices, was identified by stakeholders. Building relationships, explaining the
Ombudsman role, and articulating key concerns involving the provincial government’s
programs and services was described as an ongoing outreach and education tool.
Conducting a session with newly-elected officials was not considered to be sufficient
in strengthening understanding or communication of the Ombudsman’s vital role in
the Provincial government with the legislative members. The recommendation for
regularly-held meetings between the Ombudsman and the Members of Provincial
Parliament had interesting implications for the subtle growth of advocacy with the
legislative stakeholders. It also suggested that more political communication vehicles
than the Annual Report need to be explored by the Ombudsman. Another
observation from the interview data noted that the staff perception reflected that the
current level of access and involvement was satisfactory to the legislative members.
Table 17 provides excerpts from relevant interview discussions.
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 17
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E G A R D IN G P E R C E P T IO N S
O F PO L IT IC A L A C C E SS
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT
Interviews Related to Political Access
Representative Excerpts
• First of all, when there is a new Parliament, the
Ombudsman needs to be there to meet all the new
Members and explain to the Members what the Office is
all about. But I would go further than that. I would
make a point of meeting (this, again, is a difficult task),
at least once a month, five or six Members and talk to
them, “I am so-and-so. Here is the work that I do. Here
is how I can help you out. Here is how you can help me
too. It works both ways.” If you do this on a regular
basis, that would be a good tool. They need to know
how to use the Ombudsman Office. That would be an
approach that I would consider would be practical.
• Make sure that you contact the Members of
Parliament, that you see them personally. That takes
time to do that, but it is all part of the game; it is all part
of the responsibilities of the Ombudsman.
• Lots of Members call when they get the annual report
saying, “Could we start, for the first time, to report on
numbers of complaints per writing?” Lots of Members
want a profile of complaints in their writing; they want
to know more. In Ontario Province, we work very well
with Members having back and forth referrals. We meet
with constituency assistants. We do sessions with new
Members each time we have an election. So, yes, they
want more feedback, more insight.
Access is driven by the ability to communicate, which becomes a key
challenge to a demographically diverse, multicultural population. Staff addressed the
handling of foreign language calls and described a translation services contract able to
113
Respondent Group
Stakeholder
Political Access
Staff
Political Access
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
provide interpreters by telephone to assist with complainant issues. As noted in the
following excerpt in Table 18, a notable challenge occurs in issues of access for
individuals who have limited use of or no language due to such reasons as medical or
psychiatric infirmities.
TABLE 18
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING PERCEPTIONS
OF LANGUAGE ACCESS
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT
Interviews Related to Language Access
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • We have bilingual people here. We have identified
people on the staff who have various language skills, so
Language Access that can be identified almost immediately. We do have a
service where we can do a three-way call almost
immediately. Once we have identified what the person’s
language is, we can phone this company who can (again,
almost immediately, within 5 to 10 minutes) set up a
three-way call. I think there are 112 different languages
or something. The problem becomes not so much about
language because we have set up the TTY for deaf
people, the problem becomes those who cannot
communicate, but there is some other difficulty, like a
medical difficulty, physical difficulty, whatever.
An interesting discussion of the need for “two-way” or interactive public
education initiatives ensued with a citizen respondent. The citizen observed that
Ombudsman staff should support opportunities to participate in educational efforts
conducted by selected citizen groups throughout the Province in addition to the
current process of selectively meeting with community members based on Office
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
initiatives. This practice could potentially serve as an ongoing effort to expand the
staffs knowledge of the lives and special needs of marginalized groups. A successful
precedent involving the survivors of psychiatric services has already occurred. An
excerpt about this issue is included in Table 19.
T A B L E 19
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E G A R D IN G P E R C E P T IO N S
O F P U B L IC E D U C A T IO N
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT
Interviews Related to Interactive Public Education
Respondent Group
Citizen
Interactive Public Education
115
Representative Excerpts
• Part of what we are trying to do, anyway, is to tell
survivors who does what. If you can save a person a trip
and a bad experience, that is helpful too, right? If what
you hate is that fact that the government cut the welfare
check, the Ombudsman cannot fix that. That is a policy
matter; go and scream at your Member of Parliament.
We teach our guys that [information]. The other thing is
to teach them [the Ombudsman] a bit. A lot of what we
were trying to teach them was stuff about social
location. This is what poverty looks like. The guy may
not be dangerous; he may just be frustrated, or he may
just be poor. We were trying to talk to them about how
they can bridge the gap between the Ombudsman, and
somebody who might be homeless, who may be on some
kind of medication that causes various kinds of side
effects, and giving them the chance to talk about their
stereotypes. I was dead impressed with how seriously
the Ombudsman took this because it was not easy either.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perceptions of Satisfaction
Most public organizations devote increasing attention to assessing how
members of the public feel about services received or the nature of governmental
interactions. Typically, the issue of satisfaction is closely tied to perceptions of
satisfaction with the complaint resolution and investigation processes, satisfaction
with the staff relationships, satisfaction with the results of Ombudsman support, a
sense of fair treatment, and the confidentiality provided. The key interview excerpts
are categorized into four areas: Public Satisfaction, Communication, MPP
Relationships, and Sense of Justice. Tables 20 through 22 summarize the key
excerpts involving public satisfaction with Ombudsman Ontario.
Public satisfaction needed to be understood within the context of how a
complaint was ultimately resolved with all three respondent groups. The nature of the
Ombudsman role, as an office of last resort, was focused on complaint investigation
involving provincial government organizations. In assigning a quantitative score to
the level of public satisfaction with the Office, the mean rating provided by four staff
was a 3.0, on a scale of 0 to S, with a S reflecting the highest degree of satisfaction.
The degree of satisfaction with the Ombudsman Office appeared to relate to the
individual’s feelings about the finding, as opposed to the sense of administrative
fairness afforded the individual. A stakeholder expressed strong satisfaction with the
Office but countered the enthusiasm with the political realities associated with the
Ombudsman’s role. The limitations placed on the Ombudsman’s mandate are viewed
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
as significantly impacting public satisfaction. Likewise, the force of personality and
competencies appeared to be critical to the Ombudsman’s effectiveness in pushing the
limits of the position. The thread of personal impact continued to surface in citizen
discussions o f satisfaction. A respondent noted that satisfaction was connected to
finding a strong member of the staff who made a difference in working issues for the
constituency group. Public responses from the survey denoted a general level of
satisfaction with the Ombudsman. A notable commitment to the concept of a
provincial Ombudsman that helped to support members of the public with their
governmental interactions was evident in survey comments. Table 20 includes
interview data about public satisfaction with Ombudsman Ontario.
T A B L E 20
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R PT S R E G A R D IN G P E R C E P T IO N S
O F PU B L IC SA T ISFA C T IO N
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction
with the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • My giving it [public satisfaction] a 2 is skewed by the
fact that the people who are dissatisfied make more
Public Satisfaction noise than those who are satisfied. People come to this
Office when they have no where else to turn.
Occasionally, they might have had the opportunity of
taking legal action. In this country, it is appallingly
expensive to do so, and there is no contingency system
for lawyers. Some of these people have been trying to
resolve their problems for years. Some of them have
allowed their problem to become their life.
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction
with the Ombudsman
Respondent Group
Staff
Public Satisfaction
Representative Excerpts
• 3.5 would be more realistic [public satisfaction
rating], I do not give it a higher rating in that people
that come here have usually, very exhaustively, been
dealing with the problem that they have that they have
brought to us. They see a solution—the solution is for
them; the solution is to their benefit. If we do not give
them that, they are not satisfied, no matter how much
explaining you do as to you really got a fair deal with
this government agency And, they want us to
advocate for them, and they do not understand that
either. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard,
“Well, what good are you? What are you there for?
What do you do if you can’t do this for me, if you can’t
get this for me?” We patiently explain that we are not
an advocate; we are there to determine that the
administration of their case was fair.
But, having said that, sometimes some of the
greatest satisfaction can be in explaining exactly what
happened, how it happened, and why it happened.
Many times the person will go away with, “No, I don’t
like the decision. I may not be happy with not getting
what I want, but now I understand.” There is
considerable satisfaction in making them understand
why the decision was made against them, not in their
favor. Sometimes I think I might just take satisfaction
in that because I cannot get them what they want
• You will find that people have been given short shrift
when they have gone to government agencies. They are
so swamped, they do not have time to properly explain
the decision; or, sometimes they cannot be bothered But
many times, there is not the time, or someone was not
willing to explain it to them. If we can do that, it is a
significant part of our job, to explain what happened to
them [and] make them, hopefully, understand why they
did not get what they want.
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction
with the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • So many people come with a very entrenched view
that they are right, and everybody else is wrong. When,
Public Satisfaction as a result of our investigation, we do not support that
position, they are dissatisfied with us. And, the
majority of cases are not supported. Sometimes, if we
resolve something, [they say], “It should have been
settled ten years ago.” Some people do not have the
intellectual capacity to understand why their case is not
supported.
• Some people are very happy that we listen to them
and give them a sense of direction of where they have to
go. We do, of course, have people say although it does
not happen that often, they want someone else to look at
the matter because it cannot wait that long. But, mostly,
it is positive feedback or no feedback at all. I would say
it [satisfaction rating] is probably around a 3.5. They
are very satisfied; they have a lot answered; [we] explain
the nature of the service; they are given resources.
• Part of what is going through my mind is it [public
satisfaction] depends on the outcome of the complaint.
By and large, I think we are doing a better job than
we've ever before. In the time I have worked here, I
think that it would be my sense that we have put
mechanisms in place that ensure, to the fullest extent
possible, that we are up front, we are in regular contact
with complainants, and that we are straightforward with
them. And so, to that extent, putting those kinds of
measures in place, putting performance standards for
staff in place, is all toward ensuring that the client, no
matter what the outcome of the complaint, is going to be
treated fairly and is going to be treated with integrity.
On a scale of 0 to 5 (I am never satisfied), 3. I do not
know—it is subjective.
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction
with the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • Some people will write and thank you. One letter in
this year’s annual report thanked me for always being
Public Satisfaction honest with her because, despite her conviction she was
right, 1 really let her know 1 cannot say what the
outcome is going to be. I am as up front as I am
permitted to be. And, she thanked me for that. An
investigator often gets a phone call, occasionally a letter
of thanks to the investigator and/or the Ombudsman,
saying, “Somebody listened,” or “I don’t like the
results.” Sometimes they also say, “Now I understand
more what the problem is.” Some people, you never
hear from them again. I never forgot one couple who 1
worked with to get $31,250 [from their complaint]—I
did not even get a phone call.
Stakeholder • My judgment is that, overall, the Office of the
Ombudsman in Ontario has made the greatest,
Public Satisfaction significant impact. But it is within the limitation that
the government is not going to give the Ombudsman the
mandate that the Ombudsman should have. But I think
that people that got selected to be Ombudsman were
really good at using up all of their space and pushing
their space a bit. 1 think [the Ombudsman] is in a very
strong tradition of people who, not only were real
committed to trying to make sure that there was
administrative fairness, but also were looking for
opportunities to expand their mandate and to interpret
their own mandate as broadly as they could get away
with.
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction
with the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Citizen • In the Ombudsman Office, again, my experience has
been good. But it is not every person who says, “My
Public Satisfaction experience is good.” Probably because of luck, I was
able to find a good source. The first time I had a
complaint, they initially told me (before I met the
Executive Director), “You cannot complain on behalf of
this person.” But it was somebody in the prison, who
was locked up in segregation, who was afraid to say
something because he was abused by an officer.
Somebody calls (whether from a relative or an
individual) with a request to see me. If I believe it is a
situation that could lead to death, aside from my moral
obligations, 1 also feel that I have an obligation to say
this man needs medical attention. The time when I
would contact the Ombudsman Office is when I would
think it was critical. And some staff didn’t understand
that.
• The ombudsman's problem is that the office doesn't
deal with natural justice—it deals with administrative
fairness. They are not the same—and justice is
fundamentally more important.
• Survey Comments:
- They help people who feel overwhelmed in dealing
with big government bureaucracies. They simplify and
sometimes resolve.
- They try to put everything off and make excuses. They
are afraid to make a stand against large groups. They
neglect to do their duties.
- They are extremely helpful. They know more than I
do. They are a necessity and important to our
government.
• I think they can look into matters a little more deeply;
and when it comes to credibility, they can look a little
deeper.
-1 think there needs to be a watchdog looking at what
government does. Ombudsman helps maintain rights of
individual dealing with government. Needs more
independence.
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The issue of communication proved to be significantly linked to perceptions
of satisfaction. A stakeholder respondent expressed dissatisfaction over a perceived
lack of communications that was impacting government relationships. The natural
tensions associated with the Ombudsman’s oversight role was noted as being a
contributor to diminished communications with provincial government organizations.
However, the power of relationships between individuals was also noted. Legislative
constraints placed on political and public communications by the Ombudsman impact
the degree of communications. Specifically, having the majority of public
communications focused on the release of the Annual Report resulted in missed
opportunities for raising provincial concerns. The communications that existed
between the Ombudsman Office and other provincial Ministries and programs were
ultimately improved by formalizing protocols that specify how interactions, requests
for information, and complaint and investigation resolution initiatives were to be
conducted. Citizen comments from the survey emphasized the importance of
providing status updates as part of the ongoing complaint resolution process with
staff. Table 21 provides some key excerpts about respondent satisfaction with
Ombudsman Ontario’s communication efforts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 21
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E G A R D IN G P E R C E P T IO N S
O F S A T IS F A C T IO N W IT H C O M M U N IC A T IO N S
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction with
Communications
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Stakeholder
Communications
• I must say I am not happy with the quality of
communication between this office and the
Ombudsman. That is something that, I think, we have
agreed that we are going to improve. I think the fault
rests more here than at the Ombudsman Office, let us
put it that way. There clearly are some problems—I
think on both sides—as it relates to the relationship
issue.. .. When people are always looking over your
shoulder and potentially do not understand the whole
picture, it is fraught with opportunities to have
trouble.
StafT
Communications
• Where we have had agencies, where we have high
volume complaints and problematic relationships, you
may know that we define protocols with agencies,
defining how we are going to relate to one another,
creating contact points, and addressing that quite
specifically. But again, you have to have a learning
agency to do that. Also, by talking to the Deputy
Ministers, senior members of public service, talking to
them about a problem-solving approach and asking
them to support that from above [communication is
improved with provincial government].
• Current legislation only allows [the Ombudsman] to
comment essentially once a year, when she releases
her annual report, because then it becomes a public
document, and she can make comments on everything
that is in there which often frames what goes in there,
so she can make a couple of comments on it. I think,
given an opportunity to open up the legislation to give
comment to the provincial government on how we
would like to see changes made, that would be one
area where the Ombudsman could be more vocal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction with
Communications
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Citizen
Communications
• Survey Comments:
- More human contact [is needed]. Wanted to bounce
ideas around with someone. Never spoke to anyone.
• They represent you and send you to the right place.
They are the professional organization that goes to
fields and organizations that are almost out of the hands
of people.
• They did not do much—did not even talk to me during
the investigation. I do not have any idea how long they
actually spent on my case.
- Even if they cannot do anything, at least they can
listen. They shook people up who would not listen to
me.
References to how the political members of the Legislature regard
Ombudsman Ontario were few in number. Staff comments suggested that Members
of Provincial Parliament found the Office to be of use, because it provided a
mechanism for independent investigation and oversight. These perceptions were
countered by a stakeholder who suggested that the relationships between the two
groups were problematic. When asked to elaborate on what the troubling aspects of
the relationship were, the stakeholder chose to not provide specific details. Although
the statement was ambiguous, the reference was noteworthy, especially in light of the
former position occupied by the individual on the Standing Committee of the
Ombudsman and a member of the Legislature. The comments are provided in
Table 22.
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 22
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E G A R D IN G P E R C E P T IO N S O F
S A T IS F A C T IO N W IT H P O L IT IC A L R E L A T IO N S H IP S
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction with
Political Relationships
Respondent Group
Staff
MPP Relationships
Stakeholder
MPP Relationships
Representative Excerpts
• The Members of Parliament value the fact that they
have a limited amount of time and a limited amount of
resources to deal with their constituents’ problems.
They do not want to be the ones who have to deliver the
bad news; they only like to deliver the good news. I
think they like the referral to this Office. They can say,
“Take it to the Ombudsman Office. They can tell you
whether you have exhausted all your appeals or not.”
So, it is convenient for them.
• I think they like the fact that there is an independent
oversight body that can look at what they have done and
make comments on it—it frees them up to do what they
think is right, even if it turns out to be wrong. It can
then be caught somewhere else along the line. I think
that is important to them.
• The ombudsman has a big problem with the
government right now—the office is in trouble. I am a
believer in the Ombudsman office. Their work is very
critical. Having sat on the Standing Committee for a
few years, I became a real advocate of the function.
• [It is important] to be totally unbiased, to be totally
apolitical, so that nobody can question the independence
of the Ombudsman because, in reality, the Ombudsman
ranks at the same level as a Deputy Minister.
• Of course, as a Member of Parliament, you also act
as, sort of, an ombudsman. You try to cut comers; you
try to [go] directly to the source of the problem. But,
sometimes, you simply do not have (and I do not say
this in a condescending way) the knowledge or the
ability or the time to investigate thoroughly.
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perceptions of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Resolution
Perceptions that address the effectiveness and efficiency of complaint
resolution encompass many areas, including the timeliness and durability of the
resolution, intangible benefits or unintended consequences, external changes in
perception about the Office, and cost savings associated with the avoidance of
litigation. Six areas are addressed in Table 23 through 28, which provide key excerpts
about the effectiveness and efficiency of Ombudsman Ontario: Resolutions,
Complaint Feedback and Unintended Consequences, Improving External
Relationships, Duplicative Efforts, Cost Benefit, and the Quality of Investigations.
The need for impartial oversight, the establishment of service time lines, the
managed backlog system, the willingness to reach resolution, and providing feedback
were cited by staff respondents as important factors in the Ombudsman’s
effectiveness. The resolution of complaints allowed the Office to examine provincial
issues in greater depth. Inconsistent accomplishment of service standards and
relationships with provincial government organizations created some of the more
significant challenges to the Office in terms of reaching responsive resolution.
Interview perceptions related to complaint and investigation resolution are included in
Table 23.
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 23
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R PT S R E G A R D IN G P E R C E P T IO N S
O F C O M P L A IN T A N D IN V E ST IG A T IO N R E SO L U T IO N
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY Interviews Related to Complaint Resolution
Representative Excerpts
• We are there as an officer of the legislature to help it
hold government accountable for its day to day job,
work, and administration. I think being clear about your
role... demonstrating that there is an openness and a
willingness on the part of this Office to resolve issues—
that is what we are about. We have a good record in
resolving early, and agencies that work with us learn
that. It is about approach; it is about letting them know
and showing that we are open to resolve. If resolution is
not possible, then being very clear about what we are
doing in our investigations. Again, throughout the
investigation process, there is an openness to resolve.
Now, when there is not a willing player on the other
side, if you found some unfairness, of course I have to
take a tough stand and report and be very clear about
what I am doing, and why I am doing it to someone.
• We are not on anybody’s side; we have to be
objective. So, you look at the decision or series of
actions or omissions; you look at the context in which
those occurred. You see, it is not their definition of
what ought to be looked at. Increasingly, as we get more
and more funding cuts, and we get more and more
efficient, the Ombudsman has the discretion to decide
not to investigate the matter further. If it seems as
though we are not going to get the person what they
want (and they want us to go through a ministry’s
archives and look back five or six years), we would
close the investigation.
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Respondent Group
Staff
Resolutions
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY Interviews Related to Complaint Resolution
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • This Ombudsman really streamlined because we were
drastically downsized a few years ago. We have three
Resolutions months in which to close a file where we look at a final
decision. We review it, just to see that the complainant
had due process, and everything was done properly. But
we do not look at it to try to determine if the board or
tribunal should have made a different decision; we just
make sure that the complainant has had a fair chance
and everything that they are entitled to. A general
investigation, is supposed to be done within six months.
Some of them can be done [within that time line]. A
more complex investigation is supposed to be done
within nine months. I have not had that experience [of
completing one in that time frame].
• Because of our recent budget cutbacks and staff
shortages, we have created a managed backlog. We
advise the complainants that, at present, hopefully it
should come out of the backlog within two months, and
then it is assigned to the investigator. So, the
Ombudsman representative prepares that file for
backlog. When it is ready for investigation, they come
to me. I review those files to make sure they are ready
for investigation. 1 look at them to see, Is there
something else we can get? Is there other information?
Is there a different analytical approach? Did they miss
something? Then we ask, what are we really going to get
after we investigate this? Are we going to know
anymore?
• When we call a provincial ministry, our staff does not
have to ask the same questions all the time, the same
general kinds of questions—What is the backlog? What
are your time lines? How long are you going to be doing
this? We know the answers by watching the trends and
___________________knowing the problem areas.
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perceptions about the quality and process of complaint feedback were offered
from one respondent group—the citizens. As described by the respondents, feedback
was consistently desired in the form of timely status updates, oral and written
findings, and rigorous complaint analysis. Feedback should not be dependent on the
individual staff member working a particular case but should be provided consistently
by all staff. Inadequate feedback impacted perceptions of responsiveness. Finally, the
unintended consequences of Ombudsman support, particularly to marginalized
citizens, should be identified whenever possible. Excerpts about complaint feedback
are included in Table 24.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 24
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING PERCEPTIONS
ABOUT COMPLAINT FEEDBACK
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY Interviews Related to Complaint Feedback and
Unintended Consequences
Representative Excerpts
• I have heard some feedback about inmates with complaints and
their resolution. But, again, there is the issue of confidentiality.
They [the Office] will not necessarily tell me what took place after
that. But if I am calling on behalf of someone, and I am in an
institution, I get them to sign for me a release of information
document, so that they have given me the right to address their
issues on their behalf. The last one that I had to deal with, I never
had any feedback 1 cannot sit here and say anything bad, except
for this one recent case. A woman said that her brother had a
problem; he was beaten up in the prisons. Her brother had put in a
complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman. The sister said that
when the Ombudsman Office came and left, her brother said that
nothing was going to be changed—the problem wouldn’t be solved.
He said that the Ombudsman Office just seemed to cause more
problems than being a help. He asked her to pray for him!
• Survey Comments:
- Better communication back to the original complainant about what
is going on [is needed]. Help to have the attitude that they were
advocating for the complainant
• Some follow-up [is needed]. A letter asking, “Did things work
out?” would have been nice.
- My impression was they are overworked. They just gave a
cursory analysis of the problem, and they dealt with it as quickly as
possible and went on the next case. They completely missed the
issue, and I did not pursue it
- They need more skilled workers that actually have an
understanding of legal rights, and they should not be politically
motivated. They should stick to time quotas.
- Many agencies are not responsive to the public, and we need a
third party to intervene. It has necessary powers to investigate.
- They are instrumental in helping resolve problems. They resolved
a problem for me in two days, which I had been trying to solve for a
few months.
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Respondent Group
Citizen
Complaint Feedback and
Unintended Consequences
Stakeholder respondents addressed the importance of effective
intergovernmental relationships in achieving investigation and complaint resolution.
Perceptions noted that external relationships with both Members of the Parliament
and other provincial government organizations could be enhanced through public
relations and professional communications. The ability to strengthen working
relationships was considered to positively effect the ombudsman’s ability to achieve
resolution. The development of a public servant awards program that recognized
governmental employees actively engaged in complaint resolution was a positive
incentive. Finally, the creation of a Community Advisory Board was identified as a
potential step in forging external relationships, which can simultaneously serve to
enhance community communications and provide useful insights into educational and
outreach avenues. Comments pertaining to the improvement of external relationships
are included in Table 25.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 25
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING PERCEPTIONS
OF EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY Interviews Related to Improving
External Relationships
Respondent Group
Stakeholder
Improving External
Relationships
Stakeholder
Improving External
Relationships
Staff
Improving External
Relationships
Representative Excerpts
• Politicians have to be pampered in a way. That is why the
relationship between the Ombudsman and the politicians is
extremely important. You have to do a lot of—it is not
lobbying—it is PR. “Here is what I do. Here is how I can help
you. Here are the services I can offer you. Don’t hesitate to
give me a call.” And, you had to do this on a constant basis.
To me, personality is a very important part of being an
Ombudsman, as [is being] a person who is approachable, a
person who is a real human, understands the problems that
people can fact... it helps strengthen the Ombudsman’s
effectiveness.
• In part, I think that [the quality of the relationship] relates
to experience and attitude. I do not have a hell of a lot of
detail here to help, but this is more anecdotal in terms of what
gets reported to me. There are some folks who tend to have an
attitude that, in fact, we are wrong all the time (and I am
talking about the administration) and approaching the job that
way; and others, having much more of a balanced approach,
are able to cut through some of this stuff, and we can get
resolution. And, in part, I think that also relates to the
attitudes of some of my staff that, if they are open to talking to
the Ombudsman, I think there are some pretty productive
dialogues; but, if people, sort of, go to the trenches and react in
a way that is negative, you end up with nothing productive.
So, it cuts both ways.
• We developed the awards program for public servants who
were working to resolve issues, for heightening within the
public service the profile of this Office as a complaint resolver,
and publicly rewarding public servants who were able and
willing to do that.
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY Interviews Related to Improving
External Relationships
Respondent Group
Staff
Improving External
Relationships
Representative Excerpts
• One of the things that I would like to see (and we just have
not had the time in the scheme of priorities) is to create a
Community Advisory Board. That has not happened in
Ontario, but I think that that is something that would be very
important to do. To provide advice. Provide input. We live in
such a diverse world in the Ontario scene (much more than, I
think, any other jurisdiction in North America). I would like to
see the various communities represented on such a board,
providing advice—not about internal costing, not about how to
run an investigation—but, rather, giving us their wisdom, their
expertise It is another way to get the word out to various
communities. That is something I would like to see.
The potential for duplicative roles of oversight, public support, and complaint
resolution must always be considered in discussions of service efficiency within
government. One stakeholder suggested the need to review the complaint process in
terms of duplicative authority and oversight. Confusion clearly exists in the view of
the public about complaint procedures and the number of resolution venues available
to concerned individuals. Multiple oversight was noted as being resource-intensive
and confusing to efficient operations. The excerpt discussing duplicative efforts is
noted in Table 26.
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 26
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING PERCEPTIONS
ABOUT DUPLICATIVE EFFORTS
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY Interviews Related to Duplicative Efforts
Representative Excerpts
• There are so many avenues, I think, for people to be
heard or complain. This just is not from my experience
here; I have been in other ministries where I had found it
problematic, where you are trying to respond to
complaints from folks on three or four different fronts at
the same time We could have a complaint to the
Ombudsman; we could have a complaint to the Human
Rights Commission; we could have legal actions being
undertaken; and then, you could have complaints going
through the political process—all at the same time. And
for me, there is a major waste of resources. 1 would
prefer, personally, to see us line this up a lot better. At
the end of the day, I guess someone has primacy or
priority, but I do not know where that is. So, I see a fair
number of resources being used to try to manage
complaints that are coming at all levels but are on the
same issue. I think we need to do something about that.
... I think the Ombudsman might have a different
opinion about that.
The ability to identify the cost benefit of Ombudsman Ontario found staff
discussing their concerns about the social and other intangible costs sacrificed in lieu
of developing bottom-line data. The complexities associated with a cost projection
were felt to negate the softer discussion of value and human costs. Difficulties in
comparing Canadian and American use of the legal system, including differences in
accessibility to courts and litigious attitudes, were noted as impacting the value of the
134
Respondent Group
Stakeholder
Duplicative Efforts
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
discussion. Staff respondents discuss their perceptions about the cost benefits of the
Office in Table 27.
TABLE 27
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING PERCEPTIONS
OF EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY Interviews Related to Cost Benefit
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • I think that many people would like to measure our
service in terms of bottom-line dollars. How do you
Cost Benefit make that assessment? Where do you begin to do a cost
per case analysis? Do you factor in the secretary? Do
you factor in the computer programmer? We have done
a lot of work and a lot of thinking about the cost per
case analysis. We have not done the comparison to
court procedures, but on its face, there is just no
comparison. I think we can say that pretty empirically
without even having the data. The cost on the human
side is going to court, the protracted length of time it
takes, the judgment of the court that has a winner and
has a loser—none of those things are principles, at least,
that we espouse in the ombudsman world. What we are
trying to do is the ADR approach to make sure that there
are no losers; there may not be any winners either. But
the people come out feeling there is some kind of
resolution about their problem, even if they did not get
the answer they want. So, I think your cost question is a
double-edged sword.
• There is a study in the U.S. right now that has been
completed. Some lady has done a study on ombudsman
offices. What they saved, instead of going to court,...
[was] between SIS,000 and S30,000 an issue___ In the
States, you have a lot more either willingness or ability
to take issues to court these kinds of issues. Regrettably
here, a lot of the clients that we have just are not able to
do that So, look behind that [cost efficiency] measure.
That is why you have to look at the social costs.
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY Interviews Related to Cost Benefit
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • I am fond of saying, “We do not sell coke bottles.”
Our bottom line is not profit. I think that this issue of
Cost Benefit financial accountability is critical, there is absolutely no
question about it, but at what cost do you bottom line?
Some of the things that people are asking us to engage
in—I mean, there is a human cost that you cannot
calculate. It is not there to calculate.
Finally, the stakeholder respondents commented on their perceptions of the
quality of Ombudsman investigations. The thoroughness of the investigation, the
development of preliminary findings, and the communication of the findings were
viewed positively. The provision of a detailed, written report was noted as important
to the other provincial government organizations. Even though the Members of
Parliament conduct a limited level of investigation, there is confidence in the
Ombudsman’s performance of the investigatory function. Excerpts discussing
investigations are included in Table 28.
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 28
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING PERCEPTIONS RELATED
TO INVESTIGATIONS
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY Interviews Related to Quality of Investigations
Representative Excerpts
• The investigations were very thorough because
lawyers were involved, and all kinds of experts, also,
were involved. I mean, that was the purpose of it all
because an Ombudsman’s sole function was to
investigate those complaints.
• We have a fair number of complaints from our
inmates, particularly to the Ombudsman. I think it is
somewhere in the neighborhood of6,000 a year, so it is
fairly significant. As well, we have ongoing dialogues as
they do specific investigations around a very specific
complaint, like an assault on an inmate by one of our
staff or some other like incident, where there is
discussion going on back and forth as the investigation
proceeds. The Ombudsman investigation precedes it
both in terms of preliminary findings, questions of
verifying policies, and those types of things. And then,
at the end of the investigation, we get a detailed report
from them.
Perceptions of Systemic Changes
The identification of governmental policies, procedures, and practices in need
of change is perhaps one of the most important functions of the public ombudsman.
Systemic diagnosis is critical to a public ombudsman, because it prevents complaints
of a similar nature from continuously resurfacing; it optimizes the use of Office
resources; and it addresses policies and practices that have a negative impact on
segments of the community. Systemic diagnosis of maladministration creates the
137
Respondent Group
Stakeholder
Quality of Investigations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ability to render significant impact on the lives and well-being of the populace. The
ability to identify systemic problems impacting segments of the community requires
diagnostic skills that rely on such tools as trend identification, community feedback
mechanisms, and extensive awareness of governmental programs. Ultimately, this
next variable explored perceptions regarding to changes in ministries and program
operations as a result of Ombudsman Ontario diagnosis, including problem
identification and ascertaining if changes to procedures and processes had occurred.
Three areas are included in Table 29 through 31, which provide key interview
excerpts about perceptions about systemic changes due to Ombudsman Ontario
diagnosis: Changes in Government Policies and Programs, Expanding Awareness of
Marginalized Citizens, and the External and Internal Communication of Trends.
The staff respondents identified several examples of programs and procedures
that changed as a result of ombudsman involvement and oversight. Offices with
reported changes to programs and policies as a result of Ombudsman Ontario
involvement included the Family Responsibility Office, Corrections, Worker’s
Compensation, the Social Systems Review Board, the Worker’s Safety and Insurance
Appeal Tribunal, and the Health Professions Board. Interestingly, each interviewee
from all three respondent groups was asked to discuss the lasting changes in
programs, policies, or reforms that resulted from the involvement of the Office. A
stakeholder discussed a general sense that some change had occurred but was unclear
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
about the change being of major importance. A citizen and a staff respondent
indicated that no changes were observed. Excerpts are noted in Table 29.
TABLE 29
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING PERCEPTIONS
OF SYSTEMIC GOVERNMENT CHANGES
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interviews Related to Systemic Changes Due to
Ombudsman Involvement
Respondent Group
Staff
Changes in Government
Policies and Programs
Representative Excerpts
• Policies have been affected or effected by this Office or
as a result of this Office. Certainly, the Family
Responsibility Office has improved their own service
delivery. They just have an enormous size, both the
numbers of files they have, [and] the amount of money they
bring in. The situation because we are dealing with people
who are unhappy with one another cannot be a pleasant
thing. They have now developed a system, I think, and a
large part of it came out of our questioning of what they
were doing, and why they were doing it.
• I think in the corrections area there has been a shift,
although it is difficult to see at times, in the treatment of
people who are incarcerated, in their health care, in their
food, in their dignity. Dignity should be afforded to them
even though they have been convicted of some wrongdoing;
they are still human beings; we are not living in some
terrible country where we beat people to death. I think that
there has been some change there or an awareness of
policies. The policies have been put in place to address the
issues we brought to their attention. The issue now is
whether those policies are being followed.
• I think I have seen a few government agencies, the
workmen's Compensation system, where the system has
changed, and I like to think it is part of the work we have
done and some of the recommendations we have made.
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interviews Related to Systemic Changes Due to
Ombudsman Involvement
Respondent Group
Staff
Changes in Government
Policies and Programs
Representative Excerpts
• There is the Family Responsibility Office, which is
responsible for taking spousal support payments from one
spouse and tunneling them to another. It is a very big
bureaucracy; it is fraught with problems. They have
changed the name, I think, three times, reorganized in the
last decade. Those kinds of things are difficult to overcome.
I think it is very slow to start turning the oil tanker around; it
takes a long time. But, over time, you can see them.
• No, I have not seen lasting changes to policies or
practices. I am not saying that they have not happened; I
have not been doing the job for that long. But I know for a
fact that some organizations are being monitored, and I am
sure that the mere fact that they are being monitored has an
impact.
• Over ten years, I have only had nine reports go to the
Legislature of Special Reports. The record, then, of “99
point whatever” percent of complaints that have come here
being resolved is a good one. I think focusing the attention
of a number of agencies to deal with the gap between
promising and delivering and matching resource and service
standards is an accomplishment. While I have been critical
in this last report of a number of agencies that still have not
done it, and the four special reports I tabled last spring
drawing the government’s attention to where there are gaps,
there is also, at the same time, a record of some agencies that
have moved to it, but later than I would have liked. I am
speaking now of the Workers’ Safety and Insurance Appeal
Tribunal, the Health Professions Board, the Social Systems
Review Board—some of those agencies that have sat down
and figured out ways, in the midst of restructuring, of
bringing together what they want to deliver with what they
are providing for services.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interviews Related to Systemic Changes Due to
Ombudsman Involvement
Respondent Group
Citizen
Changes in Government
Policies and Programs
Stakeholder
Changes in Government
Policies and Programs
Representative Excerpts
• When something goes wrong, even though the
Ombudsman Office may say something to the ministry or
the government about it and recommend major changes,
nobody in government really does seem to do anything to
change or improve a situation. You know the attitude, “The
public thinks we do too much for prisoners, anyhow, so we
don’t need to do it.”
• We probably had some clarity brought to some of our
policies. I mean, 1 have a fairly disparate group of
institutions in different parts of the province that are
different ages (some of them well over 150 years old up to
some relatively modem places). So, it is really hard to have
an overarching policy. And, some of the stuff that you can
say is going to be effective, and we can apply equally—that
is part of a problem that we have got. Common standards
that [the ombudsman] recommends, we are not going to be
able to live up to them. So, there are some issues there.
• We put in a methadone program and developed a new
policy in terms of its availability across the province. In
part, I think we were well ahead of the Ombudsman in doing
that. But when we had a couple of specific complaints, I
think that helped us move this along and was somewhat
effective in helping us deal with some of our physicians, who
had road blocked implementing a universal policy. The
[ombudsman’s] attention provided a little bit of a further
incentive to get some change in how we treated the folks
with methadone.
A citizen mentioned the benefits to be obtained by Office staff training with
marginalized groups as a way to become more cognizant about emerging needs,
issues, and, in essence, to see a program through the viewpoint of the public citizen.
This excerpt is included in Table 30.
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 30
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING PERCEPTIONS
ABOUT CITIZEN AWARENESS
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interviews Related to Expanded Awareness of
Marginalized Citizens
Respondent Group
Citizen
Expanding Awareness of
Marginalized Citizens
Representative Excerpts
• My strongest connection with the Ombudsman Office
is in the last few years, and it related, I think, to the
interest of the current Ombudsman in trying to serve
some of the most marginalized people. What [the
ombudsman] caused to happen was, about three years
ago, she invited a number of the leaders of the mental
health community (we call ourselves psychiatric
survivors, which is a part of a long political story) to
come and talk to her Office about how our community
viewed the Ombudsman Office, [and] what were the
barriers to delivering better service—which was an
extraordinary experience. This had not occurred before.
[The ombudsman] actually took this on in a much more
systematic way. We spent several hours with senior
staff, and then they decided what they wanted was some
staff training. They hired two of us to actually do that,
and they exposed their entire staff to the sensitivity
exercise over the course of several months.
The need for increased external and internal communication about trend
information was expressed by staff and stakeholder respondents. Staff indicated that
trend analysis should support future projections, with subsequent impacts on services
in terms of population changes, community needs, and growing resource disparities.
The need for increasing opportunities for public comment was noted as a critical
conduit for communicating issues that hold important ramifications to the public. The
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
perception of inadequate communication as related to trend data was discussed by a
few stakeholders, who indicated a desire to be informed early in the process of
significant issues. The use of quarterly meetings was cited as a useful mechanism for
relaying trend data to provincial government organizations. Finally, a staff member
commented on the need for expanded intraoffice communication and feedback
pertaining to key issues, results, and changes emanating from Ombudsman service.
Being able to articulate the differences made in the lives of citizens or governmental
programs was considered to be a strong incentive to the staff. More attention to
building internal communication mechanisms for cross-team and Office informationsharing was noted. Excerpts discussed are included in Table 31.
TABLE 31
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING PERCEPTIONS
OF TREND COMMUNICATION
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interviews Related to External and Internal
Communication of Trends
Respondent Group
Staff
External Communication of
Trends
Representative Excerpts
• If [the ombudsman] had the ability to give more frequent
public comment on issues of the day—I mean, if a piece of
legislation is being proposed to be amended, and we
recognize that the amendment is going to disenfranchise
certain people and the rights they have, then being able
comment on that is very important
• Keeping a handle on the trends, continuing with a
program of statistical analysis that we started here, and
projecting for the future—that is where I have always
wanted us to be.
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interviews Related to External and Internal
Communication of Trends
Respondent Group
Staff
External Communication of
Trends
Representative Excerpts
• It is fine to evaluate what we have seen from the past, but
you need to be able to say, “Therefore, this is what we
project will be the challenges for public administration for
the future.” This is what we see the youth of tomorrow
wanting; this is what we see the baby-boomers demanding
as the bulk of the population moves into the older age range;
this is what the increasing gaps between the rich and the
poor means for public administration; these are some of the
challenges that government should be focusing its sights on;
these are the ways that public accountability should change,
should be enhanced to take stock of that; this is what service
standards should be for government; finding ways, in our
own Office, of having a systemic and a system-wide look at
how well government public service is performing against
those standards—those are some of the things, I think, we
have seen the start of, and they will continue.
• [We should be] vocal in terms of what we do, with
specific examples of the services we provide to people. It
should be emphasized more frequently to the elected
officials but, maybe, also to the press. If people were more
aware of this, I think people would realize the important
work that we do, and it would facilitate the allocation of
resources to this Office. Because our needs do not go down;
they seem to be going up. I think in Quebec, there is a
different culture; the Ombudsman is more vocal. About
three months ago, he came out, and there was a press
conference about the treatment of prisoners in jails. I think
that kind of exercise would be beneficial. He doesn’t have to
hold back from communicating once a year.
• The Ombudsman in Quebec has the privilege of making
comments throughout the process of an investigation, and
not just annually or in an “own motion” investigation.
• I would like the staff of ministries and agencies to see that
(as they did at one time) our “own motion” investigations
can be a benefit to them. In the past, we have got them
much increased funding, but that has not happened in the
present government.
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interviews Related to External and Internal
Communication of Trends
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
• Now, I must say that I would probably like to see some
improvement in the trend data and feedback that we get. I
think they [the Ombudsman Office] get a lot of information
that I would prefer, frankly, that they get to me earlier than
later. I think it is our responsibility if, in fact, there are
potential issues developing, that we are able to get a handle
on it and not let them blow up. So, I would like a little bit
more, and I think that we probably need to work for that in a
better way.
• I must say I have been surprised on a couple of the “own
motion” bits.
• We certainly get information from them [the ombudsman
staff] in terms of quarterly meetings that we have around
specific trends that we have, like the quality of the food, the
quality of clothing, those kinds of broad issues that are fairly
common complaints in our institutions.
• We aren’t informed specifically on major changes in
government policies as a result of the work of this Office.
Sometimes we are, but it is very limited. We read it in the
annual report, but on a monthly basis, for example, I cannot
really say that we are kept informed of the changes that have
been made. We have glimpses of that from time to time. I
would feel more if I knew what was going on. [In response
to being asked if there are parts of the organization that
aren’t aware of what other parts are doing]—The answer is a
definite yes. Just a summary of the investigation or a change
within an agency would be very interesting. We know we
make a difference. But if we could know more in detail, it
would be very rewarding.
Additional Discussion Topics
During the conduct of the interviews, additional topics were discussed that
related to Ombudsman Ontario. Discussions associated with performance-based
145
Staff
Internal Communication of
Trends
Stakeholder
External Communication of
Trends
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
management, including issues of accountability and program evaluation, performance
measurement, and achievement of results drew many insights. Key interview excerpts
addressing the measurement and evaluation of Ombudsman Ontario’s performance
are included in Tables 32 and 33.
The need for evaluation, as a strong gauge for understanding the impacts of
declining resources and diminished public services, was discussed by a staff
respondent. Understanding the future direction of the Ontario provincial government
was imperative to the Office and required evaluation as a tool for public decisions.
Several respondents articulated the importance of accountability to the citizens and to
the Parliament. The need to produce usable performance information that ultimately
provides Ombudsman Ontario with insights about the results being generated and the
Office’s impact on the Provincial citizens was discussed. Additionally, the need for
the Office to be able to “walk the talk” by working to standards of accountability was
noted. The importance of Ombudsman oversight and independent investigation was
considered by stakeholders too critical for a clean, functioning bureaucracy.
Accountability was considered to be taken more seriously when a monitoring
mechanism is in place that holds government Ministries and agencies responsible for
administratively sound service. Excerpts from the three respondent groups are
included in Table 32.
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 32
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING ACCOUNTABILITY
AND EVALUATION
PERFORMANCE-BASED
MANAGEMENT Interviews Related to Ombudsman Accountability
and Program Evaluation
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
• I have a lot of problems with the term “accountability”
because accountable to whom, for what? The complainants
want us to solve their problem and solve it fast. [In my
job] I am accountable, through various levels of staff, to the
Ombudsman to do a thorough job and provide a very good
analysis, deal with a complainant who is difficult, and try to
avoid that complainant taking up time of too many staff
members (myself included).
• I think the challenges [to the office] will be much as they
have been but perhaps intensified. I think evaluation is a
critical piece. I think the challenge to continue to be
transparent in public and publishing are all results, are all
measurements of how we are doing. I think, as an Office,
to continue to be a model, and to be out there, and to be
quite open about that. I think it will depend on what the
changes are to the public landscape here in Ontario.
• We not only reinforce to the politicians and government
that they have to be accountable, open, positive, fair, but
we have to mirror that too. We have to be that in order to
say that. So, it is a challenge to make sure that we are
actually mirroring that, that we are that at all times. That is
personally what I enjoy about the job—making sure we are
that. I think the elected members see value here. I think we
sometimes become a thorn in their side, but they have to
weigh the value of us with that in mind.
• I think the government is more careful in doing things
now because they know that, if they do anything wrong, it
will come to the attention of the Ombudsman. And the
Ombudsman will investigate, and they will be criticized by
the Ombudsman.
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Staff
Accountability and Program
Evaluation
PERFORMANCE-BASED
MANAGEMENT Interviews Related to Ombudsman Accountability
and Program Evaluation
Respondent Group
Staff
Accountability and Program
Evaluation
Citizen
Accountability
Representative Excerpts
• I find that the role of Ombudsman keeps the government
clean; it keeps the bureaucracy clean. We are very proud of
our bureaucracy here in Ontario, and I work very closely
with them. It is a very good organization, except they make
mistakes like anybody else. It is up to the Ombudsman to
point out, “Here is the problem. This is what you should
look at.”
• When government now talks about being accountable, it
is a different kind of accountability. They want to be
accountable to a bottom line But, you know, there has
got to be a limit to being able to do more with less. Sure,
there is probably fat in programs. There is always a need to
look at a program to see whether it is duplicating it or
providing a service that is necessary. But it is taking six
months to serve somebody—that is bad service. I have
known people who were waiting for the answer for seven
years.
As reported by staff respondents, performance information is increasingly
being used by the Ombudsman to identify problematic trends in service, track
demographic data and social location of complainants, make resource decisions, and
track service timelines and responsiveness. Performance information served as a
critical feeder into the processes for systemic investigations and complaints resolution.
Of note was the fact that the researcher asked each stakeholder what performance
information they routinely used from Ombudsman Ontario in understanding public
needs and recurring or systemic issues. The only information recalled was the Annual
Report and special case reports. Staff excerpts are included in Table 33.
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 33
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING PERFORMANCE
INFORMATION
PERFORMANCE-BASED
MANAGEMENT Interviews Related to Use of Performance
Information and Results
Representative Excerpts
• (The Ombudsman and the Executive Director) are using
performance information to make budget decisions.
Certainly, they are always concerned about the backlogs.
What is in the backlogs? Why is it growing? Why is it
going down? They are very concerned about the aging of
complaints. Do they fulfill our service standards? I do file
reviews with my team, but then I do a file review with them.
Yes, they are concerned about the really old files, and they
do use that case management information, as a tool to look
at whether we should be redeploying staff to certain areas,
whether we should be changing time lines, case loads.
• What we do, as much as possible, we are asked to do a
survey [with each call received]. Whenever someone calls,
we ask them to do a survey about some demographic
information. [We ask] the languages spoken, where they are
calling from, their household income, how many people live
in their house, and their race. We ask them if they have a
disability. We ask them, as well, if they are a single parent
with no financial support. After that, we call the nature of
the call, whether it is a private matter, a municipal or federal
matter. We also register what was the nature of the
complaint; we try to identify, more specifically, the nature of
the call. This serves as important data about our
complainants and their issues.
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Respondent Group
StafT
Use of Performance
Information
PERFORMANCE-BASED
MANAGEMENT Interviews Related to Use of Performance
Information and Results
Respondent Group
StafT
Achieving Results
Representative Excerpts
• (When asked to review key accomplishments of the
Office) I think doing trends analysis for the very first time in
the province on our complaints and publishing on it. I think
collecting data on the basis of social location and publishing
on it is a first. I think the service equity journey we did and
now working on We expose the good, the bad, and the
ugly, so that people can leam from them, and that is an
accomplishment. I think developing for the first time a
complaint system in this organization, which was never here
before, is an accomplishment of the staff here (and
publishing on it). Systemic approaches to investigations for
the first time. Across the board assessment of backlog and
delay, and system-wide looks increasingly is a first. Instead
of doing one by one by one complaint, taking a broader cut
and a look The changes in the Public Education Manual.
Developing for the first time a Complaints Resolution
Manual in this Office and publishing it. The case
management system, which our staff developed from
scratch The work was done internationally. The role
that this Office played in creating the Canadian Ombudsman
Association. There are many. Coping through downsizing.
Becoming an organization that is able to adapt to change.
Handling the same volume of complaints with fewer people.
Those are tremendous accomplishments that our staff has
done.
Another issue that surfaced as part of the interviews involved the possible
expansion of Ombudsman Ontario's scope or jurisdiction. Many respondents felt that
expansion of jurisdiction into other areas such as federal or municipal agencies would
benefit the public. The continued service gaps, especially in such areas as health care,
children’s aid societies, and education, were impacting community members. Yet
political realities must be considered, and several respondents felt that the Legislative
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Assembly would question moving towards increased oversight and accountability
over additional levels of government. One respondent also recommended
reconsidering the opportunities afforded the Ombudsman to make public comments
and file reports as a method for broadening the scope and impact of the position. The
key discussion addressed in this section included expansion of jurisdiction and
expansion of municipal oversight. Key interview excerpts pertaining to changes to
the scope and authority of Ombudsman Ontario are included in Table 34.
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 34
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS REGARDING CHANGES
IN JURISDICTION
CHANGES TO SCOPE
AND AUTHORITY Interviews Related to Expanding Jurisdiction
Respondent Group
Staff
Expansion of Jurisdiction
Stakeholder
Expansion of Jurisdiction
Expansion of Jurisdiction
Representative Excerpts
• The current government, or any government, would not
want to increase the Ombudsman's power for fear that they
would be increasing the power of their own critic.
• My dilemma is, my instinct is to say yes [to broaden
jurisdiction] because I am an advocate. But I think that we
have had Ombudsman who really looked carefully at that,
and if you look at the literature, they are always looking at
agencies that have not, in fact, been covered by the
mandate. They thought really carefully about whether they
should or they should not be. They made some pretty good
arguments about yes and no. There are other things that
you need to look at, which is, Is there a way to protect the
funding of the Ombudsman Office?
If you expand the jurisdiction without expanding the
resources, then what have you done? Somebody has to
figure out how to survive an ombudsman function for the
first year of government. That is a complicated situation
because, if a municipality has 8,000 people, you are still
delivering a lot of services. If you are Toronto, [and] your
budget is S 6 billion dollars, you should probably have an
Ombudsman. But what does that do for the villages and
towns and the smaller cities? How do they do that?
Increasingly, they have obligations that have been
downloaded, so that the people can get really screwed-up if
it is not delivered fairly.
• If the Members of Parliament are complaining all the
time that the Ombudsman is not necessary and so on, we
should look, perhaps, at the system that exists in England,
which is called a Parliamentary Commissioner. In their
system over there, most of the work is done by the elected
representatives. When it gets too complicated, he passes on
the file to the Parliamentary Commissioner. So, that is one
approach.
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHANGES TO SCOPE
AND AUTHORITY Interviews Related to Expanding Jurisdiction
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
• Survey Notes:
• Ombudsman should be able to represent Ontario residents
with the Federal Government.
• That there be an oversight committee so that the people
who are unhappy with the ombudsman can go to a review
board to say that the interviewers are biased or prejudiced.
• Reinstate powers that have been eroded over the past 10
years.
- Should have power in municipalities as well as in
provincial matters.
- Would like to see the Ombudsman have more control over
the Workman’s Compensation Board.
• If they had federal jurisdiction or influence at the federal
level or federal/provincial relations would be useful.
• There has been an awful lot of pressure to have an
ombudsman at the municipal level. When I was there, the
issue must have been made five or six times because of the
large number of complaints against the municipal
governments and the regional governments. But the
government is afraid of creating a new bureaucracy.
• I have been very public on some of the gaps in the
ombudsman function that remain to be addressed in the
province—hospitals, children's aid societies (in particular),
school boards.
• I think that there is a need for some kind of municipal
oversight because it plays so closely into what the
provincial government does for provincial jurisdiction. I
think there can be some things municipally that we could
do. I think there are a number of agencies that, right now,
we cannot look at because they are private but really
receive government funding (for the most part, children’s
aid societies) Perhaps we should have jurisdiction over
them because they are such a vital part of our society.
Several respondents addressed issues associated with staff qualifications,
training opportunities, and lifelong learning in their discussions of recruiting and
153
Staff
Municipal
Stakeholder
Municipal and More
Citizen
Expansion of Jurisdiction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
developing the right kind of staff for the Office. The continued need to understand
the community, empathy, initiative, and managing conflict all were addressed as being
desirous employee competencies. The interview excerpts are categorized into three
areas: Continuing education, training needs, and staff qualifications. Staff were the
only respondents to discuss the Office’s human capital needs, with excerpts shown in
Table 35.
TABLE 35
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO STAFF COMPETENCIES
STAFF COMPETENCIES
Interviews Related to Training, Skills
and Qualifications
Respondent Group
Staff
Continuing Education
Representative Excerpts
• I am one of those people who believes you go through
life learning; you can always develop; you can always grow.
I think continuing our learning about different communities,
continuing our learning about the adjustment to services
that we need to make, continuing our learning on systemic
analysis, watching the effects of privatization on the
jurisdiction and keeping up on those developments.
• We believe that we need to understand the public we are
trying to serve. How better to understand the public than to
hear directly from the community themselves. So, that was
an area that we certainly identified as a priority for
training—consumer survivor.... The most recent one
[marginalized groups] was from the gay and lesbian
community... who talked very frankly about what we were
doing, and what we were not doing, and the issues we
needed to be aware of. In the past, we have had people
come in and do story telling (whether they are from the
Asian community, whether they are from the black
community), so that we hear directly.
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STAFF COMPETENCIES
Interviews Related to Training, Skills
and Qualifications
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Training Needs • Writing skills is one of the issues we identified that
investigators for the most part (because they would write
the more detailed, lengthy reports needed training, and we
would give them training on report writing and various
styles to use.
• I think we will continue to see a growth in the area of
mediation and ADR, an appropriate resolution to conflict.
And we will have to face the challenge of training the staff
here more to be facilitators of those resolutions.
Staff Qualifications • What I look for in the people hired is that they bring to
the table one critical skill, simply initiative. The volume of
work here is such that we cannot hold people’s hands. And
that, of course, goes into what kind of background they
have. We want some research background, some analytical
background. If they have had some experience working in
a government agency, that is probably beneficial, both from
an administrative standpoint, generally, and then from the
particular government agency they may have worked at.
Then, certainly, we can use them when we get issues that
pertain specifically to what they used to work at.
• You need a very good understanding of how the Ontario
government functions and provincial government programs,
policies, and guidelines ... and a lot of empathy. I think a
lot of people who are really deprived of their services, I
believe, need to know how to access certain services.
• You have to be a very good listener. You have to be
very patient. You have to be able to diffuse, sometimes,
people’s anger, people’s frustration because it is bound to
happen. People call; they are upset; they dealt with an
office; they are not satisfied. They call us with all their
baggage of emotions and frustrations that they carry with
them. [You have] to be compassionate, to show empathy
about what they are going through... to listen carefully to
what they have to say. You have to be compassionately
direct—to be able to speak clearly and to be able to explain
clearly the mandate of our Office.
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Finally, the reality of tremendous changes in the provincial political
environment, the strains placed on service equity in a world of decreasing resources,
and the need to preserve the key attributes of the Ombudsman role were discussed in
the context of significant challenges for the Office. The provincial government is
experiencing tremendous pressure in terms of adequate service delivery and
governmental responsiveness. Ombudsman Ontario’s effectiveness will be impacted
by these external forces. Two categories of discussions are included: Outreach and
Political Challenges/Privatization. Key interview excerpts pertaining to the
discussions of future challenges are included in Table 36 and 37.
The challenges associated with service equity and the need for a stable base of
resources for continued outreach and educational programs were noted as staff
concerns. Outreach may have to be recalibrated to reflect demographic shifts or
projected changes in public concerns. Additionally, the need for a strong and
independent Ombudsman who conducts impartial complaint resolution and
investigates areas of maladministration and the adequacy of service was vital to the
public. Excerpts pertaining to outreach challenges are provided in Table 36.
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 36
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO OUTREACH CHALLENGES
KEY CHALLENGES
Interviews Related to Outreach Challenges
Representative Excerpts
• I think that it is a challenge to continue to reach the
groups that we need to, the diverse groups that make up
this province, particularly the diverse groups that make
up this very large city (the immigrant populations, the
people with special needs, different needs, different
languages, people with disabilities). We have to
continue to actively reach those people and make them
know there is a service here when they are dissatisfied
with the government. But I see that the likely budget
restraints that we are anticipating are going to be a
problem.
• On the side of the members of the public, we will
continue to be vocal. If they are not receiving adequate
service, how will we cope with that? How will we cope
with the sheer numbers? How will we deliver a public
education program and a targeted equity outreach
program, depending on resource allocation in this
Office? I am hopeful that the Office will be kept strong,
where we can help people, will be kept independent and
able to do that. To the extent that we are giving the
resources, we will.
• In some of the areas ... we have had to close offices,
to keep a presence. The north is huge... we are
attempting to serve it with very few people.
Some of the most formidable challenges facing Ombudsman Ontario lie within
the political realm where resource decisions, Ombudsman independence, and service
access become increasingly subject to political mandates. Serious concerns about
continued budgetary reductions and governmental realignments were discussed in the
157
Respondent Group
Staff
Outreach
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
context of impacts on the people most in need of Ombudsman services. The
overarching principles of the Office, centered on the Ombudsman’s role in holding the
provincial government accountable, were considered to be at political risk by both
staff and citizen respondents. The discussions pointed to a general sense of reduction
in Office budget, jurisdiction, and the number of services provided to the Ontario
citizenry. Governmental moves to privatize public services will continue to decrease
the scope of Ombudsman authority if the public impacts from privatization are not
clearly understood or communicated. Excerpts about these discussions are included
in Table 37.
TABLE 37
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO POLITICAL CHALLENGES
KEY CHALLENGES
Interviews Related to Political Challenges
and Privatization
Respondent Group
Stakeholder
Political Challenges
Staff
Political Challenges
Representative Excerpts
• But I believe that, once you are given that responsibility, it
must be seen and must be felt that you are totally independent.
And, this is what, you see, the Members of Parliament do not
like—it is the independence of the Ombudsman. They do not
like that because they cannot touch him or her.
• There is always going to be politicians and highly placed
bureaucrats that get their noses out of joint by having someone
else oversee them. I think that is a fact of life, and you have to
damn the torpedoes, and the Ombudsman has to keep doing
that, which she has done a good job of doing.. .. I think you
just have to demonstrate integrity in the process, demonstrate
that there is a need for a system of resolution that is outside
what an MPP can do, that is outside what the agencies that are
set up can do. It is better to have someone just making sure
that there are checks and balances.
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
KEY CHALLENGES
Interviews Related to Political Challenges
and Privatization
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • If we continue down the road we are going now, I see an
increasingly immobilized public service, unable to deliver
Political Challenges service to the standard that they should, they have declared,
most legislation even requires. To operate as an Ombudsman
Office in that environment will be a challenge because we will
have to continue to map that, to evaluate that, talk about that
publicly.
• I think that reestablishing our presence in the public eye is
probably what will help us to continue to exist.
• If we continue down the road we are going now, I see an
increasingly immobilized public service, unable to deliver
service to the standard that they should, that they have
declared [and that] most legislation even requires.
• I am afraid we will be subject to budget cuts in the next year
or two years. Part of the service we provide, not so much in
terms of the investigation and the more thorough work that we
do, but in terms of the first contact with clients, may be cut.
Once you have a valid complaint against a government service,
I think you will be treated the same. But I think in terms of
accessing the service, the quality of the service might dimmish
over the next few years.
• There might be some changes in terms of some areas of
intervention that may be restricted to us in the future. I have a
sense that maybe part of our Office might join, for example,
with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, where we might
lose some powers of investigation towards specific ministries.
There are rumors about that, but I have the sense it might be
more real now than it has ever been before.
• The critical issues, I think, are those that have already been
made: access for citizens, independence, transparency of our
operations, ensuring that we are accountable to the legislature
(i.e., the people), and ensuring that government is accountable
to its citizens. I mean, those are the cornerstones of
ombudsmanship.
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
KEY CHALLENGES
Interviews Related to Political Challenges
and Privatization
Respondent Group
Staff
Political Challenges
Citizen
Political Challenges
Representative Excerpts
• I do not have the broad overview; I am not a manager. To
keep going in what might well be reduced funding [will be a
key challenge] because the Premier, in his election platform,
said he was going to cut the Ontario government service again.
And, we have no idea who the new Ombudsman will be, and
what the new Ombudsman will regard as his or her mandate,
and how that is to be accomplished.
• The government is very, very cunning; they are devolving a
lot of services to other levels over which the Ombudsman does
not have jurisdiction. Now, that is not the reason; the reason is
that they are downloading. But one of the set of unintended
consequences is this is no longer a provincial responsibility; it
is a municipal responsibility. One of the things that [the
ombudsman] is wondering about (and that certainly has been
a subject of debate) is: Should not all governments have an
ombudsman function? That is difficult. It is sometimes
difficult to know from whom you are getting the service, and
sometimes the service could be a caught-shared service, and it
could be caught-shared, maybe, four different ways. It may be
federal money, state money, municipal money, regional/
municipal money. And, who is in charge of die operation?
Who sets the policy? Who has the oversight role?
• The biggest problem within the political structure is that
there seems to be a lack of accountability. It is a question of
might rules right, and it is a question of people in a power
relationship—people who are in the forefront of all these
situations. It is a real power relationship. And, the
Ombudsman Office, even if they need to do something, even if
they want to do something, even if they see that this would
help, they have to get permission from the people who are
relying on the voting public. One of the first things, I think,
that would make those offices [like Ombudsman Ontario] be
able to function as we would, oftentimes, like to function, is to
move them from the government, even if the government still
has control over it. Allow it to be a civilian-dominated body,
with a civilian looking over your shoulder to ensure that this is
happening the way it is supposed to happen. And then, some
accountability will come into play.
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
KEY CHALLENGES
Interviews Related to Political Challenges
and Privatization
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • One of the challenges will be, of course, a trend towards
privatization of the correctional service area. We can see it
Privatization coining. It is a concern that we will possibly lose jurisdiction
there.
• If privatization picks up and continues in this province, that
will be a challenge. How will public complaints about unfair
treatment be dealt with in that environment? How will the
rights of people be protected? What role will this Office have
in that change? Will we be, as we are now, written into a
contract that is privatizing a facility, or will there be separate
ombudsman offices set up to deal with that, or will there be
none? That will be a challenge: keeping the right of complaint
and independent investigation forward and addressed.
Collection of Existing Data
The examination of existing documents was intended to provide insights into
the programmatic focus and priorities of Ombudsman Ontario. By reviewing Office
records, reports, historical documentation, and web-based communications, the
researcher was afforded the opportunity to examine information currently used in
performance evaluation, as well as information that had potential use. The following
key documents were examined as part of the rapid assessment process:
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Strategic Plan
• Annual Reports
• Appendices to Annual Reports
• Complaints Resolution Manual
• Newsletters
• Survey Documentation
• Restructuring/Transformation Report
• Training Program Report
• Accountability and Fairness Standards
• Service Standards
• Management Information Reports
• Protocol Agreement between Office and Other Ministries
• Standing Committee Recommendations and Ombudsman Responses
• Annual Budgets
• News Releases
• General Information Materials
• Outreach Brochures
Additional information is provided that describes in greater detail the most
critical documents related to the performance factors of Ombudsman Ontario.
Strategic Plan
Strategic planning serves as a:
. . . disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions
that shape and guide what an organization is, what it does, and
why it does it.... To deliver the best results, strategic planning
requires broad yet effective information gathering, development
and exploration of strategic alternatives, and an emphasis on
future implications of present decisions. (Bryson, 1995, pp. 4-5)
Ombudsman Ontario’s Strategic Plan 1998- 2001, authored in 1998, presents the
vision and course of the Office for a three-year period. The Plan breaks the three
years into a three-phase cycle, with the first year focusing on implementation, the
second year on reporting and repositioning, and the third year on attaining the idea
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vision. The goals, with associated work plans, are as follows for each of the three
years:
Year I (1998/99)—Implementing
1. Stabilize new organizational structure and implement standards.
2. Design and implement evaluation systems.
3. Undertake strategic Own Motion investigations.
4. Build organizational capacity and highly skilled workforce through
organization-wide training.
Workplan: Implement, evaluate and adjust services of the
Client Access Centre; implement integrated complaints
resolution teams using triage mechanisms; ensure service
standards are met; implement and evaluate Managed Backlog
Register; implement corporate communications plan;
implement and evaluate performance contracts; design
corporate evaluation framework; design, conduct and evaluate
survey results; identify training needs; identify emerging issues
for investigation from trends analysis and environmental scans;
etc.
Year II (1999/2000)—Reporting and Repositioning
1. Consolidate adjustments to organization.
2. Report on results of Own Motion investigations.
3. Implement and report on evaluation results.
4. Enhance credibility with targeted audiences; strengthen relationships
with public service.
5. Update and publish indicators of equitable service delivery and service
standards.
Workplan: Make structural changes from evaluation results;
report publicly or to Ministry; report on evaluation results of
service standards and organizational performance; report on
trends, results of Ombudsman investigations and survey results;
strengthen resource role and relationships with key partners in
government; build community connections through enhanced
outreach; identify and report on new issues.
Year m (2000/2001)—Ideal Vision
1. Achieve optimum credibility with all partners in the effective resolution
of complaints.
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. Position Ombudsman Ontario to be seen as an effective facilitator of
dialogue between government and government. (Ombudsman Ontario,
Strategic Plan 1998-2000, 1998)
The Office’s public Strategic Plan broadly identifies the key challenge in meeting the
vision, including such issues as serving as the lead in the delivery of equitable services,
enhancing our response to systemic complaints, adapting to change, and increasing
the visibility of the Office. The constituencies served and the types of services
provided are broadly identified. The public Plan does not articulate an overarching
framework for strategic planning that details the use or results derived from
environmental assessments, the process of performance measurement, a process for
strategic communications, or the development of outcomes that identify the desired
end-states for each goal.
Survey
Two surveys of public complainants were conducted by Ombudsman Ontario
in 1991 and 1999. The most recent survey was conducted to ascertain the degree of
satisfaction of clients with the service, advice, and assistance they received. The
survey was also intended to investigate differences in perceptions and attitudes
between client groups and populations within the provincial boundaries.
A telephone survey was conducted, with 1,027 respondents providing
information about demographic characteristics, their experience with the complaint
resolution process, and recommendations for improving the service. Key questions
asked during the conduct of the survey are shown in Table 38.
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 38
SELECTED QUESTIONS FROM OMBUDSMAN ONTARIO SURVEY
(MARCH 1999)
Key Survey Questions
Locating the Ombudsman
• How did you find out about the Office?
- Did you have any contact with the Office before you made your complaint?
• How did you initially contact the Office?
- Did you come into contact with public education information or activity from the
Office before you complained?
Opinions on First Contact
- Were staff prompt in returning to you with information they learned as a result of
their inquiries?
- Do you recall how long it took to speak to a staff person?
• Did you feel that the first staff person you spoke to understood your problem?
- Were you made aware of what the Office does and how the Office could or could not
help you?
Opinions on the Process
- Did you use the information you received from the Office to follow up on your
complaint on your own?
- Did you receive a written explanation for the Office's response to your complaint?
• Did the staff keep you informed about information they gathered about your
complaint?
• Did they keep you informed on the status of your complaint?
• did the staff indicate how long the process would take?
• Were you given explanation for any delays that occurred?
Opinions on the Ombudsman Office
- Do you feel that, in your experience, it is important to have an Ombudsman's office
in Ontario?
• Was the explanation clear?
• Compared to other Provincial government services, how would you rate your
experience with the Ombudsman?
- Do you feel that the Ombudsman's Office was an effective bridge between you and
the government agency involved to resolve your complaint?
Respondent Suggestions
- Do you have suggestions for improving the Ombudsman's services?
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The survey participation rate was 27%, based on the initial records of 3,759
complainants that were identified as the Ombudsman client sample size. The list of
cases was broken done by outcome of the complaint, including those cases where a
full investigation was conducted; no further investigation was warranted (referred to
as a “Section 17"), cases were withdrawn by the client; cases were resolved early in
the process; and cases were rendered non-jurisdictional. Additionally, the sample size
was drawn from two groups of complainants who had received service during two
periods: between April and December of 1998 and July 1997 and March 1998. The
intent of this additional data break-out was to gauge the difference in perceptions that
might have been generated by complainants during a period of major Ombudsman
Office restructuring, particularly about the use of a managed backlog which began in
March of 1998.
Survey analysis showed results which provided interesting insights into the
issue of access, satisfaction, and effectiveness of the support offered by the Office.
Results shown in Figure 1 demonstrated that informal networks were the most
common method of finding out about Ombudsman Ontario, as shown by the
following data review: through family and friends (29%); radio or television (19%);
advertisements (6%); Ombudsman Ontario brochures (5%); and almost one-half of
the complainants noted “other” as their source for locating the Ombudsman, including
MPP’s, the workplace, Internet, lawyer, and general knowledge (42%). Most
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
- Accessing the Ombudsman Ontario -
1999 Survey Results
Other -
MPP’s, Internet,
worhplace- 42% Family/friends
____ 29%
Radio/TV
Brochures . . 19%
On
FIGURE 1
ACCESS TO OMBUDSMAN ONTARIO—SURVEY OF 1999
complainants had no prior contact with the Office (92%) and had no prior contact
with any public education information or activity from the Ombudsman’s Office
(92%). Regarding the complainants’ opinions about the first contact with the
ombudsman’s office, the use of the telephone was the most favored means of initial
contact (72%), followed by in-person visits (13%). Most complainants were able to
speak with a staff person on their first call to the Office (71%); most felt that the first
Ombudsman staff person talked with understood the problem (88%), and most were
made aware of the Ombudsman’s Office after first contact and were clear about how
the office could/could not help the complainant (79%).
Regarding complainants' opinions on the resolution process, most indicated
that the Ombudsman made inquiries on their behalf (63%); only 20% were referred to
someone else after contacting the Office; and some complainants did not know what
happened to their case or could not remember (16%). The majority were satisfied
with the prompt service provided (63%), and most indicated that the Ombudsman
staff promptly returned to them with information that resulted from inquiries (86%).
Wider disparities on the perceptions of staff helpfulness were evident. Over half
noted that staff was “very helpful’’ (55%), whereas almost a third indicated the staff
was “unhelpful” (31%). Fourteen percent indicated that the Ombudsman staff was
“somewhat helpful” (14%).
Several questions were asked regarding complainant opinions about the
Ombudsman Office, with the assessment of service satisfaction indicated in
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 2. In comparing other provincial government services to Ombudsman Ontario,
many respondents noted service from the Ombudsman as “very good” (43%); 22%
rated the service as “good”; 15% rated the service as “fair”; and ratings for “poor”
service (10%) or “very poor” service (10%). The majority indicated that the Office is
an effective bridge between the complainant and the government agency (59%).
Most complainants stated that Ombudsman staff explained the investigation process
to them (74%). Slightly more than half remembered the staff indicating how long the
process would take (56%) in discussions about the complaint. Slightly more than half
reported that they received a letter notifying them of the investigation’s conclusions
(57%).
Survey Comments. Throughout the conduct of the interview, complainants
were asked questions designed to draw out additional opinions and to inquire about
areas of Office improvement. The survey comments can be summarized by the
following:
• Recommendations for enhancing the “core processes” (187 mentions),
including suggestions for more personal contact, calls as opposed to
letters, written communication, real-time complaint status updates, and
follow-up;
• Requests to be more timely, responsive, and to better utilize
resources (60 mentions);
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Service Satisfaction with Ombudsman Ontario
• Survey Results of 1999 -
(Very Poor)
10% .
(Very Good)
43%
(Good)
22%
FIGURE 2
SATISFACTION WITH OMBUDSMAN ONTARIO—SURVEY OF 1999
-j
o
• Need to be people-centered (16 mentions), including recommendations
to adapt process to meet individual needs, to be more helpful, and to
possess more freedom to assist on a personal level;
• Need to reduce stafT insensitivity towards personal, social, and
cultural needs (22 mentions);
• Many recommended expanding Ombudsman’s power and authority
(168 mentions);
• Expanding number of stafT and restoring regional offices (71
mentions);
• Need for expanded outreach, higher profile, and expanded
advertisement (86 mentions); and
• Ombudsman bias perceived as dependence on government (27
mentions), which points to implicit belief in need for independence.
Most complainants failed to understand that the Ombudsman reports to
the Legislature and is not part of the government bureaucracy.
Finally, demographic data obtained from the survey results proved to be very
interesting. Within the sample of survey respondents, Ombudsman Ontario’s client
base contains a high proportion of people from Northern Ontario, sole-support
parents, Aboriginal and First Nation individuals, the disabled, and people with a less
than $30,000 annual household income. A lower proportion of people from Toronto
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and Central Ontario regions, Asian individuals, and those with educational levels
identified as less than a high school degree comprise the client base.
Annual Report
The Ombudsman’s Annual Report is the primary legislative and public
communication mechanism that describes the Office’s activities. The Annual Report
is mandated in the Ombudsman Act of 1990. The document reports trends and issues
of systemic concern and allows concerns to be identified that have arisen from
complaints during the course of the year. The report outlines the direction of the
Office and provides the opportunity to both raise issues requiring Legislature
attention and make recommendations. The requirement to table an Annual Report is
an accountability check for the Legislature. In tum, the document should provide a
comprehensive view of the state of Ontario Provincial governance and must be
accessible to the public. The submission of the Annual Report provides a critical
opportunity for the Ombudsman to ensure media attention and exposure o f the
Report’s key issues and findings are optimized.
The Annual Report has been getting increasingly more sophisticated each
year. The 1998/1999 Ombudsman’s Message addressed the “state of crisis” evident
in the Ontario public service. The restructuring initiatives undertaken by the Office,
the focus on “own motion” and systemic investigations, the increasing use of trends
analysis, the case management system, and the evaluation of service standards all
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were addressed in a discussion of the internal work done during the year.
Additionally, a review of key systemic cases, international partnerships throughout the
Ombudsman community, and key statistical data was provided. Samples of the
statistical analysis included written complaints and inquiries by provincial government
organization, most common jurisdictional complaints, outcomes of complaints and the
number of closed complaints, written complaints by provincial ridings (similar to
American counties), and written complaints against the provincial government by final
resolution. Greater insight into this data is provided in the current data category titled
“Complaints Analysis.” A large segment of the Report is dedicated to the narrative
case stories, which discusses the impacts of government maladministration on the
individual, subsequent findings of the Ombudsman, and the final outcome afforded the
individual.
“Own Motion” Investigations
Ombudsman Ontario presented four “own motion” investigations to the
Speaker of Legislative Assembly on April 29, 1999. After the four investigations
were completed by the Office, none of the involved agencies or ministries attempted
to remediate the problems by taking appropriate actions. The final investigation
reports and recommendations for action were forwarded to the Premier and then
provided to the Legislature, with eventual referral to the Standing Committee. The
four cases involved:
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, which refused to hear a
complaint, recommended incorrect redress, and failed to properly execute
administrative processes.
2. The Family Responsibility Office, which failed to fulfill its mandate of
timely enforcement of court orders and caseload monitoring. The Office was
identified as being under-resourced, with 28,000 cases of spousal payment defaults
ranging from six months to three years (The London Free Press, April 30, 1999).
3. The Ministry of Community and Social Services, whose Adoption
Disclosure Registry program had a backlog of 16,000 registrants who had to wait a
median of 7.25 years to have an adoption search initiated (Ombudsman Ontario,
April 29, 1999).
4. The Ontario Human Rights Commission for excessive time taken to
complete investigations of discrimination complaints.
These “own motion” investigations represent the largest number of cases ever
presented to the Legislative Assembly in a one-year period.
Systemic Changes
Systemic investigations are a critical part of the Office’s operations, with their
focus on instances of governmental maladministration and complaint prevention.
Systemic reviews are important because they involve governmental policies and
practices that may have a negative impact on segments of the public, while appearing
to be neutral,. The use of these system-wide investigations prevent complaints of a
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
common nature from continuing to arise. Most systemic issues arise from individual
cases and are initially identified through routine discussions. The staff question of if a
particular complaint should be investigated and, if so, are systemic issues in the file?
Is a complaint dealing with an issue that is broader than it may appear on the face of
it? The Managers of the four Office teams are often the ones who begin to recognize
the substantial impact of a certain complaint and its overall impact. The Managers see
all of the complaint files prepared by both the Ombudsman Representatives and the
Investigators. Additionally, the managers regularly meet with the other team
managers, which optimizes cross and internal team communications. Recent
examples of the systemic investigations include the four cited in the “own motion”
discussion. Additionally, other case stories described in the 1998/99 Annual Report
that are systemic in impact include: a call for inquiry into the shooting death by an
Ontario Provincial Police Officer, the loss of case files at the Ontario Human Rights
Commission, the involuntary transfer of inmates which resulted in the specification of
processes to be followed and provisions to be provided, and the timeliness of the
Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal’s process.
Trends Analysis
The trends which emerge are often initially identified through the information
systems reporting mechanisms that are identified to the Complaints Resolution
Manager. By examining such issues as ministries that are receiving comparatively
more complaints, the staff are able to see where the trends are developing. A recent
175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
example of a trend that quickly reached the forefront of concern involved the Office’s
receipt of an average of 100 complaints per month about the Family Responsibility
Office and associated difficulties in obtaining court-ordered child support payments.
Management Information System
Currently Ombudsman Ontario has several management reporting mechanisms
that assist in the identification and development of trend data and track service
standard time lines. For instance, two reports routinely tailored from the data
compiled as part of the Case Management System include: (1) a listing of all
complaints received and contacts initiated by the Ombudsman staff, sorted by
provincial organization per quarter and (2) a listing by subject category of all
complaints received against a provincial organization per year. For example, a sample
Trend Analysis Report provides the type of analysis shown in Table 39.
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 39
TREND ANALYSIS REPORT FROM THE MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM
Representative Excerpt
Subject Office
Subject Totals
- Access to services (technology)
- Telephone (busy, not answered) 92
- Administration - delay 117
- Administration - bias 7
- Failure or delay to initiate action vs. Payor for arrears 135
• Staff conduct 1
- Inappropriate enforcement of order 162
- Enforcement action 52
Time line data are also maintained for each team staff member, which provide
detailed reporting that includes the name of the employee and the complainant; the
detail of the complaint, including the provincial office which is the focus of the
complaint; the date the case was opened, assigned, reviewed by supervisor, and
closed; and the total time line for the process. A team summary report by staff
members also indicates the number and percentage of cases which have reached early
resolution; those in for paper review; cases that are categorized as regular
investigated; cases that involve more complex investigations; and those complaints
which have been resolved by telephone. These data allow the team leaders and
Ombudsman leadership to review the time lines associated with Office support and
evaluate individual performance against the service standards. The Office has
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
aggressively built management reporting tools generated from data being maintained
in the Case Management System. The tools provide insight into service and are used
to assess the efficiency of Office processes.
Complaints Resolution and Analysis
The Office developed a comprehensive Complaints Resolution manual, which
outlines jurisdictional issues, the receipt of complaints, guidelines for nonjurisdictional complaint handling, and guidelines for informal and formal complaint
handling and investigations. The process is relatively complex, as evidenced in
Figure 3 that charts the workflow from initial contact through resolution and
outcome:
Effective complaint analysis requires a clear understanding of the demographic
status of the complainants, where complainants reside, the provincial government
organizations that comprise the source of complaints, the most common types of
jurisdictional complaints, and the closure rates and outcomes of complaints.
Extensive data are routinely maintained and ultimately is used in the Annual Report
and the identification of systemic trends.
In 1998-1999, 29,396 complaints and inquiries were closed, with 51% of the
complaints falling into the nonjurisdictional category. Resolution occurred in 98% of
all cases. Comparisons with prior years provides interesting insights into the
consistency of resolution rates and complaint volume. For instance, in 1997-1998,
Ombudsman Ontario received 29,339 complaints and inquiries, with a resolution rate
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
OMBUDSMAN ONTARIO PROCESS
June 1998
FIGURE 3
OMBUDSMAN WORKFLOW
Source: Ombudsman Ontario (1999). Complaints Resolution Manual
(Document No. 00 00 99).
of 99%; in 1997-1997, the Ombudsman received 29,012 complaints and inquiries,
with a resolution rate of 99%.
The most common types of jurisdictional complaints investigated by the Office
during the past three years is represented in Table 40.
TABLE 40
COMMON TYPES OF JURISDICTIONAL COMPLAINTS
Ombudsman Ontario Jurisdictional Investigations
Type of Complaint 1996
Rankings
1997 1998
1. Adverse Impact of Policy on Individual or Group 2 1 2
2. Denial of Service 8 5 5
3. Unreasonable Delay in Service 7 6 7
4. Failure of Government to Adhere to Guidelines 3 4 3
S. Unfair Settlement; Coercion 9 9 9
6. Inadequate or Improper Investigation 4 3 4
7. Wrong or Unreasonable Interpretation of Standards,
Regs, Laws 1 2 1
8. Insufficient Reasons for Decision; No Reasons Provided 12 11 6
Two illustrations are included to provide additional insights into the primary
source o f complaints within the provincial government organizations for the 1998-
1999 year. Table 41 provides a top-level summary of the written complaints and
inquiries against the provincial government organizations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 41
WRITTEN COMPLAINTS AGAINST KEY PROVINCIAL
ORGANIZATIONS
Written Complaints Against Key Provincial Government in 1998/99
Provincial Organization Total Complaints/Inquiries
• Ministry of the Attorney General
- Family Responsibility Office
- Public Guardian and Trustee
1,791
1,598
90
• Ministry of the Solicitor General & Correctional Services
- Detention Centres
• Jails
- Correction Centres
3,452
1,259
970
935
• Ministry of Transportation 427
• Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation
- Ontario Human Rights Commission
176
168
• Ministry of Education and Training
- Ontario Student Awards Program
315
214
• Ministry of Labour
- Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
- Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
1,181
863
186
• Ministry of Community and Social Services
- Family Benefits
- Community and social Services, Other
- Ontario Disability Support Program
982
457
252
157
Figure 4 displays an aggregate picture of the overall percentage of written
complaints and inquiries involving the top seven Ministries.
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Written Complaints/Inquiries Involving Key Provincial
Government - in 1998/99
Solicitor General
Transportation and Correctional
Other 4% Services
Community A
Social Svcs
10%
Attorney General
Labour 16%
12%
FIGURE 4
TOP PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT COMPLAINTS BY PERCENTAGE IN 1998/1999
Complaints About Ombudsman Ontario
In 1996, the Ombudsman established a complaint review system for
government and public individuals who were dissatisfied with how the Office handled
their cases. The results of the Office complaint analysis are provided in the Annual
Report. In 1998-1999, fifty complaints were received, representing an increase of
12% from the prior year. Each complaint is thoroughly researched and resolved
through several courses of action, e.g., through letters of apology, reassignment of
cases, and found to be unsubstantiated. The complaints breakout is shown in
Table 42.
TABLE 42
PUBLIC COMPLAINTS AGAINST OFFICE
Complaints Against Ombudsman Ontario
Client's Dissatisfaction with Investigation Outcome: 70%
Issues about Staff Conduct: 24%
Lack of Contact—Delayed Communication: 10%
Request for Regional Office: 2%
Requested Client for Specific Time Line: 2%
Total Complaints for 1998/99: SO
Performance Standards: Standards have been established for each position.
The development of accountability standards ensures that the Office staff are clearly
aware of the performance expectations associated with each position. The
development of standards for each position will include workplan objectives,
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
responsibilities, and performance criteria with which to assess the performance
outcomes of each individual. An example of the accountability standards for two
professional staff positions is presented in Table 43.
TABLE 43
PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS
Overall Performance Indicators for Investigators
• Degree of efficiency in terms of how quickly complaints are handled
• Degree of effectiveness in terms of extent to which assistance has been provided to complainants
• Quality of report writing, including grammar, quality of analysis, relevance and interpretation of
facts
• Delivers client service consistent with service equity principles and individual needs
• Effective case management within organizational guidelines and standards
• Handles angry, difficult or abusive clients, using good diffusion skills
• Uses investigation plan to appropriately scope investigations
• Identifies systemic/system-wide issues and investigates accordingly
Performance Indicators for Ombudsman Representative
• Performs ongoing assessment of the needs of community groups
• Monitors changes within community groups and in type and volume of complaints
• Conducts relevant research, using case management system in timely and efficient manner
• Submits case studies for inclusion in OO publications
Standards of Service: In 1998, Ombudsman Ontario called for a system-wide
introduction of service standards to be adopted by all government organizations. This
recommendation was based on the need to hold public service accountable for the
services it provides and the resources it expends. Ms. Jamieson articulated: “The
principle of openness and transparency is a key ingredient in our democracy. It
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ensures the public has access to information to exercise its responsibility of ensuring
service is provided at levels consistent with public expectations” (Ombudsman
Ontario, Annual Report 1997/98, p. 4). Ombudsman Ontario recognized the
importance of “walking the talk” and established standards of service for her staff as
well. The subsequent standards that were developed are as follows:
1. Telephone inquiries that include information and referral requests are to be
handled by the Client Access Centre on the same business day. Telephone messages
will be returned within twenty-four hours.
2. The outcomes from complaints involving informal inquiries will be
provided within three weeks of registering the complaint. When further investigation
is required, clients are advised in writing that they have been placed into a managed
backlog. When a file is taken from backlog and assigned to an Investigator, the
following time-lines are expected: three months for complaints requiring only
documentary analysis and review, six months for an investigation categorized as
straightforward, and nine months for a complaint that is either complex or is systemic
in nature.
3. Complaints from the incarcerated are handled under different standards.
Initial inquiries are assessed for priority. Telephone calls are to be handled within two
weeks and if unresolved, will be placed in the backlog system. All complaints
assigned from backlog for informal resolution are to be completed within two weeks.
Other standards include three months for a complaint requiring formal investigation.
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ombudsman Fairness Standards were communicated by the Office in 1996.
These fairness standards were used to evaluate the decisions and actions of
governmental organizations. The standards were intended to serve as a reference
guide for complaint review and for internal procedures. The standards include several
considerations. Anyone personally effected by a decision should be given adequate,
proper, and timely notice in plain language by the decision maker that a decision is
going to be made; why it is necessary; its impact on the individual; the information
used in making the decision; and the rules, procedures, and requirements used in
reaching the decision. Complainants affected by the decision should have the
opportunity to present their points of view, and only relevant information should be
used in the decision. He or she should be notified of any available appeal rights, and a
record should be available for review, written in plain language that is preferred by the
affected persons. The government must ensure that its processes are consistently
applied and all persons should be treated equitably. Furthermore, the government
should be sensitive that those with limited personal and financial resources may need
assistance in presenting their positions. The process should be timely and should
afford accommodation for changed circumstances that may have occurred during a
delay.
Legislative Assembly Feedback: The Standing Committee on the
Ombudsman issued its 1993 Report and a subsequent 1996 revision to those
recommendations in a Working Paper. An analysis of the recommendations
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
demonstrate Committee interest in public education, data pertaining to complaint
handling and outreach, comparative data, nature of complaints, the outcomes
achieved, and the effectiveness of the process. Some representative recommendations
that are applicable to performance management are represented in the following
excerpts (Ombudsman's Response to Recommendations o f the Standing Committee,
November 27, 1996):
.. . Ombudsman to report annually on the public education
activities undertaken and that this statement include a statement
of specific objectives, the nature of activities undertaken, and an
evaluation of how effective those programs were in advancing the
stated objectives. (Recommendation 4)
. . . that the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly be
amended to provide that the Ombudsman shall discuss with the
Committee his or her annual ombudsplan which shall set out major
projects for the forthcoming year. (Recommendation 26)
. . . that the Ombudsman’s annual reports provide statistics on
complaint handling and outreach work, and in particular, that the
statistics presented provide a clear picture of the nature of
complaints, the effectiveness with which they were processed, and
the nature of the outcomes achieved. (Recommendation 36)
. . . that the Ombudsman include in his or her Annual Report the
following information: (a) comparative data from the previous
fiscal year, and (b) graphs which show the number of complaints
brought against a particular governmental organization and the
stage at which those complaints were resolved.
(Recommendation 37)
. . . that the Ombudsman consult with the Committee, through its
counsel, with respect to the statistics to be provided in the annual
report, and that the possibility of preparing a statistical supplement
to the report be considered. (Recommendation 35)
187
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Ombudsman presented her remarks to the Standing Committee on November 27,
1996, citing concerns about several of the proposed recommendations, which were
felt to potentially impact the Ombudsman’s independence and integrity. The
Ombudsman indicated that the Office already utilized a thorough planning process,
with many of the results of that process already integrated into the Annual Reports.
The need to retain the flexibility to modify the plan at any time to meet emerging
needs and new circumstances was stressed. The willingness to consult with the
Committee about additional information included in the Annual Report was offered,
although caveated by the Ombudsman’s discretion in determining what to report. The
Ombudsman asserted that the Annual Reports currently reflect many of the
Committee’s recommendations for data pertaining to the complaint processing and
comparative trends. Additionally, the Ombudsman agreed that more could be done in
the area of public education but that activities were impacted by budgetary
reductions.
Preliminary Assessment of the Office
With the use of a rapid assessment, the resulting evaluation of an organization
is broad and generalized. A rapid assessment is neither intended to be comprehensive
nor to substitute for an in-depth evaluative examination that is resource-intensive and
specific in content. Rather, it is intended to provide insights into important questions
about the public ombudsman. The important questions explored in this rapid
assessment effort include: Did citizens perceive access to their government through
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interactions with Ombudsman Ontario? Did they perceive satisfaction with their
government through interactions with Ombudsman Ontario? How did citizens
perceive resolution of their complaint or issue? Has the ombudsman been able to
effect changes to agency and programs generated by the use of organizational
diagnosis? These questions are critical to understanding perceptions of Ombudsman
Ontario’s value and contribution, which required that staff, members of the public, the
Members of Provincial Parliament, and the public service participate in discussions
centered on key issues.
The limitations of this preliminary assessment must be noted early on. In
total, 23 discussions occurred, with 11 formal interviews conducted. Of those 11
interviews, 7 involved the staff, 2 involved citizen members, and 2 involved
stakeholders. One individual was able to provide insights from both perspectives,
given extensive experience as a Member of Provincial Parliament and a community
advocate. Comments resulting from the survey were provided but lacked substance
and context. Survey comments were included to provide additional public insights
about service experiences and satisfaction with the Ombudsman. The citizen and
stakeholder sample is very limited and not representative of the opinions of the larger
group of respondents, although all of the interviewees had significant prior
involvement with Ombudsman Ontario. Despite limitations associated with a small
number of respondents, the nature of the forthright discussions and resulting
recommendations yielded important insights into the rapid assessment process.
189
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Another research limitation involved the condensed time frame of the research and the
limited number of site visits made to the Office. Finally, confidentiality challenges
presented research challenges by limiting the researcher’s ability to converse directly
with complainants. Future evaluations intended to incorporate substantive comments
from public members will need to carefully consider various research strategies that
can ensure confidentiality while allowing for the collection of meaningful input.
Ombudsman Ontario is a study of commitment to the principles of just,
equitable, and fair treatment for the people of Ontario. The professional dedication of
the Staff was evident in every conversation and interview. One could have
anticipated vestiges of burn-out or performance impacts given the significant
downsizing, staff reductions, and restructuring initiatives that have fundamentally
changed Ombudsman Ontario’s “way of doing business” during the past two years.
What the researcher found, instead, were people excited about sharing insights about
their jobs, future challenges, public interfaces and relationships, and a wide-range of
opinions and concerns. All agreed on the importance of Ombudsman Ontario
demonstrating value through articulating the key results and impact of the Office.
Several key findings emerged during the conduct of the preliminary
assessment, which will be explored in greater detail. The complexity of balancing the
need for a transparent, impartial Ombudsman while strengthening communication
with members of the political community and the public service poses unique
opportunities for the Office. The linkages between expanded communications,
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increased political commitment for the independent role of the Ombudsman, and
ensuring resource stability must be understood in the context of demonstrating value
to the Ontario populace. Issues associated with public satisfaction might benefit from
a deeper examination of the possible avenues of communication, opportunities for
relationship-building, and tailored public education which clarify the role of the
Ombudsman. Systemic changes to the provincial government as a result of
Ombudsman attention and diagnosis require greater communication and a deeper
evaluation of the key impacts. Finally, several discussions generated throughout the
interviews ultimately point to the need for a viable and responsive process of strategic
management that provides short and long-term direction related to the internal and
external environments. An integrated framework, which identifies key performance
measures, includes stakeholders, and supports the achievement of performance
results, will ultimately strengthen the Office and service.
Some general themes begin to emerge in examining the varied perceptions of access.
The closure of some Regional Offices continues to impact provincial citizens,
particularly those living in rural areas. The introduction of the Client Access Centre,
the targeted outreach for designated communities, and the general reaction to service
and timeliness has been positively received by the public. In an environment of
downsized resource bases, the Office has proactively restructured staff and
communication processes, including the centralization of initial access points into the
Ombudsman. The Office has initiated a service contract which provides interpreters
191
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
by telephone in eighty languages, capable of being accessed in less than ten minutes
from the receipt of a citizen’s call.
When one traditionally thinks of access, the processes of communicating
assistance processes and mechanisms that enable service delivery are often key
ingredients. However, communication mechanisms for the political leadership was
also a need identified during the interview discussions. The need for developing a
more substantive outreach process with the members of the Legislative Assembly
surfaced as a key issue in discussions of service access. Meeting with members on a
recurring basis from the onset of their initial term was cited as a way to build more
feedback opportunities about provincial issues of concern to the public and greater
political support through an increased understanding of the function. The survey
findings generally supported the interview perceptions, but some results were worth
noting. For instance, the largest percentage of people indicated that they found out
about the Office through other than informal networks, radio/television, family and
friends, or advertisements. By annotating “other sources,” respondents reported that
they located the Office through their Member of Provincial Parliament, telephone
directories, referrals from government agencies, and the Internet. The information
linkages between the citizen, their elected officials, and the Office hold interesting
implications for the issue of public access. Most survey respondents were satisfied
with their initial staff contact, who demonstrated an understanding of the problem.
Many of the interview and survey respondents who addressed access shared their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
concerns about the communication strategy of the Office. Many felt the need to
explore how well the word is getting out by substantively examining the gaps in
service. Additionally, the use of public education as a powerful information and
outreach mechanism, which surfaced as an issue of Legislative interest noted in the
Standing Committee recommendations, was raised through a number of data sources.
Perceptions of satisfaction were generally not as favorable about the Office as
were other variables. As articulated by staff respondents, the perception of
satisfaction with the Ombudsman Office was often dependent on the finding and the
complainant's reaction about the finding, as opposed to the sense of equity and fair
treatment afforded the individual. Apparent public misperceptions involving
Ombudsman advocacy or in the Ombudsman’s ability to mandate resolution of
complaints appeared to impact perceptions of satisfaction. But these misperceptions
raise some fundamental issues: Is the scope and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman clearly
articulated to the citizen at the time of initial contact and throughout the resolution
process? Are the objectives of the ongoing investigation clearly communicated to the
citizen, to mitigate unrealistic expectations? Some citizen and stakeholder
perceptions were also worth noting. Instances were cited where the citizen’s sense of
satisfaction is tied to the individual staff member who can “work an issue” as opposed
to perceptions of seamless service provided consistently by all the Ombudsman staff.
Additionally, poor communications between the Ombudsman staff and other
provincial organizations were noted as a cause of dissatisfaction. Survey responses
193
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
indicated that almost two-thirds of the respondents felt a positive level of satisfaction
with prompt service, but 20% rated their satisfaction as poor or very poor. Likewise,
whereas many indicated that staff members were “very helpful,” almost one-third of
the respondents rated the staff as “unhelpful.” The area of political and public
satisfaction with Ombudsman Ontario suggests opportunities for further exploration
and improvement.
Discussions of effectiveness and efficiency are useful in examining perceptions
pertaining to public impacts, service time lines, service costs, and the status of
resolution efforts. The introduction of a Managed Backlog Register, the
establishment of service standards and complaint resolution processes, and a rigorous
case management tracking mechanism provide useful data about the time lines
associated with service. For instance, the Managed Backlog Register was established
as one o f the restructuring initiatives resulting from the significant staff reduction.
The Backlog Register assigns priority status and complaint cases to staff through a
triage process that determines priorities on several factors, including urgency,
systemic and adverse impacts, time elapsed since complaint was received, and
vulnerability of the complainant. In 1997/1998, 349 complaints were in the Register;
on March 31, 1999, 9 complaints remained in the Register with an average time of 3%
months in backlog status (Ombudsman Ontario, Annual Report 1998/99, 1999).
Likewise, the service standards have been in place for one year, and preliminary
results indicate that telephone inquiries requesting information or referrals are
194
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
currently being provided on the same day 70% of the time. The service standard days
for seeking resolution of informal inquiries is currently IS days and is being achieved
94% of the time. Investigations requiring document reviews and analysis are being
completed 59%of the time within the specified three-month period, whereas 92% of
the complex investigations are being completed within the nine-month service
standard (Ombudsman Ontario, Annual Report 1998/99, 1999).
The outcome of the resolution process indicated wider dispersions of opinion.
The ability to effectively resolve complaints is impacted by relationships with the
Provincial government organizations, the Legislative Assembly, and the community.
The tenuous balance of performing an oversight role with impartiality and
professionalism appears to be markedly dependent on interpersonal competencies and
behavioral attributes. Both the interview discussions and survey results were
consistent in stressing the staff’s need for effective communication, the provision of
feedback, and clear articulation of the resolution outcomes. The perception of
multiple access points across the provincial government performing equivalent levels
o f oversight and investigations denoted a perceived lack of clarity in jurisdiction and
role. Interestingly, the only interview respondent group that discussed the issue of
capturing the cost benefit of Ombudsman Ontario was the staff. The major concerns
cited with bottom-line cost reviews were that bottom lines serve to sacrifice the
broader issues of human and social cost. The ability to build a meaningful process
that captures associated costs was acknowledged to be in the ‘hard to do’ category.
195
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Yet, respondents also expressed widespread concern about the continued erosion of
Ombudsman resources, which ultimately impact service provision and allow gaps to
grow in provincial government program administration. Discussions of capturing the
costs associated with unintended consequences of resource reduction and other
intangible costs were notably absent in the interviews. With the mandate to serve as a
protector o f fairness and justice in the administration of government services, the
Ombudsman may want to explore mechanisms for capturing critical cost benefit
information that delineates the unintended consequences and intangible costs
associated with government’s actions.
Systemic diagnosis of instances of maladministration creates the ability to
render significant impact on the lives and well-being of the populace and optimizes
the use of staff and budgetary resources. Examining the provincial government’s
policies and practices that are negatively impacting groups of citizens and filing own
motion findings should result in the Ombudsman’s strongest impact. Yet, neither
Legislative or public service members, or citizens, were able to recount definitive
examples of systemic changes to the government as a result of the work completed by
the Ombudsman. This finding from the interview data may indicate a problem with
communication mechanisms.
Governmental accountability was addressed by all three respondent groups as
critical to the Ombudsman credibility and effectiveness. The common perception is
that the Ombudsman competently demonstrates his/her purpose and accomplishments,
196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and that investments in the Office help to restore public confidence with the provincial
government. The Ombudsman commitment to accountability was evident based on
identified performance information that tracks standards of service, complaint status
and trend analysis, demographic data, and evaluates Ombudsman service through a
survey tool. Although many of the evaluative features are in place, the Ombudsman
has not yet deployed a systematic process of conducting program evaluation that can
ultimately drive decision-making, demonstrate results-based accountability, and aid
organizational learning.
Potential changes to the scope and authority of the Ombudsman were
recommended by several respondents increasingly concerned about continued service,
complaint resolution, and investigatory gaps in governmental programs not within the
jurisdictional oversight of the Office. Changes in jurisdiction would require political
advocacy and a mechanism that evaluates municipal, federal, and provincial gaps,
service responsiveness or instances of maladministration in governmental service.
Suggestions for Alternative Assessment Tools
Several alternative assessment tools could be designed to support a
comprehensive strategic management framework for Ombudsman Ontario. Strategic
management consists of a broader system than is evident in most strategic planing
efforts. It includes the full set of leadership decisions and actions needed to ensure
long-range performance of the organization (Koteen, 1989). A comprehensive
program of strategic management is characterized by the following:
197
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A strategically managed public agency is one in which budgeting,
performance management, human resource development, program
management, and other management processes are guided by a
strategic agenda that has been developed with a buy-in from key
actors and communicated widely within the organization and
among external constituents. Strategic management is concerned
with implementing strategies and measuring performance as well
as monitoring trends and identifying emerging issues that might
require strategic responses. (Poister & Streib, 1999, p. 310)
A strategic management system incorporating the tenets o f performance-based
management would begin to build a rigorous framework with two critical
prerequisites: (1) agreed-on goals and strategies that rely on staff, managers, and key
stakeholder involvement in developing organizational goals and in building the
strategies required to achieve the goals, including the necessary resources and
processes and (2) performance measurement systems which are capable of
documenting performance in support of the goals and can be used in organizational
decision-making (Wholey, 1999). In turn, performance information generated from
this process would be used to drive accountability, demonstrate effective or improved
performance, support resource allocation and other policy decisions, and manage the
organization (Wholey, 1999).
Building this strategic framework requires that clear linkage between goals,
outcomes, organizational performance, and results be identified. Several strategic
assessment tools have potential use for Ombudsman Ontario. One of the interviewees
raised provocative issues about needing to understand the environmental context of
emerging public needs when stating:
198
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
It is fine to evaluate what we have seen from the past, but you
need to be able to say, “Therefore, this is what we project will be
the challenges for public administration for the future.” This is
what we see the youth of tomorrow wanting; this is what we see
the baby-boomers demanding as the bulk of the population moves
into the older age range; this is what the increasing gaps between
the rich and the poor means for public administration; these are
some of the challenges that government should be focusing its
sights on; these are the ways that public accountability should
change, should be enhanced, to take stock of that; this is what
service standards should be for government; finding ways, in our
own Office, of having a systemic and a system-wide look at how
well government public service is performing against those
standards. (Staff respondent, July 1999)
A sound approach to strategic management could result in gains regarding
organizational clarity, a sharper focus on what is strategically important, and an
improved understanding of rapidly changing provincial needs. The need for assessing
the provincial environment helps to define the future environment in which
Ombudsman Ontario will serve the public. Environmental assessments include
identifying, examining, and analyzing emerging forces that have the potential to
impact organizational operations, outcomes, and requirements. A process for
systematically conducting external scanning of the environment could serve as a viable
tool for conducting this type of broad forecast for the Office. External assessments
identify and evaluate important actions, policies, trends, and public needs outside the
control of the Office. Issues such as key legislative trends, demographic changes,
fiscal conditions, changing numbers of marginalized people, changes in citizen
expectations and social conditions, educational changes, and the political and
199
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
intergovernmental environments of the province are very relevant to the Ontario
provincial government.
Using an environmental scanning process affords an organization the
opportunity to be more responsive by focusing managerial attention on the significant
problematic events, new trends and emerging opportunities. A simple method for
conducting an environmental scan is referred to as a Strengths-WeaknessesOpportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis. The SWOT framework is commonly used
to assess the environment by examining both current and forecasted risks impacting
the organization and its relationships with the community.
The environmental scanning process would be richer with input from members
of public service and the Legislature, and public representatives. The creation of
information about the results can include trend summaries, policy papers, seminars
and forums, or newsletter publications. Resource implications are low in terms of
costs, and the primary resource commitment is one of time.
According to Bryson (1995, p. 27), “the key to success for public
organizations (and for communities) is the satisfaction of key stakeholders.” The use
of a stakeholder analysis builds a process for understanding political actions of the
Legislative Assembly, with the intent of using that information to develop effective
strategies for service and operations. The process includes identifying the Office’s
stakeholders, which has already been done by Ombudsman Ontario as part of the
strategic planning effort. The criteria used by the stakeholders in assessing the
200
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ombudsman’s performance and how well the Office performs according to the
stakeholder criteria are explored as part of this process. The utility of engaging staff
resources in this type of activity supports an on-going mechanism for assessing
stakeholder satisfaction. It also allows the Office to gain insight into those areas of
Ombudsman performance deemed important, unimportant, complementary, in
conflict, or of no value by the Legislative members and leaders of the provincial
government. The greatest complication involving the use of this analytic technique
lies in the political transparency of the Ombudsman role, where gaining a fuller
understanding of the political focus of the Assembly must be accomplished while
remaining independent and neutral.
The development of a performance measurement system vetted with key
stakeholders would give the Ombudsman a periodic tool for measuring service
delivery, program effectiveness and efficiency, and improving accountability. The
Office has many data sources currently used, including client records, surveys, and
resolution analysis. However, benefits would be gained by building a stronger linkage
between what is currently being measured and what the desired goals and results of
the Office are. For instance, the issue of service equity is critical to the Ombudsman,
and yet it is not reflected as a strategic goal in the public Strategic Plan. Likewise,
systemic investigations hold powerful value to the Ontario populace when they result
in changes to provincial government service, responsiveness, or program operations.
One of the Office’s strategic goals addresses undertaking strategic own motion
201
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
investigations. Own motion investigations may be better represented as a critical tool
that allows the desired result to be achieved: creating positive changes in government
programs which ensure better service for the Ontario populace. Having the goals
clearly articulate the strategic focus is important, as is the need to build a
measurement process that provides leadership with information about key results and
progress in accomplishing the goals. A performance measurement activity should be
tailored to reflect what is important in the service of the Office.
Ombudsman Ontario maintains an expansive set of performance information
that tracks standards of service, complaint status and trend analysis, demographic
data, and uses survey tools. However, the Office should consider a process for
systematic evaluation that looks at aspects of performance in terms of key outcomes
that identify the desired results of Ombudsman support. There are many ways to
precede with building an evaluative methodology. Perhaps one that is most relevant
for initial consideration would be the use of an evaluability assessment. This
assessment determines an organization’s readiness to be managed by results, what
changes are needed to become performance-based, and whether an evaluation is likely
to contribute to improved performance (Wholey, 1983). The process includes the
users of program information by clarifying the programmatic intent through the
perspective of key stakeholders, staff, public complainants, and key leaders of the
public service. An evaluability assessment systematically examines what a program
should be doing, how it currently performs, and how performance can best be
202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
measured by building a model of the program theory based on multiple viewpoints.
The reality of the Office is explored, the participants reach agreement on the changes
that need to occur in activities and objectives; and alternative evaluation designs are
explored, which result in evaluation priorities being designated. The testing of key
aspects of the program theory include examining program activities and outcomes
(Wholey, 1993). The benefits of a system of evaluation are described by the
following;
Program evaluation, whether low cost or high cost, is by no means
a panacea. It does not substitute for quality implementation of
programs. It is not likely to provide definitive information. What
evaluation can do is provide reasonably reliable, reasonably valid
information about the merits and results of particular programs
operating in particular circumstances. Necessary compromises
will inevitably mean that the users of the information will be less
than fully certain of the validity of the evaluation findings. In a
world full of uncertainties and hazards, however, it is better to be
roughly right than to remain ignorant because a “conclusive”
evaluation was unaffordable. (Wholey, Hatry, & Newcomer,
1994, p. 601)
An expanded strategic communications plan is suggested by several
respondents in the assessment findings. Currently the Office has an aggressive
communication mechanism in its use of a comprehensive Annual Report, newsletters,
and wide use of electronic mail for dissemination throughout the ombudsman
community. A communication strategy serves several purposes. Information about
Ombudsman Ontario is currently provided to citizens, whose knowledge of the
Office can make a difference in their lives regarding complaints or issues involving the
government. But communication strategies can also provide an internal forum to
203
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
explain key initiatives and results to staff on a regular basis, promoting the
accomplishments of the Office. The first area of communications involving use of
external media is currently managed proactively by the Office, including advertising of
the Office, trade show and outreach initiatives, public speaking engagements,
expanded publicity, through increased exposure on television and the news media,
Annual Report results, and professional international forums. An area for further
expansion focuses on internal communication strategies. Possible activities might
include expanded opportunities for the staff to talk with constituency groups in a
public meeting setting or affording staff the opportunity to participate in
“benchmarking” or “best practices” reviews of other ombudsman offices. Finally, the
second area of expanded communications would focus on political communications
with stakeholders, which would encompass regularly scheduled meetings with
members of the Provincial Parliament and with top officials of the Ministries and
Agencies. The identification of trends and systemic investigations is a significant
contribution from the Ombudsman. How the information could be built into a valued
portfolio could be explored through varying dissemination strategies, including
reassessing the frequency of information release. Communication strategies might
include speeches to public service groups, an expanded awards programs for citizens
and political members of the Legislative Assembly who personify the values and
qualities of the Office, and a recurring roundtable focus group with key political
membership to address provincial concerns and mechanisms for optimizing
204
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ombudsman support. In reality, a communications strategy becomes closely affiliated
with an expanded marketing plan, based on the benefits of building legislative and
provincial government networks which can have profound impacts on the
Ombudsman’s ability to achieve informal resolution for the public.
Focus groups provide another useful assessment tool which has relevance to
the Office. The groups typically consist of seven to twelve individuals who are
unknown to each other but share common characteristics. The session allow
discussions about people’s experiences, reactions to proposed changes in government
policies or procedures, changes to their lives that have occurred as a result of
Ombudsman involvement, and other useful information pertaining to public need. A
moderator leads the informal discussion with the intent of obtaining in-depth
qualitative information. The tool provides a process for obtaining a deeper
understanding of Office impacts and public needs.
The development of stafT competencies in the area of performance-based
management offers significant value to public organizations (GAO, 1997, pp. 4, 27-
30). A training program might center on understanding the political and
environmental contexts, exploring program logic and performance expectations from
stakeholders and public groups, specific methodologies for measuring and evaluating
program performance, uses of performance information, and ensuring program value
(Wholey, 1999, p. 303). Additionally, useful training and skill development for
Ombudsman Ontario might include an overview of designing and implementing a
205
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
comprehensive program of strategic management, methodologies for instituting
feedback mechanisms, service delivery systems, and building intergovernmental
relations, including strategic partnerships and alliances.
Recommendation for Outcome Measures
Outcomes are often described as “the results achieved in the individuals,
organizations or populations outside the agency or program” (Wholey, 1999, p. 290)
and may be short-term, long-term or focused on the unintended outcomes of
organizations. Three types of outcome categories, as suggested by Weiss (1998), will
serve as the framework of this discussion: measuring effects on the individuals served,
measuring effects on government organizations, and measuring effects on the public.
Ultimately, the Ombudsman and staff should explore the desired outcomes,
which define what the Office intends to achieve, in conjunction with the key users of
information, including members of the Legislative Assembly and selected leaders from
the Ministries and Offices. The researcher offers candidate intermediate and end
outcomes for Office consideration which grew out of the interviews conducted,
program data, and the official strategic goals. For purposes of clarification,
intermediate outcomes are considered to be those one could reasonably assume to see
in the short-term and which focus on the behavior of individuals and organizations
(Wholey, 1999). End outcomes focus on the desired end state. Candidate outcomes
are offered in Table 44.
206
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 44
CANDIDATE OUTCOMES FOR OMBUDSMAN CONSIDERATION
CANDIDATE OUTCOMES FOR OMBUDSMAN ONTARIO
INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES
• Increased Citizen Satisfaction
• Decreased Costs and Time in Resolving
Complaints
• Decreased Number of Investigations, Own
Motions and MPP Inquiries
• Increased Informal Complaint Resolution
• Increased Access to the System
• Expanded Staff Skills
• Systemic Changes to Organizations and
Programs
ACTIVITIES
END OUTCOMES
• Provide Critical Information to Decision
Makers
• Improved Provincial Government Services
• Minimized Cases of Maladministration
• Increased Responsiveness Between Public
and Provincial Government
• Improved Public Perception of
Government
OUTCOMES----------------- RESULTS & VALUE
Measuring Effects in Individuals Served. Changes in the lives of
individuals who use Ombudsman Ontario for resolution of complaints or issues can
occur in many ways: in terms of receiving fair treatment, responsive action or
settlements, necessary information, receiving benefits or resolution to a concern,
attitudes about the usefulness of the Office. Recommended intermediate outcomes
addressing short-term improvements would include increased citizen satisfaction,
decreased time and costs in resolving disputes, and increased access to the system.
The current use of the survey is a useful measurement in evaluating the outcomes
associated with individual impacts, as are other mechanisms such as post-investigation
or resolution feedback captured in discussions or correspondence after case closure.
Measuring the individual’s perception of fairness with the resolution and investigation
207
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
process may be a more accurate gauge of satisfaction than measuring the satisfaction
with resolution. As previously noted, assessing satisfaction is often dependent on the
individual’s feelings about the finding and whether or not their desired resolution was
achieved. Nonetheless, the levels of satisfaction among complainants is an important
indicator of the level of quality of the resolution or the service. The level of
satisfaction could potentially serve as a critical indicator for both Office performance
and the provincial government performance.
The Office employs other tools which are very useful in obtaining public
feedback, including the “Complaints Against Us” program and the use of innovative
outreach with marginalized groups of citizens. One important opportunity to obtain
feedback is at the point of complaint resolution. Several citizens indicated a desire to
receive a final letter or telephone call that discusses the final disposition of the issue.
This “final” contact could be critical in isolating those attributes of the process that
caused the most dissatisfaction. Candidate performance measures also include the
two-fold qualitative feedback obtained from focus groups and advisory panels
pertaining to: (1) the intangible impacts associated with marginalized citizens falling
through the gaps and (2) the differences which Ombudsman services made on the
lives of those most in need of government services.
Measuring Effects on Government Organizations. Changes in the Ontario
Provincial government as a result of Ombudsman involvement and diagnostic ability
are a vitally important result of the Ombudsman function. Changes can involve new
208
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
or modified policies, programs, administrative guidelines, service standards, or
practices which result in responsive, timely, and professional service to the Ontario
populace. Recommended intermediate outcomes offered for consideration might
include: decreased numbers of investigations, own motions, or MPP inquiries;
systemic changes to organizations and programs; and an increased number of
complaints resolved informally. The short term end-state of decreased investigative
requirements is correlated to increases in the incidence of informal complaint
resolution. Ideally, a decreased number of formal investigations and oversight may be
a result of positive governmental changes that are occurring as a result of better
government. These positive changes are evident in areas such as service,
responsiveness and equity. Additionally, the ability to achieve resolution are closely
connected to the health of the Ombudsman, the Ministry/office/program, and the
Legislative Assembly relationships.
One of the most powerful tools in assessing the effects of the Ombudsman on
government organizations lies with the use and communication of trend analysis.
Other potential mechanisms for effecting these outcomes could involve the expanded
communication strategies and access/outreach/educational activities with leadership
of the provincial government and members of the public service. Candidate measures
in support of the outcomes also include monitoring the changes to policies, programs,
and procedures that are attributable to Ombudsman investigations, informal and
formal resolution, and ongoing outreach discussions with the provincial leadership.
209
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Measuring Effects on the Public. The ultimate performance indicator of an
effective Ombudsman is that the citizenry expresses increased confidence and trust in
the provincial government. Changes in attitudes and sense of perceived value about
the government are effected by perceptions of responsiveness, equity and fairness,
significantly minimized instances of malfeasance or poor service, and other concerns.
Measuring these effects will be challenging but the Office may want to consider
suggesting or sponsoring a cross-governmental initiative that administers a provincialwide survey or other feedback mechanism used to evaluate attitudes about the
governmental provision of service to the public. This type of feedback mechanism
would baseline and evaluate changes in citizenry perceptions over the years.
210
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER V
ASSESSING THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION'S
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
In today’s business environment “right-sizing,” downsizing,
economizing, and outsourcing seem to be the rule. It is absolutely
essential to the effectiveness and survival of the ombudsman
function that products and services be identified. (FDIC, Office of
the Ombudsman, “A Model for Developing an Ombudsman
Function, ” 1998, p. 2-1)
Introduction
This chapter provides the results of the rapid assessment of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) Office of the Ombudsman. The results
generated from the evaluative pilot test are explored, based on a range of perceptions
from members of constituent groups, stakeholders and staff acquired through
interviews. The perceptions are compared according to several variables: access to
government; public satisfaction; efficiency and effectiveness of the resolution; changes
in FDIC policies and program operations as a result of ombudsman involvement; key
Ombudsman challenges; changes in Ombudsman scope and resources; and the use of
performance-based management. Additionally, this chapter reviews existing data
used in building the preliminary assessment of the Ombudsman activities. The validity
and potential usefulness of the assessment design, developed and pilot-tested for
211
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
application to the public ombudsman, will be evaluated as a result of the data analysis.
The results o f the rapid assessment were intended to assess the relevance of gaining
insights into Ombudsman performance through an evaluation methodology employing
a 360-degree feedback methodology from the respondent groups. Finally, subsequent
suggestions for alternative assessment tools and performance outcomes are explored
and identified, in order to support an increasingly comprehensive evaluation design.
Nature of the Program
The genesis of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) occurred as
a result of the Great Depression. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed
office, nine thousand banks were closed across the United States between the stock
market crash of October 1929 and March 1933. Among the actions taken by
Congress to restore the nation’s financial stability was the creation of the FDIC in
June of 1933. The establishment of the FDIC provided a federal government
guarantee of deposits that allowed greater surety and safety of citizen’s funds within
designated limits. A source of corporate pride frequently noted by staff centers on the
fact that not one depositor has lost a cent of insured funds as a result of banking
failure since the establishment of the organization.
The FDIC continues as an independent agency of the United States
government. The original mandate was to insure bank deposits, help maintain sound
conditions in our banking system, and protect the nation’s money supply in case of
financial institution failure. The FDIC role expanded in 1989, with the additional
212
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
duty o f insuring deposits for savings associations in response to the thrift industry
crisis when 2,900 banks and savings institutions failed. The FDIC currently insures
deposits at the nation’s 10,461 banks and savings associations (FDIC, PR-24-99, May
18, 1999). It also serves as the primary federal regulator of approximately 6,000
state-chartered “non-member” banks, which include those banks that are not members
of the Federal Reserve. The Corporation arranges a resolution for each failing
institution, which by law must be the least-costly and the least-disruptive.
Additionally, it insures deposits up to $100,000 in virtually all U.S. banks and savings
and loan associates. It also promotes the surety of insured depository institutions and
the national financial system by identifying, monitoring, and addressing risks
associated with the deposit insurance funds.
Context of the Office
The FDIC is managed by a five-member Board of Directors appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate. Membership includes senior federal officials
from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, and the
Office of Thrift Supervision. The FDIC receives no congressional appropriations to
carry out its mission as a deposit insurer and banking regulator. The funding for the
FDIC’s administration primarily comes from deposit insurance premiums paid by the
banking industry and savings associations, and from investment income from reserves
accumulated over the years.
213
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The FDIC’s management of recent bank failures, beginning in late 1980 at
post-Depression numbers, has resulted in significant changes to the organization, its
policies and service models. It is interesting to note that the Corporation suffered the
first operating loss of its history in 1988, when insurance funds experienced a $4.2
billion deficit (FDIC, Strategic Plan, 1998). At the end of 1991, the Corporation was
handling over 40,000 financial matters ranging from claims against the FDIC as a
receiver to litigation filed by FDIC against former directors and officers (Costantino,
1992, p. 324). New legislative reform initiatives resulted and the FDIC was given
responsibility for managing the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). The RTC
handled failed savings and loan associations from 198S until 199S (FDIC, Strategic
Plan, 1998). The Corporation has experienced significant staff reductions and
mission realignments during the past five years as insurance losses decline, total
premiums paid by banks have been significantly lowered, and assessment revenues
increase.
Political Origins of the Office of the Ombudsman
The FDIC Office of the Ombudsman was established in 1995, by Section
309(d) of the Reigle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of
1994. The Act required all federal regulatory agencies to create an Ombudsman to
“act as a liaison between the agency and any effected person with respect to any
problem such party may have in dealing with the agency resulting from the regulatory
agencies” (Public Law 103-325, September 23, 1994). Each Ombudsman was to
214
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assure that safeguards existed which encouraged complainants to address concerns in
a confidential manner. The role was expanded by the FDIC Chairman and Board of
Directors, including responding to concerns and complaints of the general public and
FDIC employees. The Act authorized the Ombudsman to deal with concerns between
the organization and banks regarding FDIC regulatory functions, such as
disagreement over exam findings, complaints about regulatory impacts, and
interpretation of rulings. Interesting to note, the Reigle Act also mandated the
development of an Alternative Dispute Resolution pilot program for each Federal
banking agency and the National Credit Union Administration Board. The guidelines
for the pilot program mandated that the ADR process be fair to all disputants,
expeditiously resolve disputes, and be less costly than traditional means of dispute
resolution including litigation. The Act also required that the ADR programs be
evaluated independently. The FDIC started using ADR in advance of the Reigle Act,
introducing its use as early as 1989 in response to the increased number of failed
institutions (Costantino, 1992, p. 325).
All federal financial regulatory agencies, including The Office of Thrift
Supervision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, and
the FDIC, established an Ombudsman, although each Office possesses differing
jurisdictions and scope. For instance, only the FDIC maintains an ombudsman office
function that provides service to employees. Some of the other Offices have authority
to overturn agency decisions regarding appeals by banks they supervise. The FDIC
215
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ombudsman does not possess overturn authority as do the ombudsman from the
other sister agencies. Instead, the FDIC Ombudsman relies on the skills of persuasion
and influence in negotiating a fair and impartial resolution of an issue or complaint.
The Ombudsman provides support to a range of constituent users, including the
general public, bankers, and internal FDIC employees. The Office of the Ombudsman
is based on the tenets of impartiality and confidentiality, providing assistance directly
or referring those with specific needs to the office that can best assist them. The
Office is independent of all other programs administered by the FDIC and the
Ombudsman reports to the Deputy Vice Chairman/ Chief Operating Officer of the
FDIC.
The .Current Environment
The FDIC has experienced profound organizational changes since the
establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman in 1995. When this office was created
the FDIC was at the height of its growth, caused by the banking crisis of late 1980.
The FDIC increased in size from 5,000 to 16,000 staff at its peak during an eight-year
period (Interviews, February 1999).
The current level of employment at the FDIC is now at an estimated 7,000
employees, a 56% downsizing result occurring during the past three years. The
impacts of the FDIC downsize have been dramatic. Thousands of employees across
the country lost their federal jobs, many of whom had worked at FDIC for several
216
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
years. National closures of offices occurred, as did the reexamination of how FDIC
Offices and programs conducted their business.
Likewise, the Office of the Ombudsman has undergone significant impacts. In
199S the Office was established with 105 staff. The Office currently has 37 staff
nationwide, with 14 residing in the Headquarters office, which represents a 65% staff
reduction in less than three years. This reduction was particularly significant in the
context of a new Office attempting to build its support base and to articulate its
purpose and mission. Interestingly, all staff who have worked with the Office have
extensive expertise with other Divisions and programs across the FDIC and the RTC.
Most staff members have spent their entire careers with FDIC or one of the other
financial regulatory agencies.
Responding to requests for general information comprises the largest volume
of Office work, as opposed to complaint handling. The smallest numbers of contacts
involve employees from the FDIC. The primary use of the Office by bankers involves
the provision of general resource information and information about failed banks,
such as asset disposition. The Office can provide options in resolving banker
concerns but cannot override formal supervisory decisions. Current appeal processes
available to members of the banking industry includes results from Safety and
Soundness and Compliance examinations, assessment risk clarifications, denial of
Freedom of Information Act Requests, denial of records and Privacy Act requests,
and denied applications. The Office informs members of the industry that they can
217
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assist them in facilitating better communications with the regulators, identify areas of
improvement in examination procedures, and monitor appeal processes to ensure
fairness, effectiveness and efficiency. The Ombudsman serves as a full-voting member
of the Supervisory Appeals Review Committee, which ensures that an impartial
review of the facts and fair administration will occur. The Ombudsman’s
investigatory role is limited but may be assigned to the Ombudsman in those cases
where the FDIC has failed to notify a financial institution of its decision within 60
days of notice or request receipt.
Public contacts with the Office focus on a wide range of issues.
Approximately 60% of the public inquiries deal with failed bank/thrift matters and
requests for general information. Additionally, the Office provides general
information to employee on such issues as FOIA, customer assistance, fairness in
employee selection and reassignment, pay and benefits, and employee insurance
concerns. The Office serves as the liaison between the FDIC and the public on FDIC
responsibilities involving regulation, resolutions of failed institutions, receiverships,
and asset disposition activities. The Office fulfills several diverse functions including:
(1) fact-finding, where the Ombudsman staff clarify misunderstandings and
miscommunications by providing accurate information pertaining to a policy or
concern; (2) feedback, which is provided to management about proposed changes,
policy impacts, and areas for improvement that surface from constituent concerns,
218
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
serving as resource; (3) facilitation of problem or complaint resolution, outreach; and
(4) influencing operational changes.
The Evaluative Pilot Test
The results from the rapid assessment of the Ombudsman Ontario are aligned
according to the five-step process used in the design and implementation of the
evaluative pilot-test. The steps are identified in Table 45.
TABLE 45
SUMMARY OF RAPID ASSESSMENT PROCESS
1. Collection of New Program Data
2. Collection of Existing Data
3. Preliminary Assessment
4. Suggestions for Alternative Assessment Tools
5. Recommendation for Outcome Measures
Collection of New Program Data (Interview Results!
The new data collected about the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman consisted
of interviews data obtained from the three respondent groups: members of
constituent groups, Ombudsman staff, and stakeholders. Follow-up interviews were
conducted only in instances where clarifying information was required after the
219
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interviews. Limited site observations also occurred at each research site or at the
office locations of the respondents. Eleven formal interviews occurred between
February 25, 1999, and July 25, 1999, with seven conducted in face-to-face sessions.
The remaining four formal interviews were conducted by telephone, with two o f the
interviewees located in other regional locations. Full transcriptions of all formal
interviews were recorded and filed. Additionally, two informal interviews were
conducted with selected staff on December 14, 1998, and March 6, 1999. Field notes
were maintained from the two discussions that occurred during that period. The
researcher was also allowed to attend a case management review on 4 March 1999,
from which field notes were developed. The FDIC Office of the Ombudsman
provided sample letters that comprise the Office’s “Brag Book,” which describe
constituent reactions to Office support on a wide range of issues. Some relevant
excerpts are included in the interviewee synopses.
Of the eleven formal interviews conducted, five involved the staff, three
involved constituent members, and three involved stakeholders. Of the three
constituents, all were members of or affiliated with the banking industry. Two
constituents represented trade associations comprised of a large number of FDIC
contacts. All interviews but one involving a FDIC senior stakeholder were
prearranged by the Office of the Ombudsman. Stakeholders included senior FDIC
leadership and managers from other FDIC divisions or offices. All but one of the
interviewees had significant prior involvement with the Office of the Ombudsman.
220
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The researcher initially assumed that four variables would be explored in depth
in the interview process including: (1) greater access to the government, (2) public
satisfaction with use of the Ombudsman office, (3) the effectiveness and the efficiency
o f complaint resolution, and (4) systemic changes in Ministry or program operations
as a result of Ombudsman diagnosis. However, the need to expand the taxonomy of
variables and subvariables was required because of the breadth of issues discussed. In
addition to the four preliminary variables, other subvariables were explored, as
represented by the following matrix in Table 46.
221
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 46
E X P A N D E D T A X O N O M Y O F R E S E A R C H V A R IA B L E S
KEY RESEARCH VARIABLES SUBVARIABLES
1. ACCESS
2. SATISFACTION
3. EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY
4. CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT
— Constituent Access
— Political Access
— Outreach
— Constituent Satisfaction
— Internal Relationships
— External Relationships
— Resolutions
— Responsiveness to Complaint or Issue
— Management Feedback
— Interoffice Communications
— Ombudsman Role
- Information Resource
- Special Projects
- Public Confidence
- Duplicative Efforts
— Efficiency of Resolution
— Changes in FDIC Policies & Program
— Analysis of Trends
In addition, other areas were unexpectedly addressed as a part of this research,
including the Office of the Ombudsman’s use of performance-based management; the
scope and resources of the Office; and key challenges facing the Ombudsman. The
research taxonomy was expanded to include additional areas of exploration, which
resulted from the unstructured interviews (Table 47).
222
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 47
EXPANDED TAXONOMY OF NEW RESEARCH VARIABLES
NEW RESEARCH VARIABLES SUBVARIABLES
1. PERFORMANCE-BASED — Use of Performance Information and
MANAGEMENT Program Evaluation
— Accountability
2. CHANGES TO SCOPE AND — Expansion of Scope
AUTHORITY — Resource Levels
3. KEY CHALLENGES — Demonstrating Value
— Resource Stability
— Understanding the Environment
The expansion of variables served to make the interview discussions more
relevant. The interviews provided a rich spectrum of concerns, insights, anecdotes,
and opinions from the members of the three respondent groups. The benefit of
collecting unstructured interview data from three groups of respondents was to afford
insights resulting in a more comprehensive examination of perceptions rather than to
be limited to self-perception (McCauley, Moxley, & Velsor, 1998). This
comprehensive examination of the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman ultimately
provided meaningful insights into the use, relationships, and perceived contributions
of the Office. The taxonomies presented in Tables 46 and 47 will serve as the
presentation format for displaying key excerpts that generated from the interviews.
223
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perceptions of Access
The issue of access is construed in terms of awareness and use of the role of
the Ombudsman, tools of communications, and responsive outreach mechanisms
within the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman. Issues that were discussed during the
interviews included the Ombudsman’s level of involvement with the community,
responsiveness to the needs of constituent groups, and the impacts of reduced staff.
Noteworthy issues generated during this discussions and key interview excerpts were
categorized into two major areas: Constituent Access and Outreach. The excerpts
are included in Tables 48 and 49.
The perceptions of the staff and public constituents were consistent about the
issue of access. Most staff and constituent members asserted their satisfaction with
current levels of access available to members of constituent groups. The use of
brochures, word-of-mouth referrals, Internet sites, and 1-800 telephone lines were
cited as effective communication devices. One staff member discussed concerns
about not knowing if public awareness about the Office is at an acceptable level.
Recent staff reductions have impacted previous customer service standards that
emphasized the need to reach a “live voice” and have impacted the staffing levels in
regional Offices. A recent project involving the design of a FDIC call-center will
consolidate general inquiries and is expected to improve initial access and
responsiveness. One stakeholder commented on the FDIC Board of Director’s
224
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
limited awareness about activities of the Ombudsman. Relevant excerpts pertaining
to constituent access are presented in Table 48.
T A B L E 48
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E L A T E D T O C O N S T IT U E N T A C C E S S
ACCESS
Interview Discussions Related to
Access with Constituents
Respondent Group
Staff
Constituent Access
Representative Excerpts
• I don’t know if the public knows of our existence like they
should. If you look at our true mission is, it’s to handle
complaints against the agency. The public Constituent Access
calls us if they have an issue with the bank, which is not really
the type of thing we should be dealing with.
• We have brochures and we attend a lot of outreach functions,
with the banking industries, public consumer functions, and
information is prominent. We attempt to disseminate the
brochures. We use word-of-mouth and give out our names.
Employees have brochures and we have articles in the FDIC
News. We’re listed in the Federal phone directory. People here
know us. If they get a misdirected call, they send them to us.
It’ll be much easier with the Call Center.
• When we first formed, we developed customer service
standards that said “you will always get a live voice when you
call us.” When you’re down to the core of 35 [staff] that’s
probably not going to happen. Some of our offices in regions
only have two people. In terms of accessibility, yes, we are. We
have Internet, we have 1-800, we have mail, and people can walk
into the office. People may have problems getting a live voice;
there may be a delay in getting calls returned. Right now we say
that we’ll try to respond with a call-back in the next 24 hours. I
think in terms of public being able to reach us, I don’t think
there’s a problem. The problem lies with a customer service
standard that says you’ll always get a live voice. The reality is
that we have to change the customer service standard—it’s not
rational, it’s not logical. We have great technology in terms of
reaching people.
225
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACCESS
Interview Discussions Related to
Access with Constituents
Respondent Group
Staff
Constituent Access
Constituents
Constituent Access
Representative Excerpts
• I am pleased with the access we offer. We have a lot of
marketing materials that we send out. We have got the 1-800
number. And I am not sure that there is really too much more
that we can do to make ourselves accessible. We have marketing
materials for each of the three constituent groups.
• We hope we’ll make a significant difference in terms of our
support to the public and the financial industry. We’re building
a kind of “one-stop-shop,” one place where you come to when
you have a question. It’s a customer-service call center.
• Our bankers access it [the Ombudsman] through a referral
from this Office because we initiated a structured program
introduction during one of the conventions a couple of years ago
saying, “Some people, of course, know the role of the
Ombudsman; some people may not. This is our opportunity to
bring those of you up-to-date, who are aware of the Ombudsman
Office, to let you know what their outreach is now. And, this is
an opportunity, too, for those of you have never had any
regulatory challenges that have caused you to seek some
recourse, to understand what options you have should something
surface that you need some resolution on outside of your region.”
So, that is what we structured during our convention in 1996 that
really was an eye opener for the CEOs and the Boards of
Directors of the banks because they had never considered a
recourse outside of the region other than through some legal
means.
226
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACCESS
Interview Discussions Related to
Access with Constituents
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Stakeholder • The degree that we brief them [the FDIC Board of Directors]
is limited today. The issue here is, we have two outside
Political Access directors, one from the Comptroller of the Currency and the
other one from the Office of Thrift Supervision. Both of them
have ombudsman activities that function differently than ours. I
think they are interested in that aspect of it, and I am sure we
could probably brief them more. We have not. We have focused
more of our attention on the internal directors and the senior
staff, on how that function is being held here. Do I think they are
not interested? No, I do not think that. We just have not kept
shoving it down [their] throats. When it was first formed, we
were briefing them frequently. Now it is a functioning activity of
this Corporation, and how it functions is pretty much left by the
Board up to the Chairman and myself to kind of make sure that it
has an even flow.
Outreach activities have been significantly impacted by the budgetary
reductions of the Office, both in terms of staff availability and funding for travel.
Most outreach initiatives focus on members of the banking industry and community
organizations, as opposed to direct interfaces with members of the general public.
Ombudsman outreach, including efforts with trade association meetings, reveal that
more bankers are learning about and relying on their assistance. Another group
benefiting from outreach activities includes members of federal and other public
agencies who are in the process of establishing an Ombudsman. The importance of
personal attributes and understanding key concerns experienced by different contact
groups is noted by one staff member as significantly impacting effective outreach.
227
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Stakeholders note that outreach is a critical part of the Ombudsman function and
generally appear to be satisfied with the current level of support. Likewise, members
of constituent groups also report the importance of outreach in providing resource
information to their representative organizations. One constituent reports that the
Ombudsman staff have been helpful in arranging FDIC speakers for her meetings.
Another notes that outreach opportunities could be enhanced if the Ombudsman, in
turn, used their contact groups as information resources. Excerpts discussing
outreach are included in Table 49.
T A B L E 49
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R PT S R E L A T E D T O O U T R E A C H
ACCESS
Interview Discussions Related to Outreach
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • Last year we conducted eleven trips for outreach - about one
per month. We get assistance from field people where we have
Outreach regional presence. This year, because our budget has been cut so
drastically, we are only having one ombudsman participant at
these events, so we are having to do more with less.
• Some people are better at outreach and in interacting with
people. I remind people that they have to keep in mind who their
audience is. You are going to talk differently to community
organizations—you’ll be less formal—than you are to bankers or
to employees. Employees of FDIC are going to be more
emotional because they often believe that they have been
personally offended and effected by what has transpired.
228
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACCESS
Interview Discussions Related to Outreach
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
• Most of the outreach efforts we are now doing are joint, with
other [FDIC] offices. What we are doing is not sending as many
people We learned what works best in situation, we learned
not everyone wants to be sold on an idea. You have to go with
the flow and read people. Some people who are hungry for
information and we will do a more interactive exchange. Some
just want to graze and pick up a little of this, a little of that.
• We have an additional contact group which includes
organizations that are starting an ombudsman function. We have
a growing group of organizations and individuals who come to
us and ask us how we do “ombudsmanry” and how do you set up
an office.
• Probably the other part of that which has helped is there was
extensive outreach efforts by our Ombudsman and our corporate
leadership to make sure that the Ombudsman gets out, meets
people, lets institutions and associations and the general public
know what we are doing. I do not believe the ombudsman
activity can function well without that outreach activity.
• You can usually tell if you are doing well by the number of
invites. If you look at our Ombudsman, they are getting invited
to go to a lot of things. And, I am usually saying, “You are
going to go do this now?” Well, they get a lot of invites.
• They have been very much out there with our group. If the
membership has problems, they have called on their own. But
they [Ombudsman staff] have been at all the legislative
meetings, which are in March, some of our winter and summer
meetings, and all of our conventions. The panelists at my
meetings have been people from the FDIC—the Ombudsman
staff helped me to arrange the speakers. Some of this, I guess
what I am saying, is general because we have had the gamut of
the FDIC. The Chairman spoke at our convention last year.
Constituents
Outreach
Stakeholder
Outreach
Staff
Outreach
229
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACCESS
Interview Discussions Related to Outreach
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
• I think it would be useful, and I think that the Ombudsman
should also look at this association as we look at them—as a
resource. So, I think that if the Ombudsman would make use of
the relationship that trade associations have with our
membership, it would also aid in the amount of outreach they can
have with minority banks, without feeling as though they are
working in tandem with a trade group because I know how
government really defines parameters relative to nonprofits, and
their interaction with their entities. I think that government
works harder to keep that line as defined as possible. But I think
if the Ombudsman Office could understand that just as we go to
them with challenges and concerns that we have, they can still
make use of what our resources are.
• As far as addressing customer awareness programs or Y2K,
the FDIC has lots of publications that we get and send out to our
customers and lay around the lobby and that kind of stuff.
• They provided education through conferences. They have had
booths. Last year they had a booth at our conference and had a
lot of information and little giveaways.
Perceptions of Satisfaction
In most public organizations, the issue of satisfaction is closely tied to
perceptions of satisfaction with the complaint resolution and investigation processes;
satisfaction with the staff relationships; satisfaction with the results of Ombudsman
support; a sense of fair treatment, and the confidentiality provided. The key interview
excerpts are categorized into two areas: Constituent Satisfaction, and Internal and
External Relationships. Tables SO and 51 summarize the key excerpts involving
satisfaction with the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman.
230
Constituents
Outreach
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The degree of constituent satisfaction depended on how a complaint was
ultimately resolved with all three respondent groups. In assigning a quantitative score
to the level of constituent satisfaction with the Office, the mean rating provided by
five staff was a 3.8, on a scale from 0-5, with a 5 reflecting a high degree of
satisfaction. The degree of satisfaction noted by the constituent members was a 5.0,
the highest possible rating. The rating provided by stakeholders proved to the least
consistent, with an overall rating of a 4.1, including an approximate range of scores
higher than I but lower than 5. Figure 5 depicts the perceived satisfaction rating on
the five- point scale by respondent group.
Staff respondents note that the absence of a survey impacts their ability to
accurately assess the level of constituent satisfaction. Positive feedback in the form of
correspondence and the volume of calls requesting general information is offered as
an indicator of satisfaction. The role of the Ombudsman is cited by constituent
members as having helped sensitize regional FDIC offices to the concerns of bankers.
Ombudsman attributes of confidentiality, neutrality and impartiality are noted as
critical to overall constituent satisfaction. There is an overwhelming sense of positive
regard for the Office articulated by members of contact groups, in terms of facilitating
communication, character, responsiveness, and serving as an intermediary.
Stakeholders expressed greater divergence in opinions about constituent satisfaction.
Diverse reactions from the different contact groups, the initial unwillingness across
the FDIC to accept an Ombudsman with resident powers, and differences in perceived
231
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perceptions of Constituent Satisfaction with the
Ombudsman
C o n stitu en t S tak eh o ld er
f ig u r e s
PERCEPTIONS OF SATISFACTION BY FDIC RESPONDENT GROUP
to
u>to
use o f the Office based on constituent need were the primary causes of the greater
variation in perceptions of satisfaction. Excerpts pertaining to constituent satisfaction
are contained in Table 50.
T A B L E 50
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E L A T E D T O C O N S T IT U E N T
SA T ISF A C T IO N
SATISFACTION
Interviews related to Discussions of Constituent
Satisfaction with the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • I’d rate [satisfaction] somewhere between 4 and 5. I’ve seen
copies of correspondence where praise was thrown at the Office.
Constituent People are very impressed with our sensibility, the manner that we
Satisfaction quickly complete our support. Most of the comments say that “I
couldn’t believe how quickly I got an answer.” People are very
impressed at the service they receive, even when they've asked
for help that has nothing to do with the FDIC When people
need documents from the Internet, we’ll provide them with the
information they need. I’m so impressed with the way the staff
responds to the contacts and I’ve seen the responses from the
contacts sent afterwards that I feel very comfortable with a rating
from 4 to 5. Although no office is perfect, I feel comfortable with
a rating of 4.
• I would have to say 4 and that’s because I rated it high on your
scale, but not the top, and that’s very real. If we do ombudsman
the way we’re supposed to do, we’ll have people go away from
here unhappy. Many people who come here are hoping to get what
they want, which is a natural human characteristic. The reality is
they are not, and that’s the neutrality of the situation. We try to
help them understand why they aren’t getting what they want.
When people are told they aren’t getting the money they expected,
which is very real in an assets complaint.
• The public’s primary issue is usually about unresponsiveness,
they’re written to us; they’ve asked for something; they think that
nothing is being done. That is a true complaint against the
organization—it’s appropriate for us to handle.
233
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews related to Discussions of Constituent
Satisfaction with the Ombudsman
Respondent Group
StafT
Constitutent
Satisfaction
Representative Excerpts
• Anyone I talk with has been jim-dandy, knocked over and
saying “We’re so happy you are here. It is so nice to get a real,
live person. 1 never thought the government could be so important
and so helpful a the same time.” They call us for everything, even
things that don’t have our name anywhere in it. Mortgage
companies, locating pension funds for teacher unions, retirement
planning, bank credit ratings “Know your customer” rules has
created so many calls. People are irate and they think it’s a
conspiracy to separate them from their money. The bank
regulators came out with a proposal to help us identify sources of
money, from a money-laundering perspective. The proposal called
for anyone outside of a normal banking relationship to be
identified. The screaming and yelling on the other end of the
phone show that people feel that it is a violation of privacy. They
get our number off the Internet, to include faction groups. There
are groups on the Internet that claim that we’re trying to build
profrles about them.
1 would think, because my customer service is so exceptional, I
would say 3.5, only because everybody is not happy. We make
about 65% of our people happy.
• We seem to have the most interaction with the general public.
That is where the largest number of contacts come from. A lot of
them are matters related to closed bank issues. And we generally
are pretty much able to satisfy all of those concerns because they
are specific things that need to be done. So there is a pretty high
degree of specialty in that they know that work and know how to
get it done. Employees are probably a little more frustrated
because the internal changes tend to come a little slow, changing
the policies and practices. The bankers now call for information as
opposed to issues. I think that is because the industry is all pretty
highly rated right now, and the economy is so good. Well, I guess
the public, they are probably about a 4 [in level of satisfaction];
employees, I would say maybe about a 3; industry, I would
probably say a 4.
234
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews related to Discussions of Constituent
Satisfaction with the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Constituents • Our banks have a view that they are servicing their
communities, and they are providing a lot of opportunities that, but
Constitutent for their vision, would not exist. And so, I think that our banks
Satisfaction become frustrated when regulatory questions are raised that are not
sensitive to what these banks are doing. For instance, when you
have a board that is really diligent in the community, and you have
it being raised as an issue through that exam process because one
criteria under that rule has not been met or has not been interpreted
in a way that fits what the criteria is, I think that becomes
frustrating for the bank. The regulator has the authority to render a
decision based on what their rule is, and they do not have to be
sensitive to what these banks are dealing with. I think the
Ombudsman Office has helped the regions to become more
sensitive It has been a real help to have an intermediary that, at
least, will change something futuristically if they cannot change a
decision that has been made currently.
• It [rating of satisfaction] is absolutely a 5 because I cannot point
to any negative experiences. Negative, for me, means
nonresponsive, and I have never had an instance where somebody
has been nonresponsive.
• I have a lot more confidence that the system works. The
character and intent of the Ombudsman is incredibly important. If
they can maintain total impartiality, which [the staff member] did, I
have confidence in it. But if they start leaning to one side or the
other—if I ever felt the Ombudsman—that I had conned her to
some degree, and she was, in sense, leaning towards my version of
the stories—if I felt like I had recruited her support, I would not
have trusted her because she could just as easily have been
recruited by the FDIC to work it the other way. But I never
detected an ounce of that in her.
• I’d rate my experience a 5. The regulators and I were blinded
out of just anger and dislike for each other. [The Ombudsman]
could see the forest and (sic) trees, and we could not because we
had dug our heels in and bowed our necks, and we were not going
to give an inch to each other.... Based on my one-time
experience, I would not change anything because that one-time
experience was totally positive, and I was very, very happy with it.
235
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews related to Discussions of Constituent
Satisfaction with the Ombudsman
Respondent Group
Constituents
Constitutent
Satisfaction
Stakeholder
Constituent
Satisfaction
Representative Excerpts
• I was initially concerned about the impartiality of the
Ombudsman. What caused even more concern was when I asked
who paid the salary. When she [the Ombudsman] said that FDIC
did, I thought that this would not bode well. And, I was proven
wrong.
• If the ratings were solely based on my view, I would give the
Office a 5. But I do not think others would give it that high of a
rating. I think if you went out to the general public who have used
the Office, they would rate their satisfaction as a 4 or S. Banking
institutions are not as happy. Their number would be lower. Not
as low as a 1, but lower than the general public. If they were
honest and rated their service based on responsiveness and
willingness to help, the Ombudsman would be rated higher. But
institutions do not necessarily want impartiality; they would like us
to make the Ombudsman totally independent with more power, like
the Comptroller of the Currency’s Ombudsman, who can overturn
appeals. I think giving the FDIC Ombudsman more power would
change the satisfaction rating of the banking institutions. Because
we do not give the Office independent authority to make decisions,
the score is lower.
• I will be very candid with you, there was a lot of internal strife
as to whether or not we wanted to empower the Ombudsman with
the kind of power to make final corporate decisions. So, that was
debated quite widely internally. And, as you can see by our
makeup, our Ombudsman does not have that power. That person
is a neutral and essentially brokers with the client, if you will, or
the stakeholder, issues that are concerns to them and try to work
those out. In the 514 years of the existence of our Ombudsman
Office, it has been very, very successful. And, that is attributable
to the people who have filled those jobs because, as you can well
imagine, it all depends on the leadership of that Office, the
ombudsman themselves—as to how much do they outreach, to
what extent do they try to solve and work with the individuals who
are coming to them for what concerns.
• I think that they are giving service of a 5 to the public They
are overly responsive; I mean, they will kill you with kindness.
They really want to stand on their head. I would have to give them
a 5.
236
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews related to Discussions of Constituent
Satisfaction with the Ombudsman
Respondent Group
Stakeholder
Constituent
Satisfaction
Representative Excerpts
• Often times, we have bankers that come through here, I go to
meetings where there are bankers present—and it is anecdotal—
but we get some pretty positive comments from bankers saying,
“This thing is working. The Ombudsman is evident in the process,
and we feel good about that.” So, I think we are getting good
feedback from it. But directly, no. I do not get letters saying,
“Yes, it has worked,” or “No, it has failed.”
• Bankers probably don’t have much use at all [for the
ombudsman] I mean, we get lots of bankers that call here, and
basically, they are looking for information. With the Internet, the
way it is now, we are putting so much information on the Internet,
you are going to be really backwards everywhere if you resist being
on the Internet and the communication that you have there The
more we can become involved in the telecommunications that we
have now, the less need you are going to have for something like
the Ombudsman.
• It has done what we intended it to do. Now, it has not
eliminated problems, obviously, but it certainly has been a very
positive step in the process. In a lot of cases, it has really solved
the problems before they get to be big problems.
Internal relationships are cited by stakeholders as the most contentious for the
Ombudsman. The resistance to oversight from across other Divisions and offices has
impacted the Ombudsman ability to consistently perform its function. This tendency
continues to be evident in Ombudsman support to the employee group, where internal
organizations question their involvement or the concerns they raise by suggesting that
the Office is performing duplicative work. Staff note the internal challenges as well,
emphasizing the need to build relationships with management based on demonstrated
237
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
competence, added value, and through providing impartial, advisory support. The
need for sensitive handling of internal issues and for ensuring others that the
Ombudsman is not attempting to perform their job take on particular importance in
building more substantive relationships. Likewise, the importance of responsive,
professional staff contacts with members of the constituent groups is observed by a
stakeholder. One constituent notes a sense of perceived dissatisfaction expressed by
regional FDIC offices when bankers use the Ombudsman or address their concerns
directly to the Washington Headquarters. Excerpts pertaining to satisfaction with
internal and external relationships are presented in Table 51.
238
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 51
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E L A T E D T O IN T E R N A L A N D
E X T E R N A L R E L A T IO N SH IP S
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction with Internal
and External Relationships
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Stakeholder • The internal side has probably been the one that has been most
contentious—we empower the Ombudsman to deal with the
Internal Relationships internal issues. They do deal with grievances of employees or try
to resolve grievances, but they do deal with a lot of employee
activities. That has been the most contentious, ironically. It gets
much closer to home— We have, essentially, downsized 15,000-
plus employees across the country. And when you are doing that,
it is not a very popular activity. You are closing offices, and you
are releasing people, many who have worked for the Corporation
for many years. There are a whole lot of issues that come up,
anything from affirmative action type to just general personnel
grievances to just a very tough morale issue. So, the Ombudsman
helped us in the downsizing tremendously because they were
viewed as the one place an employee could go that was not the
establishment. And, we would say we do not need an Ombudsman
because our personnel side handles the grievances, and we have got
our own legal staff. Now, how does the internal leadership feel
about that? Many of them felt it was an unnecessary intrusion by
another source into what their activities were. “Well, we’U let
personnel handle that,” or “We’ll let our EEO office handle that”
It’s just where you sit, I think.
• If I were to be kind, I would say that there is not an even level of
appreciation of the function that is provided by the Ombudsman.
That is a nice way of saying it. The director in me says there are
people who “don’t want anybody in my shop, and if I got
problems, let me fix them myself.” To me, that is not healthy....
What you have to keep stressing is, this is an important function, it
is a stand-alone function, and it is neutral of the whole
Corporation, so it deals in all things. And, you have to have that
from the Board support, clearly from the Chairman support, clearly
from the senior management support.
239
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction with Internal
and External Relationships
Respondent Group
Staff
Internal Relationships
Representative Excerpts
• The key isn’t the volume of people we help, just the key people
in the position to make decisions about programs and interdivisional activities. Our relationship with the regional centers is a
little different. We were the new kids on the block—we’ve had a
hard sell. We’ve had to convince [the other FDIC programs and
offices] that we weren’t interloping into other people’s areas, that
we were adding value by being the ears and eyes. We in the Office
[of the Ombudsman] have to be flexible and sensible in the issues
that we bring forward. We can't bring forward frivolous matters.
We have to pick substantive issues that have the greatest impact on
the organization. You have to weigh the issues carefully.
• We have that all the time [disagreement between Ombudsman
findings and FDIC programs]. What we try to do is, the way we
present it is, we are still fact-finding, and we're gathering the data,
and what we're trying to do is present unfiltered what the
perception is. If the other program does not agree, what we do try
to say is that even if you feel this is not true, this is the perception.
We try to help them to understand that for some people that
perception is the reality. And they have two choices. They can live
with that perception out there and get all kinds of resistance, or
they can do what is necessary to try to correct that perception, and
we can help them. And we have some recommendations as to what
they might want to do, whether it is improving their corporate
communications, whether it is going out, whether it is correcting
this one situation and creating all kinds of ambassadors because
people are going to talk.
240
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction with Internal
and External Relationships
Respondent Group
Staff
Internal Relationships
Representative Excerpts
• If it is a case, or division, where there seems to be wrong-doing
going on, we provide analysis to [the Ombudsman and the Deputy
Ombudsman], They, as our top managers, review it and decide
what to do. Some of these cases are very sensitive—they reflect
directly on our division directors. Even if it’s unfounded people
don’t appreciate having that information shared. They need to be
very careful. They will decide what the best strategy is and then
[the Ombudsman] will go up to her chain of command, which goes
right to the top through our Chief Operating Officer. She will
discuss it generically with him, at first, and she will identify it as an
issue that needs discussion. If they find it to be so serious that it
needs attention, then typically [the COO] will be the one who
intervenes. If [the Ombudsman] thinks she can resolve it between
herself and the division director first, she will try to resolve it at
that level. The method of last resort—because it can be the most
damaging to an individual—is that the case will go to the COO.
• We count bankers and the public and employees as our three
contact groups but fundamental is also the Union and the
managers Ombudsman are a little bit myopic when you hear
them professing that you should stay away from managers because
it gives the appearance of being in league with the organization
rather than the employees. I contend that managers are a contact
group and to say that I’m going to stay away from managers
because of an appearance issue in fact is not neutral.
241
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SATISFACTION
Interviews Related to Satisfaction with Internal
and External Relationships
Respondent Group
Stakeholder
External
Relationships
Constituents
External
Relationships
Representative Excerpts
• We have gone through a huge metamorphosis from a large,
diversified staff all over the country dealing in a number of, what
we call, financial crisis, where institutions were failing, where
people were very unhappy or very unsure of their financial
institutions given the number that were failing. I believe that an
Ombudsman Office expedited the process for helping them. It was
a safe haven, both internally and externally, for people who were
searching to get a level of comfort. You can always say, “Well,
everything is insured. Don’t worry about it.” Well, if it is your
savings, you are very worried about it. And, I do not care how
many people can tell you. Going to the Ombudsman, I believe,
really was one more step which gave people assurances. They
were very methodical in getting back, very methodical in making
sure that they talked to these people. It was a “touch me” type of
thing. We reached out, and we touched them. And, we were very
concerned about their health. I mean, too many times, if you are
dealing with thousands and thousands and thousands of cases, we
tried not to make sure they were just a number. They were more
than a number; they were a person; and we were trying to deal with
those.
• I have heard of some negative impact on the part of the regions
when a banker’s question from the region has made it to
Washington, and even more so, when the question has made it to
Washington, has been answered by Washington, and the result is
still the same. I know that there have been one or two instances
where the bank has felt that there some sort of insensitivity to their
need to get a better understanding through the Washington
interpretation versus the regional interpretation of the rule. So, I
know that, on occasion, that has existed. But, again, that is the
role of the Ombudsman. I would encourage the regions to reinforce
the Ombudsman Office so that brings a better level of comfort to
the bank.
242
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perceptions of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Resolution
Perceptions that address the effectiveness and efficiency of complaint
resolution encompass many areas, including the timeliness and durability of the
resolution, intangible benefits or unintended consequences, responsiveness, external
changes in perception about the Office, and cost savings associated with the
avoidance of litigation. Five areas are addressed in Tables 52 through 56. Key
excerpts about issue or complaint resolutions, responsiveness to complaints or issues,
management feedback, the role of the ombudsman, and the efficiency o f resolutions
are provided. The role o f the Ombudsman is examined along several dimensions,
including the role as an information resource, as support to special projects, as a
perceived duplication with other organizations, and as a tool for effecting public
confidence
The ability to clearly communicate information and options and the willingness
to research and provide information on a wide range of issues were cited by staff
respondents as important factors in the ombudsman’s effectiveness in achieving
resolution. Likewise, the ability to connect with constituent members and the need
for a feedback mechanism that extends beyond anecdotal evidence are critical to the
resolution process and in understanding the differences made by the Office.
Stakeholders note that, although the Ombudsman does not possess many authorities,
processes exist that foster effective resolution such as membership on the Supervision
Appeals Review Committee. The tendency of Office staff to be very committed to
243
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
providing information or complaint resolution is noted. Constituent members
emphasize the critical role played by the Ombudsman in facilitating communication
between hostile parties, in serving as an effective liaison between regional offices and
members of the banking industry, and in serving as a communication conduit. Table
52 depicts some key excerpts pertaining to issue or complaint resolution.
T A B L E 52
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E L A T E D T O R E S O L U T IO N
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to
OMBUDSMAN Complaint Resolution
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • [Problem resolution] is another category all to itself. I’ve
had a person happy in an hour. You explain a regulation and
Resolution sit down and discuss options, then they go and are happy I’m
dealing with one right now that I doubt will ever be resolved.
The reason it won’t ever be resolved is because the person
has it set in their mind that the FDIC can resolve this problem
but it can’t. This matter has been with the FDIC since
1998—it has been with the Office since August of 1998.
I’ve had it for a month and I’m doing my own research.
Some other problems have taken several months. It really
depends on your ability to connect with the person.
• Ombudsman work isn’t work where you actually “fix”
something. You hope that through your efforts of facilitation,
mediation, reconciliation—all that people come to us for
areas of concern and get what they are seeking. And if that’s
just a telephone number for some examiner in Podunk,
Louisiana, then we resolve that issue to their satisfaction.
244
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to
OMBUDSMAN Complaint Resolution
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Stakeholder • I am satisfied with the way ours [Ombudsman] works.
The authority we have is simply to bring to the table both
Resolution parties and see if we cannot work out a solution to it. So, the
Ombudsman does not have the authority to overrule a
decision, but we have some ways. I mean, we have some
appeals. In our supervision, for example, the Ombudsman
gets involved in it. If a bank, for example, is concerned about
their examination rating, they go to the Ombudsman, and the
Ombudsman gives it to the division director and says, “Did
you look at this and this and this?” And, if they cannot come
to some solution, then the bank can bring it to a supervision
appeals committee. The Ombudsman sits on that committee,
along with several other senior staff of the agency. Now, that
committee can overturn the division director if the case is
made to do it. So, it is not the Ombudsman; it is a higher
level, and it is the contemporaries or the equals of the division
director that are reviewing this and making that kind of a
decision.
• No, we do not use them [for complaint resolution]. Now,
it depends on what is being complained about. If it is an
issue that involves some kind of personnel action against
somebody or something like that, I mean, they wear several
hats. If it is an employee that has had some kind of personnel
action against them, and they want an independent party to
look into that, if they would call us, we would immediately
send them to the Ombudsman.
245
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to
OMBUDSMAN Complaint Resolution
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Constituents • I can say that there have been instances where concerns
arose on the part of a banker as to the treatment they are
Resolution receiving or the outreach they have been receiving at the
regional level, and I have contacted the Ombudsman Office to
bring that concern to their attention. It has evolved to the
point that, if the Washington Office of the Ombudsman is
unable to change any decisions that have been rendered, they,
at least, have been able to weigh in on why a decision was
made relative to a concern that a bank has had in the past.
So, I think the Ombudsman Office has been able to remind
the regional offices that there is an alternative outside of the
region because I think that the regions have understood their
role as being the first and last resort. And, I think the regions
understand now, more so than ever, that they are to work with
minority-owned financial institutions, and they are not to
render blanket decisions based on what they understand the
challenges to be within a bank. And, I think that is, in large
part, because the Ombudsman Office has been able to, at
least, facilitate a better understanding of whatever decisions
have been rendered on the part of the region. I think the
Ombudsman Office has really served the member banks as
Ombudsman would do, in that they helped to manage, or to
better manage, the understanding between the region and the
bank.
• It was a total positive experience with the Ombudsman.
Totally. They played [an] intermediary role of facilitating
communications, making sure that when I requested
something either in writing, fax, or E-mail, I diligently copied
the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman would diligently make
sure that there was a response.
• I can easily call the Ombudsman Office and say, “XYZ
bank just called me, and this is what is going on with them.
What can you do, or what do I need to refer them to?” You
know, the question is answered. I have never had any
question or any concern or any frustration on the part of a
minority bank that has not gone resolved for more than a
day—“resolved” meaning I have been able to put two people
in touch who need to talk to each other.
246
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Responsiveness is core to the efficiency of providing timely, comprehensive
information and complaint resolution to a varied constituency. Responsiveness was
deemed to be exceptional by constituents and a stakeholder. One constituent
discussed an anecdotal experience at length that demonstrated the support and
positive intervention of the Ombudsman staff. Additionally, excerpts from letters
contained in the FDIC “Brag Book” also cited timely, professional support from
Ombudsman staff. In many cases, constituent members indicated that it was the
Ombudsman representative who was able to make the difference in achieving
resolution. The staff indicated that they are able to be very timely in the information
provided primarily because they are serving as a resource as opposed to performing
more complicated complaint resolution. The difficulties in achieving responsiveness
due to reduced staff and relying on voice mail to queue the calls. Excerpts pertaining
to responsiveness are contained in Table S3.
247
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 53
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E L A T E D TO R E S P O N S IV E N E S S
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF
OMBUDSMAN
Interview Discussions Related to Responsiveness
of Complaint or Issue
Respondent Group
Constituents
Responsiveness to
Complaint or Issue
Representative Excerpts
• Through a matrix and a statistical analysis (of which you
can prove a negative), it was determined that we had
discriminated against seven male applicants between the ages
of 17 and 26—one loan officer had—which was
totally—again, playing with statistics you can prove anything.
So, here we go; I mean, the fight is on. I have very little, if
any, professional regard for the compliance examiners. Safety
and Soundness, a tremendous amount of professional regards;
but Compliance, no. A lot of the communication problems—
at least half if not more—were my fault simply because I did
not like them. And, the old question of who regulates the
regulators, and the answer is who knows. At any rate, it got so
bad—again, a great deal of the problem I caused—
communications got so bad, we had to have an intermediary
somewhere. The exam commenced in early January of ‘98.
Communications were deteriorating from there. Probably
contacted [the ombudsman] in February. The first phone call,
she showed interest and understanding of communication
problems. I think, after that first phone call, she went straight
to the Compliance Division manager there and got us going.
So, it was pretty quick. Ultimately, we had a meeting at the
Dallas regional office on 25 June of ‘98 in which the
Ombudsman was there, and all the people that I had been
fighting with were there, and two people from Washington
DC, two associate directors of the FDIC, were there. The
meeting went very, very well, and the outcome was something.
I could not have expected more. It was the ultimate outcome.
248
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF
OMBUDSMAN
Interview Discussions Related to Responsiveness
of Complaint or Issue
Respondent Group
Constituents
Responsiveness to
Complaint or Issue
Staff
Responsiveness to
Complaint or Issue
Representative Excerpts
• Notes from “Brag Book”:
- 1 ended up speaking with [name omitted], who within 24
hours returned my call to say that the FDIC would release the
judgment, that it would be done without cost, and that she was
initiating the process as soon as the title company contacted
her. Frankly this immediate and courteous action was not what
I expected, and I am delighted that it was not Her rapid
resolution of the problem without a bureaucratic run around
[sic], coupled with her easy sense of humor about her job and
the reputation of the agency she works for, certainly shows
how well government can work when it has good people
working for it.
- From my initial inquiry, the process took several months to
... whereupon she proceeded to handle the matter
expeditiously, professionally, and courteously. Her interaction
and communication with me inspired frill confidence that she
could see the project through to a satisfactory conclusion—
which she did.
- 1 presume that [name omitted] eluded [sic] to some of the
incredible problems he had getting responses from our people
in your area over the past few years regarding the stock matter.
If half of what he said is true, then we have a problem there.
He was thankful for the responsiveness of the Ombudsman
who was his only salvation in getting someone to return his
call and be generally responsive.
• But most times I am able to provide the information within
24 hours. When I say resolve, we aren’t fixing it; we’ve
gotten them to the right person. We don’t fix anything, really,
but we get it out of here so it can be addressed in the
appropriate department.
249
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF
OMBUDSMAN
Interview Discussions Related to Responsiveness
of Complaint or Issue
Respondent Group
Staff
Responsiveness to
Complaint or Issue
Stakeholder
Responsiveness to
Complaint or Issue
Representative Excerpts
• We probably need to do a little work in our communications.
As you know, we are going to be working on the call center.
When we started the office, we tried to have a policy of every
time the phone rings, we would have a person answer it,
primarily because there seems to be so much frustration with
the automated telephone system and the voice traps and all
that. Due to the size of our staff and the volume of the calls, we
just have not been able to adhere and be true to that, so we have
had to alter the way that we do business. And now people call
and they get voice mail, and we try to have some standards for
the time within which people will return calls.
• I wish we had staff to answer every call because I think that
would be an ideal situation. A lot of times when people call us
they are complaining because somebody in another department
put them on hold forever, or somebody transfers them and did
not stay on the line with them, and they just ended up in
another voice mail. We have done a lot of studying about this,
and I have read about private industry, and this is a problem
everywhere. Everybody is more automated and people don’t
like that.
• We are responsive in providing support. A general
assistance call will typically take less than five minutes. An
inquiry will be more than that. Typically an inquiry requires
research or a possible referral. When we refer, we find a
contact point in that office and call them to explain the
question and ask if they can help them. We let them know the
person will be getting in touch with them. Typically an inquiry
takes three hours.
• I think that they are very responsive. We deal with them a
lot. 1 think that they will end over and stand on their head to
get an answer for you.
250
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The FDIC Office of the Ombudsman plays a crucial role in serving as a
feedback mechanism and a communication channel for the Corporation. As such, the
Office gathers information which tracks contacts, identifies emerging trends and
produces management reports that discuss general concerns of the constituent groups.
The staff respondents reported that they routinely provide feedback to the internal
FDIC programs and offices, even as trend data emerges during the quarterly report
development cycle. Senior officials afford many opportunities for the Ombudsman to
inform them of key issues and emerging challenges. Stakeholders indicate that they
need information about outreach activities and in the identification of emerging issues.
One staff respondent indicated that the development of a corporate perspective and
improved intraoffice communications between all employees in headquarters and
regional centers could benefit the Office of the Ombudsman. Discussions focused on
management feedback are presented in Table 54.
251
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 54
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E L A T E D T O M A N A G E M E N T F E E D B A C K
A N D C O M M U N IC A T IO N S
EFFECTIVENESS
AND EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to Management Feedback
OMBUDSMAN and Communications
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • The Office serves as a feedback mechanism—we don’t just
handle a problem, we do trend analysis. We try to look over the
Management Feedback horizon and we try to provide to the corporation: 1 -1 feedback
to FDIC programs and managers. We also provide written
feedback in the form of reports to FDIC senior management.
We have a database that feeds all contacts that come into the
Office, be they general assistance or inquiries or problems
resolution that come into the office. They are logged in and out
anonymously with a code and synopsis. There is a group in the
Office who continuously studies that data. Every quarter I
oversee the production of the report based on the analysis of the
data. We use the report as management feedback, on a routine
basis and on a sporadic basis. If any case or issue starts to
emerge, we identify and may even alert the program that has
ownership over the matter or who has jurisdiction over the
matter. We provide feedback, because, you know, when you're
sitting on top of an initiative, you don't know how it's being
perceived.
• I have biweekly meetings with [the COO] and frequent
contact with the chairman. They like to be informed about what
feedback is, what the reaction is to proposed regulations, what
kinds of questions they can anticipate from our three constituent
groups So they are constantly interacting with each of the
three constituent groups to the extent that we can give them
information which will help them to be responsive to what the
issues are. They really always ask for that. I think that we are
perceived as the ones who probably get it unfiltered because of
the confidentiality that we provide I think that the
perception is we have probably the most unfiltered information.
• He [the COO] uses our office as a barometer—a test for
what's out there in terms of issues, how severe they are, and he
augments his own information with intelligence from us.
252
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS
AND EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to Management Feedback
OMBUDSMAN and Communications
Respondent Group
Staff
Management Feedback
Stakeholder
Management Feedback
Staff
Interoffice
Communications
Representative Excerpts
• FDIC management volunteers that they recognize how
valuable the service from this office has been. It’s very
significant that they do this for many reasons. First off, it is
good for our office. They are not saying, “Good job, Office of
the Ombudsman—you saved us $2M.” They’re saying. “Good
job, Office of the Ombudsman, because you have facilitated a
resolution of this bad situation,” and they recognize the value
therein. It’s a communication process for us, to make sure they
understand what we’re doing and that we help them understand
what can be gained. Sometimes it’s self-evident; other times it
is not.
• There are two things from my level we need to know. We
need the feedback levels to know how much outreach are we
doing to the extent that we are favoring or localizing in one
area, and are we, indeed, covering the concerns of the
Corporation that are coming in. So, numbers are helpful. How
many? Where are they coming from? Are they predominately
in given areas, so we may be able to identify concerns that we
may need to focus some more attention on? Are we getting a
whole lot of examination problems in Safety and Soundness in
certain regions? Why are we getting those? So, you can focus
that kind of attention on those kind of management concerns.
And, on the reporting side, the second part of that is being able
to report it so it means something for us to deal with. In other
words, in a more systematic or systemic process.
• I think communication could be better. One of the issues is
for all of us to develop a national, corporate view—it’s not
Dallas or Hartford but it’s the national office. We have regular
meetings once a month as a VTC. It’s not the best way bit it’s
better than not having a meeting. Information is shared and
speakers come in. An effort is being made to make us a
cohesive group.
253
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Several respondents discussed various aspects of the Ombudsman role that
were associated with perceptions of effective and efficient support. The discussion
involving the Ombudsman role is broken into four components: (1) the ombudsman
role’s in serving as an information resource, (2) the Office’s support of FDIC special
projects, (3) the role in building public confidence, and (4) perceptions pertaining to
duplicative efforts.
The FDIC Office of the Ombudsman supports several special projects at the
behest of senior management, in addition to the other responsibilities performed.
Because the preponderance of constituent issues involves requests for information as
opposed to complaint resolution, the role as an information resource is explored in
greater detail. Additionally, several staff respondents discussed the results of the
special projects assigned to the Office by senior FDIC officials and the role of the
Office in building public confidence in the FDIC and in the nation’s financial
institutions. Insights into three special projects are offered by staff: the design and
implementation of a FDIC call-center, a diversity initiative sponsored by the Office,
and the Financial Literacy Initiative, which was cosponsored by a consortium of
selected federal and public-service organizations. One of the most provocative issues
that emerged during interview discussions involved perceptions of Ombudsman
duplication with other offices across the FDIC, observed by both staff and
stakeholder respondents. The need to proactively demonstrate value and for ensuring
that the Office is not duplicative was identified as critical in building advocacy in
254
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FDIC senior leadership. Table 55 provides discussion excerpts about this range of
topics involving the role of the Ombudsman.
T A B L E 55
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E L A T E D T O O M B U D S M A N 'S R O L E
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to the Role
OMBUDSMAN of the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • We even handle issues for employees covered by Union
contract when they don’t want to go to the Union rep—they
Information Resource want to have an informal conversation and leam what their
options are. We tell them that they’re in the bargaining unit
and the clock is ticking. In some cases you have people who
simply want to talk and they aren’t prepared to do anything
about it. They want information and we tend to do that. If
they need to raise an EEO issue (i.e. discrimination) we
explain that is an issue that needs to be raised with EEO and
that they have a window of opportunity. We tell them about
the formal options that they need to consider quickly. If there
is a formal process, then we’re out of the situation.
• The public calls us if they have an issue with the bank,
which is not really the type of thing we should be dealing with.
The kinds of public who call us want to know if their bank is
insured or if their deposits are insured or they call if their
banks have failed. We have groups that handle these types of
issues but this gets back to call center function—right now
customer service for the organization is handled scatter-shot,
from all over the organization.
• When we are at bank closings, basically we are there to
perform in large part as a complaint department. A lot of
times when I go out interacting with people, they will say,
“What does an ombudsman do?” To say that you are the
complaint department, people will know exactly what you do.
255
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to the Role
OMBUDSMAN of the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • What we like to say is we are even more neutral and even
more informal than the formal ADR [Alternative Dispute
Information Resource Resolution Office at the FDIC] because our ADR is pretty
formal. And we are even more informal than that because the
ADR does not really engage in options exploration or any of
that, and you do not have the same control over the process.
When you come to us, you still have complete control over
your process. We are a sounding board, we help to identify
options, and ADR may be one of the options that we help to
develop for you.
• We get a lot of calls about non-FDIC matters, people who
want to know about credit reporting or they’re in serious debt
and don’t know what to do. We talk them through it and give
them sources. They’re calling to complain about their banks
but when you get to their issue they’re upset about something
on their credit reports and they don’t understand what to do.
What they need to do is, once they reach a certain point and are
concerned about something their bank did, then they can come
to us ... or they can go to which ever agency regulates a
particular issue. I’ve spent hours on the phone with confused
elderly. Sometimes people just want someone to listen. They
have a frustrating situation and they’re trying to work through
it—and we just discuss their options. Often we can’t do
anything for them but providing an ear.
Staff • A diversity initiative is going on in the organization that
deals with traditional areas—like minority issues, handicap,
Special Projects whatever. We’re trying to get the corporation a broader
perspective and appreciation about what is unique about
individuals. How our uniqueness contributes to the
organization. It’s a program that has committees set up that
look at various aspects—we have a web page where employees
are invited to submit suggestions or ask questions and they can
do it anonymously. It’s turned into a mechanism for venting
for some people. Career opportunities and career development
are big issues for employees. Details can be a powerful way to
increase your opportunities for promotion, to increase not only
your knowledge of the corporation but the corporation’s
_________________ knowledge of you.
256
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to the Role
OMBUDSMAN of the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • I was working on a project that we’re getting ready to pass
on to another division, where we were looking at our public
Special Projects service function as it relates to telephone and telephone service
here in headquarters. We found a lot of problems, a lot of
redundancies, misdirected calls and things like that. FDIC’s
operating committee put together an interdivisional task force
and asked us to lead that task force We hope we’ll make a
significant difference in terms of our support to the public and
the financial industry. We’re building a kind of “one-stopshop,” one place where you come to when you have a question.
It’s a customer-service call center. There are very specific
types of issues that bankers deal with—they will deal with
other types of employees. It has not been designed to do what
a lot of call centers do, which is to build a wall. That’s what a
lot of call centers have become—they are a wall to keep the
public out rather than providing customer service.
Staff • The Financial Literacy initiative was set up in response to
legislation from the Treasury Department that said that anyone
Public Confidence who receives a federal benefits check will have to receive it as
electronic funds ... an organization comprised of sixteen other
federal, state and private organizations got together to build
the financial services coalition... There are 12M homes in
America that do not traditional relationships with the banking
industry. We felt that, if people had information about
financial services available to them, then they could make an
informed decision about how to procure their banking services.
The fee structure is something they have to understand too,
like understanding that they can’t write checks on money they
don’t have. We [the Ombudsman] have traveled to
Washington, San Francisco, and Atlanta last year. This year
we’re planning to go to Oakland, New Orleans and Chicago.
We get access to about 800 participants a year. We talk to
people about the program... we have a workshops and walk
people through the manual. The Financial Literacy Manual
has been provided to all banks that we insure and supervise,
with a letter that explains that this is something developed by
the FDIC, in conjunction with other people, it should be used
as you develop other initiatives involving financial literacy.
257
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to the Role
OMBUDSMAN of the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • Our value is recognized by all the top managers - including
the Chairman. She just identified recently, in a video sent to
Public Confidence all the employees, that she viewed our Office as having a very
important public confidence role because when you call us as a
member of the public and say that you’re worried about the
Y2K business, you don’t know if you’ll be able to access your
money, we have a role in that by providing you with the
information about what’s happening regarding banks in
general and how your funds are protected.
• We had a role in bank closings from the very beginning. If
your bank makes a terrible investment mistake and they
become insolvent, then one of the financial regulatory agencies
will say “that bank must be closed because it’s reached our
criterion for closure.”. .. On Friday, a group of FDIC closing
experts will arrive at the bank and will inform them that they
are being closed that day. Naturally there’s a great deal of
upset with customers. You can picture people on fixed
incomes wondering what’s going to happen, although they
usually get their money within two days. If they’re worried
about that or unhappy or angry, they go to the ombudsman,
who is part of the team. That is a very real public confidence
role and the Chairman has recognized that. Public confidence
is vital right now.
It’s very important that everyone understand what’s
happening to the banks during Y2K If the public perceives
that the banks are not safe, and they make runs on their money,
banks who would not have had problems will fail because they
won’t have enough liquidity or funds to operate.
• The number one achievement of this office, and
fundamental to all the rest, was securing the confidence of the
managers and Union, employees, bankers and the public.
258
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to the Role
OMBUDSMAN of the Ombudsman
Respondent Group
Staff
Duplicative Efforts
Representative Excerpts
• We could get a chairman in here who does not understand
the value of an ombudsman at all. There is always that
question of duplication because basically what we do is we
look in on every other program area. We really do not have
any work that we can create on our own. So in that regard we
are pretty responsive. We are proactive in terms of we go out,
and we solve these issues, and we make recommendations, but
all these issues really belong to another program area. That is
where at least this organization has a real big deficiency
because we do not have a really strong focus on customer
service. So to a large extent we perform bad from the
standpoint of attacking the problem.
• In studying some of the ombudsman offices that have been
closed, it seems as though they all have been related to issues
of duplication of effort. What I have really tried to do is make
us as unique as possible and to avoid duplication. Now in
some instances we have been asked to help out some of those
other offices. Certainly that is how we kind of got into training
and facilitation.
• If you were to say would we change any of the ombudsman
role, we will continue to look at the value that is exercised by
the internal process. 1 do not think I would touch the external
side. And the reason I say that, if we ever call ourselves a
normal environment We went through this horrendous
downsizing and were probably close to (if not very close to)
being what we call “levelized” in our staffing. I keep looking
at what kinds of concerns are being raised because there is
some validity to the fact that you may be replicating activities
of the union, you may be replicating activities of other parts of
the FDIC, other processes that are available to an individual
who feels that they have been wronged.
• Unless they have a lot of confidential things they are doing,
FDIC does not need another separate customer service area to
answer the normal customer service questions.
259
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF
OMBUDSMAN
Interview Discussions Related to the Role
of the Ombudsman
Respondent Group
Staff
Duplicative Efforts
Constituent
Ombudsman Role
Representative Excerpts
• We must absolutely review the Ombudsman's current
resource level by basically focusing on what they are doing.
There are a number of people handling the internal side. Is
that really necessary now, maybe two years from now? That is
the serious thing we need to look at.
• I do not know that I have ever seen their trend data but
once. We felt that a lot of their calls were duplications that
they had transferred to us. So, a lot of these calls get counted
more than once. I mean, we count calls, too, and split out the
different kinds of trends, and then where the majority of the
calls are coming from, the customers. It depends on how far
behind we are as to how many calls we get.
• If it is an EEO issue, there are EEO counselors they can
call. Sometimes what they do are duplications. I know they do
a good job, and I know that they help some people, but I just
do not have all the statistics to tell you exactly how many it is.
And, there are not very many people in the Ombudsman
anymore. To be real honest with you, I do not know that it
was, significantly, a reason to set up the Ombudsman program
as long as there was an emphasis put on dealing with die
outside customer. And, once there was an emphasis that we
were going to have to deal with those people and treat them
like humans—not saying that we did not, but a little more
emphasis on that—then, probably each one of the divisions
could have done the same thing with the same people that were
already doing the job. So, just to set up another division just
to say we set up the Ombudsman, I do not know if that really
served any purpose.
• I did not realize that they actually brief community groups
on the Y2K situation across the country, and they do several
initiatives like that Sounds out of role to me.
260
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to the Role
OMBUDSMAN of the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Stakeholder • The first Ombudsman we really had was in our area of
receiverships, to include assets that we have taken in from
Genesis of Ombudsman banks that we have closed or thrifts that were closed.
Role Somebody would have a problem with FDIC because we were
trying to collect the loan that they had, or we had property that
they had an interest in, or they were trying to buy something
from FDIC. So, they created the Ombudsman focused on
those receiverships. It worked out very well. So, we felt that if
it worked very well there, we were still having some of these
concerns from other parts of the agency. For example, bankers
or bank customers that got misinformation or something from
a bank or did not understand it. We thought that, perhaps, the
Ombudsman would have a role there. And then, from
employees that felt, “Well, I didn’t get the treatment I really
thought I should from my supervisor.” The Ombudsman has
______________________ played a role in all of those areas and, I think, very effectively.
The ability to identify the cost effectiveness of the FDIC Office of the
Ombudsman found staff addressing the difficulties of evaluating cost impacts of their
support in lieu of developing data that documents efficiencies in operations. As noted
by several staff, the ability to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Office is impacted
by the difficulties associated with quantifying social impacts and service provision.
Yet staff members report that the Office is exploring possible methods for assessing
cost benefit such as savings associated with deferred litigation and grievances. One
stakeholders noted the ongoing need to examine each office’s key processes whereas
other stakeholders questioned the cost effectiveness of maintaining regional
261
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ombudsman staffs. Excerpts pertaining to the efficiency of resolutions are included in
Table 56.
TABLE 56
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS RELATED TO EFFICIENCY
OF RESOLUTION
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to the
OMBUDSMAN Efficiency of Resolution
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • [Being cost effective] is very hard to quantify. But
in our report previously we have been able to deduce,
Efficiency of Resolution just through a comparison, some of our data with some
of the human resources data. We have looked to see the
number of personnel issues that we have handled.
Although they do not correlate exactly, we were able to
really draw some link between the number of personnel
cases that we have handled and that have gone away,
then making some correlation to ones that never made it
to like the grievance procedure or the OEO {Office of
Equal Opportunity] procedure formally. And there are
savings there because they were basically resolved
through us at just the Corporation’s cost of our salary
and other things, where in the context of the union and
OEO there are very real costs on top of salaries and
other things. We have been able to make some very
broad generalizations about that.
262
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to the
OMBUDSMAN Efficiency of Resolution
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • In terms of goodwill, which is always a nebulous
thing, but I always talk about that when I present the
Efficiency of Resolution reports, just the goodwill, the power of venting, the
value of having a place where these people can go,
discuss options, get clarification. Because a lot of times
people leave us and they say, “Thank you so much. You
really cleared that up. If only somebody had talked to
me about this.” Whereas if they had gone to see a
lawyer, it would have festered. The lawyer probably
would have told them it is a good idea to go ahead and
file litigation, which would have meant the loss of time,
money, energy, and goodwill. For the most part, senior
management here seems to buy off on that They really
think that, for the cost of our office, the goodwill alone
justifies our existence.
• We would like to be able to apply a cost-benefit
model like you see here [the Ombudsman Manual) but
we haven’t done it yet. I think we can do it but it is
more because of time constraints and resources, the
number of bodies needed to do it, other priorities.
Looking back historically, and of course this doesn’t
hold with every organization, it was more important for
us to build the partnerships with management, because
that's enabling everything else, than to come up with a
workable model for assessing the value. If we had
started with that first we would have lost important
ground in the other areas.
263
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to the
OMBUDSMAN Efficiency of Resolution
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff * In terms of a mechanism that can periodically be used
to identify value, we haven’t implemented that yet.
Efficiency of Resolution There is a model for assessing cost benefit and we’re
looking at it. [An Ombudsman Specialist] in this office
has been reviewing the potential of using the model. It’s
not easy to do. There’s the confidentiality issue that
comes up and how you assess the value of an event that
you avoided. For example, we avoided litigation and
we’re taking it as a step-wise process. I see the value
added by the ombudsman as three-tiered, at least: if you
avoid litigation, you can perhaps estimate the value and
the benefit to the organization in sheer dollars. But that
ombudsman goal is too short-sighted if you simply set
your sights on applying ADR to avoid litigation. Our
goal should be to avoid the disputes, so there are no
disputes at all. How would you evaluate that: what are
the mechanisms for doing that? If you can point to the
numbers of times you avoided litigation, I think you can
come up with a methodology for estimating
dollars—this could have gone into this kind of law suit.
Therefore, reviewing the range of those kinds of law
suits should have dollars typically related to them. It’s a
very slippery business and we haven’t achieved that
kind of periodic mechanism where we can then point to.
• In terms of employee matters, there have issues of
sexual harassment where we stepped in and became
involved. We were able to solve the matter. Had we not
been able to resolve you would have had something
leading up to litigation. So I think we were able to
demonstrate value and there the Board became aware of
it through our reporting We have been able to
establish, without using a balance sheet, how we add
value, but it’s all a “BUT FOR.” “But For” the
intervention of the Ombudsman,” then you can quantify.
Corporations have done studies on what it costs to
handle a grievance, soup to nuts, and litigation costs.
We have been able to demonstrate it through our
feedback to the corporation.
264
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF Interview Discussions Related to the
OMBUDSMAN Efficiency of Resolution
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Stakeholder • But in that process [of strategic planning], we are
doing a functional analysis of everybody. And so, we
Efficiency of Resolution review what the Ombudsman Office is doing in light of
where the Corporation is today. I have been places
where it was felt, “Oh, this is very static.” We do not
take that approach here. We feel the organization is
very dynamic, and everybody reviews their process.
And, in fact, we're going to start a reengineering process
to look at the internal processes from all of them, not
necessarily each divisional office, but what are the
corporate processes that we are doing to fulfill our
function. All of these things are buzzwords I am sure
you have heard, but we take a very hard look at the
Ombudsman Office and try to assess, Has it changed,
and should we change it?
• I do not know that we need two different customer
service areas to answer some of the same questions of
the public I do not know the numbers as far as the
confidentiality and is it cost justified for two calls a
month to keep of staff of four or five people going.
Probably not. Those calls could have probably been
made to Washington.
• The Ombudsman is supposed to be the “ear” people
and things like that. Probably has been times they made
[a difference], but to say to justify setting up a whole
division for a very minor number of people and paying
the salaries and the overhead to set up that area, it
probably was not cost-effective if you were to look at
the bottom line.
265
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTIVENESS AND
EFFICIENCY OF
OMBUDSMAN
Interview Discussions Related to the
Efficiency of Resolution
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Constituents • I can’t say that there is a change in the amount of
litigation as a result of Ombudsman support. I do not
Efficiency of Resolution have any numbers that can speak to that, so I really
could not give any numbers that I could compare based
on what exists. I can say that the member banks I talked
to have not made any legal pursuits based on any
nonresponse they felt on the part of the FDIC.
Litigation is expensive, and I think that, from the
standpoint of small banks, they really need to manage
what their concerns are and resolve them because
litigation is litigation. It takes a long time. And, that is
a big chunk out of the administrative budget of a small
bank. All minority-owned banks, generally, small, so it
is a significant hit they have to absorb and a
commitment they have to make.
• Concurrently with the Ombudsman, I retained
counsel from a firm that has a banking division in Dallas
with a very good reputation for trying to iron out these
kinks. There are also private consultants that are in the
business of taking the regulators to task when they really
believe they should be. We did not use those folks, but
we did have private counsel concurrently with working
with the regulators and the Ombudsman We do not
have the financial resources to take on the FDIC, and
they know that. It is, also, extremely scary nowadays,
how powerful the Compliance Division has become, and
how cozy they are with DOJ. They are claiming a policy
of zero tolerance, automatic referrals, civil money
penalties, [and] restitution. And, the old question keeps
arising, Who regulates the regulators? That’s why it
was great dealing with the Ombudsman.
Perceptions of Changes in Policies or Programs
The identification of governmental policies, procedures, and practices in need
of change is a critical function of the public ombudsman. Systemic diagnosis is vital
266
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
because it prevents complaints of a similar nature from continuously resurfacing and
optimizes the use of Office resources. Systemic diagnosis also addresses policies and
practices that have a negative impacts on segments of the community. Diagnosing
instances of maladministration can potentially impact the lives and financial well-being
of FDIC’s constituents. This next variable explored perceptions regarding to changes
in FDIC policies and program operations in response to Office of the Ombudsman
diagnosis, including problem identification and ascertaining if changes to procedures
and processes had occurred. Discussions of perceived changes and trend analysis
comprise Tables 57 and 58.
The staff respondents identified several examples of policies and programs
that changed as a result of ombudsman involvement and oversight. General health
benefits, relocation and travel reimbursement costs, performance management and
evaluation, contractor attendance at FDIC social functions, and employee selection
practices were cited as examples where changes have occurred in the area of internal
employee issues. Proposed regulatory legislation, such as the recent financial rule
termed “Know Your Customer,” has been impacted based on the Ombudsman receipt
of public complaints and adverse constituent reaction. The Ombudsman has also
figured prominently in easing public concerns with Y2K challenges.
Stakeholders discussed systemic changes in much broader terms. One noted
that the role of Ombudsman as an intermediary has created positive changes, while
another cited the Ombudsman’s impact on expedited communications through the
267
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
design of a call-center concept. Perceptions of systemic changes to the FDIC’s
policies and programs are addressed in Table 57.
T A B L E 57
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E L A T E D T O SY S T E M IC P R O G R A M S
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interview Discussions Related to Systemic changes
Due to Organizational Diagnosis
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff
Changes in FDIC
Policies and Programs
• We’ve had effects in changing the organization in the area of
general health benefits, the physical exam benefit, the relocation
and reimbursement costs for employees, awareness of diversity
and disability issues so other divisions start to focus on it. The
gains in terms of public confidence and banker’s satisfaction in
having a recourse for complaints and concerns, or when they just
need to be heard have made a difference. Recently a banker called
me because he wanted to let FDIC know that he wasn’t happy in
the compliance examination process—specifically, the skill of
some of the people involved in that process. He wanted to
suggest that training should be improved. We provide a very real
public service—we can tell anyone where they need to go for
resources if they have any kind of banking issue.
268
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interview Discussions Related to Systemic changes
Due to Organizational Diagnosis
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • In the last three years we have had some pretty significant
changes where there have been adverse impacts on the policies
Changes in FDIC and procedures that the FDIC has in place. We have been able to
Policies and Programs point out perhaps unintended consequences of those [adverse
impacts] on certain individuals where they have accepted our
recommendation for change. It also escalates to some of the
major, more mission-specific initiatives with the bankers. We
really serve as a conduit for providing feedback. Yesterday at our
open board meeting we had some very significant things decided.
One was a proposed rule called “Know Your Customer.” It was a
rule that was first designed to be an anti-crime bill where the
banks would have to record certain information from customers
that was in excess of a certain amount ($10,000). Most of the
public felt that it was pretty invasive; they felt it was very
burdensome. And a lot of where they registered their complaints
was here in this office. We served as a conduit, provided
feedback our office, along with several other offices within the
FDIC. Based on that feedback that was received yesterday, the
Board decided to withdraw that proposal. So that is pretty
significant. Those are just some examples of the very significant
change that we have been able to bring about. I think the other
thing from an internal standpoint (internal to this office) is, since
we first started in 1996, we really focused the work a lot and tried
to concentrate more on problem resolution; as opposed to when
we first started, people did not know really what we were, and
they would call us for almost anything in terms of resources
required but not real problem-solving types of issues. In our
streamlining we really focused a lot on that.
• Right now the big issue the Chairman is interested in is Y2K.
In the past, senior management has been interested in
performance management, performance evaluation, employee
benefits, travel and relocation. In terms of public, not much
direction in terms of reporting except for Y2K. With the industry,
there really wasn't a specific issue.
269
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interview Discussions Related to Systemic changes
Due to Organizational Diagnosis
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • The management interest items are pretty internally focused.
Since the downsizing has been going on since 1996, employee
Changes in FDIC issues are top. If you have an employee force and you’re looking
Policies and Programs at 15,000 and you have identified your core at 1600, that’s huge.
And there’s going to be a lot of emotion about that. There were
lots of employee concerns about perceptions among employees,
fairness issues, selection and placement issues and they wanted
... in fact, we received a lot of direction from the COO because
that was something he specifically wanted to know about. Right
now we have direction on Y2K... another is emerging markets
with banks, in terms of mega-banks, their merger and
acquisitions, and how they’re effecting the public, and any type of
contacts we might receive pertaining to that problem. I think that,
quite intelligently, the FDIC has wanted to know how its
employees are doing. When you’re working at downsizing, you
want to know that your employees are perceiving things as fair.
• Travel reimbursement and relocation are really the major ones
that have had a long-lasting impact. Those are pretty major.
Certainly we will be watching Y2K very closely and trying to
anticipate what issues are going to be coming out of that.
• There was an issue that impacted the organization. It was a
little thing but it meant a lot to our employees. It dealt with
contractors attending social events sponsored by the corporation.
We had a policy yet people saw contractors coming to events and
felt it was inappropriate, given the way we evaluate their
performance. They felt we need to keep an arm’s length. We
brought this up to the manager of the Contracts area and talked
with the Ethics people. Ultimately, what happened was that we
got a clause that said that anything advertised as a corporation
event, contractor employees are not allowed to attend and it will be
put in the announcement. Management agreed that the clause
clarified the confusion about contractor involvement. It mainly
impacted us around the holidays. It means that if you are a
contractor, and I am not, we may go to lunch, but when it comes
time to attend an office birthday party, I will attend and you won’t.
270
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interview Discussions Related to Systemic changes
Due to Organizational Diagnosis
Respondent Group
Staff
Changes in FDIC
Policies and Programs
Stakeholder
Changes in FDIC
Policies and Programs
Representative Excerpts
• We have covered the gamut regarding Y2K. This is an issue
that is the Chairman’s top priority—she is reaching out to the
public this year to assist banks in their efforts to insure that the
money is safe. What we have done at the end of last year, because
our Office has Y2K material on the table (at the public and
banking meetings) is that we give assurance that the banks are the
safest place to have the money.
• In regards to [systemic] changes, the biggest thing that has
happened is that this Ombudsman is in there before it gets
elevated to such a high level that you get people just at odds with
each other. You have a step in there that you get an arbitrator that
is really trying to work out a solution to the problem before it gets
elevated to where you are in a law suit, or you have got an
enforcement action, or you have got people who are really
unhappy. So, I think that has been the biggest thing that has
happened. It is an intermediate step before it gets elevated to a
more contentious area.
• Some of the key changes as a result of the Office identifying
critical issues—well, let me see. Well, I would say, across the
board, they have expedited the process for getting internal/
external issues to a hastier, faster resolution. We had a series of
external 1-800 numbers and caller ID problems, where people
were calling in concerns, that were basically brought up and
established to be all over the country for various reasons. Prior to
that there was little control on it. One reason, well, if we had an
800-number, we could get people to call in, and it would be
easier. So, they would publish it locally. And, we had a couple
hundred of these numbers.
271
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interview Discussions Related to Systemic changes
Due to Organizational Diagnosis
Respondent Group
Stakeholder
Changes in FDIC
Policies and Programs
Representative Excerpts
• The whole caller identification process has been changed. The
Ombudsman Office was very instrumental in how this
Corporation receives information and spearheaded getting those
changed. That helped expedite the internal processes, as well,
because what it did, then, is it forced us also to focus on, “All
right, here is our Division of Resolutions and Receiverships (that
is the closed bank area). How are they receiving calls? How are
we strategizing this? How are they breaking those down? How
are we answering those questions?” Because the nice thing about
the Ombudsman Office is, they have this caller, [and] they are
waiting until that caller gets satisfied. That means we are
changing this process within this division.
The need for increased external and internal communication about trend
information was expressed by some constituent and stakeholder respondents. Staff
respondents described an overall sense of satisfaction with the analysis of trend data
accomplished to date. Excerpts pertaining to trend analysis are included in Table 58.
272
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 58
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS RELATED TO TREND ANALYSIS
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interview Discussions Related to Trend Analysis
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Stakeholder • We would find out that a person was having a personnel
problem. Now, how long is it taking? Well, if it is taking this
Trend Analysis particular person x time to get their problem solved, how about all
those hundreds who are being let go, who are also having problems,
who do not ever report it? One can extrapolate that they are having
problems too. They just did not take the time to call the
Ombudsman or do something else about it. So, it was an outside
mechanism for us to help look at our internal operations in a much
more systematic and systemic way, then just say, “Hey, go fix this.”
They helped because it was to their benefit too. This way they
could direct calls into the right sources and to be able to track it and
control it and follow it back. The divisions that were doing these
operationally, obviously, were improving their operations and
expediting, just through technology, in many cases. Sometimes they
had additional resources. But, more importantly, it was a tracking
mechanism. And so, they identified a whole series of issues like
that, and as a result, the Corporation has made changes to
accommodate that, even to the point of moving functions that were
not thought, at one time, to be closely associated (or as closely as
necessary), to relocate them permanently and put them close
together. So, it made changes, big changes, in this Corporation.
• I really have not seen any data that has come from the Office. I
am not going to say that it has been bad that I do not see all of the
data. I do not know that the majority of the questions that come in
there could not be answered by one of the other customer service
areas. Now, there is some confidential stuff I guess,... if an
employee was to call.
273
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interview Discussions Related to Trend Analysis
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Constituent • I can say that issues that are germane to my membership have
not been flagged in a manner that is consistent with what I think
Trend Analysis could be helpful to them. I know that would require a lot of work
on the part of the Ombudsman Office to go through and pull out
information that is really of interest to small banks, and more
importantly, of interest to minority-owned banks. And I know,
because the number is so small, that it would require some labor
that, perhaps, is being used in other ways on a more global basis. I
can say that there have not been times when 1 think the information
has been timely that reaches the minority banks. It ultimately does,
but if I had one concern that I could express relative to what the
outreach has been, I think that would be it.
Staff • When we identify something what might be called an emerging
trend, then we would take that up with that program area to see if
Trend Analysis there is a better way of doing business. We don’t get involved in
supervisory activities. When people complain about ratings, or if
they claim retaliation, then we look at it as a process issue and we’d
be looking to see if the rules, regulations and procedures were
applied consistently to all people in similar situations. If that is the
case, and the party still feels that they’re being singled out for some
reason or another, then we still try to work with the program area to
see where the areas of break-down have occurred—we are still
trying to broaden the areas of agreement.
• Part of our goal is to make recommendations such that we do not
hear the same thing over and over. Now there are certain areas
where it is going to be repetitive, and that happens every year when
it is appraisal time. But for the most part a large part of our goal is
to try to identify what the issues are, make recommendations, and
then hope that next quarter (and we pretty much have found that to
be true) we do not see at least that particular complaint again
because something has been done to address it. And I think that we
are pretty much seeing that because what we do is, even in our
reports that we produce, we do have a pretty formal little area where
we report on previously reported on issues and kind of what
happened to those.
274
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT Interview Discussions Related to Trend Analysis
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • We do that [raise trends] quarterly. The director presents the
quarterly report to the operating committee and the Chairman and
Trend Analysis COO are present. We basically provide a report on contacts that we
have experienced in all three customer groups: the public,
employees and the industry. We do follow-up on trends analysis,
identify emerging trends & issues, we do recommendations; we do
trend histories that show ongoing trends. From previous reports, we
receive direction from the Chairman on areas she wants is interested
in. We provide follow-up on those kinds of things.
Additional Interview Topics
During the conduct of the interviews, additional topics were discussed that
related to the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman. Discussions associated with
performance-based management, included the need for accountability and the use of
program evaluation and performance measurement. Key interview excerpts
addressing the measurement and evaluation of the Office’s performance are included
in Tables 59 and 60.
The need for performance measurement and evaluation was discussed by staff
respondents. The adequacy of current measurement tools and the need to develop a
process for assessing the contribution and value of the Office were addressed by some
staff respondents. Concerns about the lack of feedback mechanisms were raised in
several discussions. One staff respondent viewed the current process of quarterly
reporting to senior FDIC management levels as satisfactory, while another staff
member indicated that the informal work not currently captured through reporting
275
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mechanism contains some of the most effective support. A stakeholder reported
receipt of limited performance information, primarily focused on general summaries.
Evaluation is generated primarily through self-assessment and management feedback.
Discussions related to the use of performance information and program evaluation are
included in Table 59.
TABLE 59
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS RELATED TO PERFORMANCE
INFORMATION AND EVALUATION
PERFORMANCE-BASED
GOVERNMENT Interview Discussions Related to Use of
Performance Information and Evaluation
Respondent Group
StafT
Use of Performance
Information
Representative Excerpts
• What precipitated the entire process was our quarterly
reporting provided to the operating committee. We do
quarterly trends and analysis of our data—we capture the
issues in general (no names or phone numbers) and we
categorize the issues. We have a whole series of issue codes.
We write short synopses so we have an understanding of
what it was all about. On a quarterly basis we have a group
that analyzes data that looks at systemic and emerging
issues. We then do the report for the operating committee.
It’s chaired by the COO. As a result of one of our quarterly
reports and presentations, a discussion ensued about the
issue and the decision was made to look into it further.
276
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PERFORMANCE-BASED
GOVERNM ENT Interview Discussions Related to Use of
Performance Information and Evaluation
Respondent Group
StafT
Use of Performance
Information
Representative Excerpts
• The formal report is one tool that we use. But I think
what we use most often is the informal [information]. I
mean, there is so much that we do not ever put into writing.
We get information, we hear about it, we do some quick and
dirty analysis, and then we go straight and have a meeting
with the program area. We do not wait to do that for an
annual report, which is every three months, or our yearly
report, which is every year. We do that really almost on a
daily basis though a phone call, through an e-mail. So much
of it is done informally. I think that is the real beauty of the
way that we operate here because it takes that threat away
from the program area. We go to them over and over, the
same program areas. I think that when we do issue our
report, they are holding their breath to see what is going to
be in it. They consider it as a report card. And to do it
orally in a non-threatening environment is very, very
effective.... We always try to do that [prebrief FDIC
programs and offices]. And usually the report is a
compilation of things that we have probably been talking
with them about all quarter. There is usually nothing in the
report that is brand new or a surprise because it follows;
there is a lag. For example, the year-end report for 1998 we
are finishing up right now, so there is a lag. Based on that,
there generally is not anything that is brand new in the
report. It is a recap of everything that has been going on.
• It [the customer survey] isn’t used anymore. You can’t
always get your way. The reasons for discontinuing had to
do with workload and the issues of confidentiality that got
brought up People felt it was extra work that didn’t add
much value. I didn’t get my way. I think having a survey is
important. I know that we’ve looked at other ways of
checking with contacts to see how well we did but haven’t
instituted anything yet
277
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PERFORMANCE-BASED
GOVERNMENT Interview Discussions Related to Use of
Performance Information and Evaluation
Respondent Group
StafT
Use of Performance
Information
Stakeholder
Use of Performance
Information
StafT
Use of Program Evaluation
Representative Excerpts
• We get E-mails and letters. If people give very specific
feedback over the phones, we try to capture it They had
used the old survey for awhile and it was, like, they’re telling
us how great we are. But what started to happen was that
when we had a difficult case, a contentious individual to deal
with, there was a reluctance to use the survey form. I would
tell people that we can structure these things in such a way
that, even when people aren’t happy with the outcomes, we
can still make a distinction between the outcome and what it
was we did. We need to take a true sense of the value of
what we do—I really haven’t given up on that. It’s the only
way to get feedback about how we are doing.
• One of the things the reports group is doing now is a
yearly retrospective. In fact we did one in 1997—it’s a
different type of report. We’re not focusing so much on
statistical information but we’re looking at more of the
human side and what the issues were. We give suggestions
about the type of situations we have handled. When we get
feedback, we provide it about our services.
• I just get summaries. I do not get detailed reports of
individual cases or other performance information from the
Ombudsman.
• If I have seen their data, it has been a long time.
• We evaluate our value through self-assessment but we
also have quite a lot of feedback from top management.
[The Ombudsman] gets that primarily verbally but we also
have quite a few letters and recognition that we get from
those people. In terms of a mechanism that can periodically
be used to identify our value, we haven’t implemented that
yet.
278
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PERFORMANCE-BASED
GOVERNMENT Interview Discussions Related to Use of
Performance Information and Evaluation
Respondent Group
StafT
Use of Program Evaluation
Representative Excerpts
• I think the knowledge of how effective we are is really
anecdotal. We do not do any kind of surveying. Early
before I came to the office and when it was on start-up
mode, one of the groups put together a survey to use for the
public and the financial industry to gage the services that we
were providing. Something happened—it went by the
wayside—they found out there wasn’t agreement to use it
and it got dropped. The issue of surveys have never been
visited again. From my personal perspective, I think it’s
something we should do—I think we need to have some
types of measurements from people who we are to provide a
conduit for, to find out how well we’re performing. It would
tell us how effective we are—what we are doing for people.
• Many [bankers] don’t want to pay for their deposit
insurance, which pays our salaries—we have to be conscious
of that. They have a certain amount of clout and we don’t
want to be unhappy. They are our customers. It would be
better for us if we went through a process that measured how
well we are doing. A survey would be of help to capture
feedback if we could resolve the confidentiality issues and
the resources needed to perform our job.
Divergent responses pertaining to accountability were noted by staff. The
need to understand the value and performance of the Office was considered to be
critical for political survival, whereas other staff felt that the value and support has
clearly established by the Office. The need to be valued by senior FDIC leadership
was articulated, but other staff respondents also emphasized the need to be value by
279
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the constituency groups as well. Dilemmas about how to best measure value were
expressed. Excerpts pertaining to the issue of accountability are presented in
Table 60.
TABLE 60
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS RELATED TO ACCOUNTABILITY
I PERFORMANCE-BASED
MANAGEMENT Interview Discussions Related to Accountability
Representative Excerpts
• We could end up with someone who doesn’t see the value
of the Program and asks—“Why do you have all these
people. You really only need one person, with a secretary.”
We will have political challenges. When new people come
in you have to convince them and show them the value of the
program. I think one of the things we need to do is that we
need to start going to those individuals that we assist and
really finding out how we are doing our job ... we need to
be measuring the effectiveness of the program. That’s the
only way we can make it better. Or if people don’t know
what the program is, or what we should be doing. If we
don’t ask we don’t know—we just assume. I think that is
critical for us to start doing.
280
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Respondent Group
Staff
Accountability
PERFORMANCE-BASED
MANAGEMENT Interview Discussions Related to Accountability
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
StafT • We are fairly certain that we now know how we add
value. It’s hard to measure, when you’re an Office like this,
Accountability how your existence effects the bottom line of the
corporation, but that’s what the corporation is very
interested in. I think that through our reporting we have
been involved on very significant industry issues where
complaints have reached the Board of Director’s level,
regarding problems that the banking industry was having
with the Division of Supervision or the Division of
Compliance, Consumer Affairs or Examination, where the
Ombudsman was asked by particular Board members to
look into the issues. On each issue we were able to step in
and research, by communicating with the banks and
programs, and reaching successful resolution, thereby
avoiding a litigious solution AND helping with saving face
of FDIC. We helped with the perception of FDIC—so the
banker walks away with a very good feeling and not filing a
lawsuit against the FDIC. We had a series of those sorts of
matters where the Board was aware of our involvement
because they asked us to get involved and we resolved it.
Heck, we didn’t get off the ground until the beginning of
1996—we have only been in existence since the end of
1995 We had to figure out what should we be doing and
we had to demonstrate value. That’s something that’s
present in my mind everyday. We all agree with the fact that
we do add value and we have a means of demonstrating that.
• But I think that any time there is a change in leadership
you have to prove your value and worth all over again. You
have to demonstrate what it is that you do and why you are
an important part of the organization. And so we have had
to do that. I mean, every time you have a new board member
you have to do that. And the normal tenure for the chairman
here is about eighteen months. So that means that every
eighteen months we have to do that. We have to be very,
very diligent, and we do try to impress that upon the staff
here that, not to scare anybody, but we can not ever feel that
we are so comfortable. We are a little low on the food chain
in an organization that is almost 70 years old, and we are
Accountability probably the newest. So you just have to
make sure that you do not overlook our value.
281
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PERFORMANCE-BASED
MANAGEMENT Interview Discussions Related to Accountability
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Staff • In terms of accountability, we do have to report any
trends about emerging issues. Now, the issues we identified
Accountability three years ago may not be relevant today. We have to
continue to refine and refocus what is important and what
could effect the corporation. We must change to stay ahead
___________ of the game.
Changes in the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman scope or jurisdiction were
addressed, with most respondents feeling it is not currently in need of expansioneither in size or in authorities. A staff respondent discussed a possible expanded role
in providing facilitative services to FDIC. Increased jurisdiction and oversight which
accompanies some federal Ombudsman were initially considered but a stakeholder
notes that FDIC leadership chose not empower the Ombudsman with expanded
authorities because of the internal organizational impacts. Finally, a stakeholder and
several staff discussed recent impacts on the Office of the Ombudsman incurred by
significant downsizing. One stakeholder notes that resource levels will continue to be
examined each year whereas one staff respondent provided insight into the impact of
staff reductions in recent years. Discussions pertaining to changes in scope and
resource levels are included in Table 61.
282
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 61
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS RELATED TO SCOPE AND
RESOURCES OF THE OMBUDSMAN
SCOPE AND RESOURCES
Interviews Related to Scope and Resources
Provided to the Ombudsman
Representative Excerpts
• I would like to see the senior staff certified for problem
resolution in terms of an IIR education. In connection, I
would like to have this office accepted as a qualified
arbiter. In the ADR ACT, the need to designate neutrals
was identified. I would like my staff to be identified and
utilized in that role. Right now the ADR role is in the legal
division. I was in the legal division and I see a problem
with that. You have an internal problem—you have an
employee that has a problem with the FDIC and they are
offered ADR. The employee says that sounds good—how
can I do this? A corporate affairs attorney handles it—but
wait! The same person who’s going to defend the
corporation in litigation is going to be the ADR focal
point? I may want to sue the corporation through
litigation—how are they going to be in the middle? I see an
inherent problem there. I would really like this office to be
identified and utilized in that function.
283
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Respondent Group
Staff
Change in Scope
SCOPE AND RESOURCES
Interviews Related to Scope and Resources
Provided to the Ombudsman
Respondent Group
Staff
Change in Scope
Stakeholder
Change in Scope
Representative Excerpts
• I think that we are consistent with the practice of most
ombudsman, with the exception of maybe one, we all
approach our work pretty much the same way. Even that
one, who has expanded authority, we compare notes all the
time, and he does his work the same way that I do. He tells
me, even though he has authority to overrule agency
decisions, he hardly ever exercises that. What he uses are
powers of persuasion. He tries to get the original decisionmakers to change their minds. Almost every ombudsman
practices that way. Because if you try to overturn
decisions, I think you can only do it maybe once or twice,
and then I think you really lose that ability to bring people
along. Because part of what you want to do, and part of
what I feel like we are doing here, is really more of a
cultural change, showing people the wisdom of doing
something better, not beating them over the head and
saying that you need to do this differently. But when you
give them the wisdom to show that this can be done better,
what you are doing then is really creating an environment
where people want feedback.
• This is an area that we thought about [expanding
Ombudsman scope] and wrestled with a little bit when we
established the Ombudsman because some ombudsman
actually have the ability to overturn the decision of the
office or the division that made the decision. We opted not
to do that, not to give the Ombudsman that authority, in
that it tends to undermine the authority of that division
director. And so, our Ombudsman, unlike some other
ombudsman, cannot overturn that decision but can bring
that division director together with the grieved party and
say, “Can we work this out?” In my mind, it has worked
pretty well. Now, counter to that, the Comptroller of the
Currency has an Ombudsman that can, literally, make a
decision on the spot that will overturn a decision made by
someone in another part of the Comptroller’s office. I tend
to think that ours has worked quite well. I do not know
how well theirs has worked; it, probably, has worked well
too. But I think that it tends to cut underneath the division
and may have some tension within the organization if you
do that.
284
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SCOPE AND RESOURCES
Interviews Related to Scope and Resources
Provided to the Ombudsman
Respondent Group Representative Excerpts
Constituent
Change in Scope
• I don’t think the Office needs to be changed as long as
they share a place in the organizational chart as high as
Supervision and Compliance—but not report to either of
them—as long as they can remain independent and be
assured of no reprisals themselves from, particularly, the
Compliance Department, they will be fine.
Stakeholder
Resource Levels
• The right resources are always the question—I suppose
it is. We take a look at our staffing levels every year when
we come to budget time and try to determine how many
inquiries, how many actions did they work on, and then try
to determine (given that number of actions and what we
project going forward) how many people do we need to do
that. So, I think that we review the staff size, not only of
the Ombudsman Office but of the entire agency, every year.
So, it seems to me that, given that we do it on the numbers
(these are the numbers of contacts that they made), we
would probably have to say that we think right now it is
just about the right size. But, again, it is something we
review every year.
StafT
Resource Levels
• When the Office was being established, it was yet
another area where employees from areas that were closing
down could go to the FDIC___We had 105 staff when I
came on board. Right now we have an 0 0 with 37
individuals. Right now we have 10 offices nationwide, to
include headquarters. At the beginning of [19]98, we were
down to 63__ By the end of [19]98 we were at 37 people.
Finally, continued discussions on the need to demonstrate value, being
responsive in the face of changing environmental issues, stabilizing an Office resource
base, and controlling workloads were identified as significant challenges by staff
respondents. Excerpts pertaining to the key challenges are included in Table 62.
285
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 62
IN T E R V IE W E X C E R P T S R E L A T E D T O K E Y C H A L L E N G E S
KEY CHALLENGES
Interviews Related to Discussions of Key Challenges
Respondent Group
Staff
Demonstrating Value
Understanding the
Environment
Resource Stability
Representative Excerpts
• I think for our office it’s difficult to show our value. You
have to keep in sight what your true role is as Ombudsman but
you still have to add value—the corporation has to see you as
valuable, providing a real service. That will be a challenge.
• I would see keeping connected, being flexible [is a key
challenge]. We arc not operating the ombudsman the same way
as we did in 1996. Our focus has changed. Where financial
literacy is currently a hot topic, in two years it might be IDA’s
[Individual Development Accounts]. Being alert and sensitive
to the political environment. One of the things the ombudsman
must maintain is neutrality and must let go of an issue once a
program office has taken it over.
• I think that one ofthe challenges for us is to be at the front end
of that in terms of there is going to be a lot of opportunities for
policies and other things to be shaped. And I think that to
represent the interests and the views of the constituents, the public
out there, is going to be a big challenge. Same thing, really, with
the industry. Depending on what happens here, part of what they
are predicting is that there are going to be bank closings that are
going to effect the number of staff. Those kinds of changes are also
going to send a number of complaints and issues that we get from
employees up as well. So I think being able to really predict and be
in on forecasting what some of the changes will bring to the FDIC
as it relates to each of those three areas is something that will be
very valuable to us so that we can anticipate.
• The issue of staff and staffing resources. The FDIC is
getting smaller. Right now we have more work than we have
staff. If there’s another crisis, like with the Y2K or in the global
market which causes a banking crisis like in the 80’s, we’re in
deep “kimchi.” We probably do not have adequate staff to
immediately deal with situation like that. That is a problem.
• The key challenges in getting all the work done that we want
to get done. The FDIC, like most others, have downsized and
we have tremendous work loads.
286
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Collection of Existing Data
The examination of existing documents was intended to provide insights into
the programmatic focus and priorities of the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman. By
reviewing Office records, reports, historical documentation, and web-based
communications, the researcher was afforded the opportunity to examine information
currently used in performance evaluation, as well as information with potential use.
The following key documents were examined as part of the rapid assessment process:
• FDIC Strategic Plan
• Annual Reports
• Key Authorizing Documentation
• FDIC Annual Performance Plan
• Project Reports
• Financial Services Education Manual
• Automated Tracking System Manual
• Quarterly Reports
• Model and Operating Instructions
• Conference Brochures
• Management Information Reports
• “Brag Book” Letters
• News Releases
• General Information Material
• Outreach Brochures
A more detailed examination of selected documents is provided in describing key
actions, operations and initiatives of the Office.
F D IC S trategic P lan and th e O ffice o f the O m budsm an A n n u al P erform ance
Plan
The FDIC’s 1998-2003 Strategic Plan identifies the Corporation’s vision,
mission, values, strategic goals and objectives that underpin its strategic planning
287
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
framework. A shift in FDIC’s focus from handling and resolving failed insured
depository institutions to monitoring and assessing risks in financial institutions is
identified as a critical transition in service and activities in support of the nation’s
financial industries. The process is depicted in Figure 6 and outlines the FDIC
planning sequence, relying on a quarterly cycle of performance monitoring. In turn,
the strategic foundation of the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman is linked to the
Corporate plan and identifies annual performance goals and targets. Some key tenets
of the Office’s strategic planning efforts include:
1. Mission Statement—serves as a liaison and resource for FDIC employees,
the banking industry, and the general public. The mission is to: (a) facilitate the
resolution of FDIC customer’s problems and complaints in a fair, impartial,
confidential and timely manner; (b) serve as a Corporate feedback mechanism; and
(c) influence change to improve FDIC operations, regulations and customer service.
2. Vision Statement—to become highly respected by FDIC management, the
financial community, employees, and the public as a professional organization that
provides quality facilitation and problem resolution type services. The Office values
its human resources and diversity, and will continue to foster a collaborative
environment across FDIC divisions and offices in the resolution of issues as it remains
a flexible, creative and efficient organization.
288
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FDIC Corporate Planning Process
FIGURE 6
2
8
9
FDIC CORPORATE PLANNING PROCESS
The Office established ten annual performance goals that encompass a wide
range of performance expectations including:
— The staff* has appropriate knowledge, skills and training to perform
work-related tasks. Key measures: staff training initiatives.
— The Office will assist the Division of Resolution and Receiverships on
FDIC bank closings. Key measures: compliance with existing policies.
— The Office will conduct accurate and credible trend analysis. Key
measures: Case Tracking System and use of Process Analysis Task Force.
— The Office will produce quarterly case activity reports, as well as
other “specialized” reports. Key measures: compliance with current reporting
requirements.
— The Office will make full and efficient use of the FDIC’s technological
resources. Key measures: staff training initiatives and staffproficiency survey.
— The Office will be an effective liaison for FDIC’s customers and
employees and, to the extent necessary, will serve as a “designated” neutral in
employee and corporate matters. Key measures: customer service standards,
national resource database, case review meetings, and staff training initiatives.
— The Office will conduct effective outreach to FDIC’s customers and
employees. Key measures: outreach action plan.
— The Office will have good networks with other professional
Ombudsman. Key measures: membership in professional organizations.
290
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
— The Office will provide for the professional and career development
of the staff. Key measures: rotational assignments, staff training initiatives, staff
retreats, survey o f staff satisfaction, and national conference.
— The Office will continue to have strong internal controls. Key
measures: periodic testing of existing internal control system.
Key information about the strategic direction of the Office is obtained in its
Strategic Outlook section of the Annual Performance Plan. The FDIC Office of the
Ombudsman will devote significant attention to becoming an effective liaison and
resource for the banking industry, FDIC employees, and the general public. Efforts
will be strengthened to become credible and recognized among the constituencies and
effective in adding value to the Corporation. Automation tools will be used to
maximize productivity and ensure its commitment to efficiency among a staff
operating at core. With both internal and external interactions, the Office will move
toward handling exception-driven matters. Staff expertise in mediation and ADR will
be developed and the Office will seek to provide informal problem resolution
opportunities to constituent groups and to the Corporation, minimizing the costs of
resolving problems. The Office will also work closely with other governmental and
institutional ombudsman to provide education, training, and assistance in developing
their programs and organizational operations.
291
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Office of the Ombudsman Annual Reports
The FDIC Office of the Ombudsman has a two-year history with the
development and publication of an annual report. The 1998 Annual Report contains
more statistical overviews than are contained in the 1997 Report. The use of
anecdotal information of Ombudsman support to its constituencies weighs
predominantly in both Reports, with fourteen anecdotal recounts and associated
letters of thanks contained in the 1998 report and sixteen anecdotes and excerpts from
acknowledgment letters contained in the 1997 report. In addition to the Director’s
Message that outlines key responsibilities ofthe Office, the 1998 Report reviews
contacts by contact groups, monthly volume of contacts by constituency group,
contacts by regional center, a trend analysis of employee contacts and complaints over
two years, and the type of inquiry and associated action. As noted in Figures 7 and 8,
the Office receives a voluminous numbers of contacts each year requiring different
types of support, with 36,535 contacts received in 1998 and 57,159 contacts in 1997,
a decrease of 37% in contacts within a year. Some interesting data emerges during
the past year: 88% of the inquiries come in by telephone and 8% by Internet. Of the
inquiries that come into the Office in 1998, the majority (33%) are referred to other
offices or organizations; 32% are researched and answered, 16% are researched and
referred; and 18% are answered. In contrast, 36% of contacts were answered in
1997, with 26% referred to other offices or organizations and 25% researched and
referred (see Table 64). Less than 1% of the contacts deal with conflict management.
292
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Researched
& Referred
16%
to
vDu>
FOIC Contact Statistics for 1998
By Types of Support - Total Contacts • 36,535
Answered
16%
Referred
33%
Researched &
Answered
32%
FIGURE 7
FDIC CONTACTS IN 1998
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
w
VOA
FDIC Contact Statistics for 1997
By Type of Support - Total Contacts: 57,159
Answered
36%
Referred
_ 26V.
Researched &
Answered
13% Researched &
Referred
26%
FIGURE 8
FDIC CONTACTS IN 1997
In 1998, members of the public comprised 89% of contacts, followed by the banking
industry at 7% and employees at 4%. This data is similar to statistics from 1997,
where the public comprised 90% of contacts, employees comprised 5%, and the
banking industry totaled 5%.
Key initiatives are also identified in the 1998 Report, including special
outreach activities, development of the call-center concept, Coalition o f federal
Ombudsman activities, the Financial Literacy initiative, and “Know Your Customer”
legislative status.
Office of the Ombudsman Quarterly Reports
The Quarterly Reports provide a summary of activities that are structured to
provide insight into key issues and contact status of the three constituency groups.
New and previously identified trends are reviewed, either due to requests by senior
management or by changes in the frequency or nature ofthe issue. A sample report
released in January of 1999 examines the numbers of contacts and percentage of
complaints by constituency group for the third quarter of 1998, which allows for
additional trend investigation (Table 63).
295
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 63
CONTACT/COMPLAINT TREND FOR THIRD QUARTER OF 1998
FDIC CONTRACT/COMPLAINT TREND
Third Quarter FY 1998
Aggregate: Contacts: 8,258 (19.4% decrease)
Complaints: 411 (5% complaint rate)
Industry: Contacts: 694 (1% increase)
Complaints: 17 (2.5% complaint rate)
Employees: Contacts: 471 (3.5% increase)
Complaints: 117 (25% complaint rate)
Public: Contacts: 7,093 (22.2% decrease)
Complaints: 277 (4% complaint rate)
Data that describes the contacts by group, by type and action over the third
quarter of 1998 affords insight into how complaints are reaching the organization and
what type of service is being provided during each quarter. The data is summarized in
Table 64.
296
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 64
CONTACT NUMBERS, TYPE, AND ACTION
FDIC CONTACTS BY GROUP, TYPE, AND ACTION
Third Quarter of FY 1998
CONTACT TYPE ACTION
Public 86% 1. Internet 9.5% I. Provide Immediate
Industry 8% 2. Phone 88.3% Answer 32%
Employee 5% 3. Walk-in 0.9% 2 Research and Answer 27%
Former Employee .6% 4. Written 1.3% 3. Refer 27%
4. Research and Refer 13%
5. Conflict Management
Intervention 1.6%
Source: FDIC, Quarterly Report, 1999.
Industry contacts were broken into two categories: those requesting
information about industry matters, such as technical and regulatory issues, and those
calling about general inquiry matters. The decrease in industry matters was 4% from
the previous report primarily due to decreased contacts about bank examinations and
applications. The reported increase from 77% to 81% in general inquiry matters was
concentrated in the area of bank closings and resolution process. During the time
period of the report, emerging market risks were noted in merger and acquisition
activities, international bank solicitations of the general public, subprime credit card
portfolios, and Y2K.
The increase in the rate of employee complaints during the last quarter have
focused on such issues as the FDIC policy on corporate parking, the relocation of the
New York regional office from mid-town Manhattan to a Wall-Street location, and
297
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
travel audit processes and perceived retaliation. A new performance management
program has garnered employee attention regarding such issues as different pay
scales, the elimination of automatic salary increases, and downsizing profiles. Issues
pertaining to the Home Purchase Program which impacts relocated employees, and
employee selection decisions also continued as issues from the previous quarter.
Finally, the decrease of 1,900 public contacts from the previous quarter are
attributed to restructuring initiatives occurring within the FDIC. This initiatives
included the Director of Consumer Affairs Hotline restructuring, Department of
Administration improvements in mailroom and operator functions, and customer
service centralization that resulted in a smaller amount of calls being received by the
OO about receivership issues. Requests for technical information and inquiries about
collateralized accounts and the closure of BestBank increased from the previous
quarter. The Office note greater use of increased Internet contacts with the public.
Projects Reports (Call Center and Financial Services Education Manual)
The FDIC Office of the Ombudsman was involved in two special projects
during the past year which are representative of the types of initiatives in which the
Office becomes involved. The Ombudsman served as the sponsor of the Call Center
project, which used a cross-FDIC task force to explore current interorganizational
problems associated with misdirected calls, fragmented processes and functional
overlap. Based on 1998 estimated data, over 250,000 calls were received throughout
the FDIC, which averages over 1,000 calls per business day. Data analysis suggested
298
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that over 15% of the calls were misdirected. With the FDIC assuming many roles as
regulator, insurer and receiver, the need for a coordinated, integrated procedure to
serve customer’s need was necessary. The task force assembled best practice data
from other federal agencies, reviewed the current environment, and probed into the
most common communication problems. The group proposed the establishment of a
centralized FDIC Customer Service Call Center Model, in addition to the
establishment of service to the public as a corporate function with assigned
managerial responsibilities, the development of customer and telephone service
standards, and the creation of an interdivisional Public Service Advisory Group.
The second initiative involving financial literacy was conducted as part of a
larger coalition, comprised of the Department of Treasury, American Association of
Retired Persons, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, Credit Union National Association
Inc., Department of Agriculture and the Federal Trade Commission. The resultant
Financial Services Education Coalition produced a manual titled, “Helping People in
your Community Understand Basic Financial Services,” intended to be used in as a
financial education curriculum by community organizations. The Office of the
Ombudsman were participants in the development of the training materials and have
subsequently discussed the curriculum at a wide variety of outreach presentations.
Management Information Systems (Automated Tracking System)
The Ombudsman Automated Tracking System (OATS) was implemented in
March of 1999 as a result of an Office cross-regional task force which designed a case
299
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tracking business tool for the Office. It is intended to serve as the automated tool for
maintaining records, generating reports, and conducting systems administration. Key
data tracked in the system includes records of contacts, the assigned staff member,
regional sites designation, involved FDIC Office or Division, inquiry type, identity of
the bank involved, synopsis of the issue, case hours, case resolution, the class ofthe
inquiry (complaint against the FDIC, assistance, or general inquiry), the level of
required assistance, and if the issue could be designated as systemic or could be
reported as a case “highlight” report. Several reports can be generated from the
OATS, including a user list report, basic statistics, turnaround summary (referring to
the timeliness of the staff response), case reports, and case listing.
Office of the Ombudsman Model and Operating Instructions
The Office developed a comprehensive package titled “A Model for
Developing an Ombudsman Function,” to be used by other organizations to define
and give shape to proposed ombudsman functions. The documents states that,
“Today the FDIC ombudsman program is recognized as one of the most successful
and valuable ombudsman programs in the Federal Government” (FDIC, Office of the
Ombudsman, 1998). The documents addresses the importance of identifying the
added value of the Ombudsman to the program, the key components of the function,
recommended steps in developing and implementing a program, Office operations and
maintaining and refining the Ombudsman. The strategic goals and performance
measures listed in the manual do not coincide with those contain in the Office of the
300
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ombudsman Annual Performance Plan. For instance, performance measures
described in the manual call for customer surveys, focus groups and other
constituency feedback mechanisms, service standards, and confidential feedback
surveys. These outlined measures are not currently in evidence throughout the Office.
A general training course outline pertaining to the functions of the Ombudsman is
provided. Finally, a sample position description for a Senior Ombudsman Specialist is
provided, as are some sample Operating Instructions pertaining to Office security and
media inquiries.
P relim in ary A ssessm en t o f th e O ffice
With the use of a rapid assessment, the resulting evaluation of an organization
is broad and generalized. A rapid assessment is neither intended to be comprehensive
nor to substitute for an in-depth evaluative examination that is resource intensive and
specific in content. Rather, it is intended to provide insights into important questions
about the public ombudsman. The important questions explored in this rapid
assessment effort include: did citizens perceive access to their government through
interactions with the Office of the Ombudsman? Did they perceive satisfaction with
their government through interactions with the Office of the Ombudsman? How did
citizens perceive resolution of their complaint or issue? Has the ombudsman been
able to effect changes to FDIC policies and programs generated by the use of
organizational diagnosis? These questions are critical to understanding perceptions of
the Office of the Ombudsman’s value and contribution, which required that staff,
301
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
members of the public, members of the banking industry, and FDIC employees
participate in discussions centered on key issues.
The limitations of this preliminary assessment must be noted early on. In
total, thirteen discussions occurred, with eleven formal interviews conducted. Of the
three constituents interviewed, all were members of or affiliated with the same
constituency group—the banking industry. Two constituents represented trade
associations comprised of a large number of FDIC contacts. No interviewees
included members of the public or FDIC employees. Excerpts from letters drawn
from the “Brag Book” and written by members of the public and banking industry
were provided but lacked substance and context. Their critical utility is questionable,
because the letters were all overwhelmingly positive. All interviews but one involving
a FDIC senior stakeholder were prearranged by the Office of the Ombudsman, which
provided opportunities for biased discussions. The constituent and stakeholder
samples were very limited and not meant to be representative of the opinions of the
larger group of respondents. Despite limitations associated with a small number of
respondents, the nature of the forthright discussions and resulting recommendations
yielded important insights of use in to the rapid assessment process. Another research
limitation involved the condensed time frame of the research and the limited number
of site visits made to the Office. Finally, confidentiality challenges presented research
challenges by limiting the researcher’s ability to converse directly with constituents
and complainants. Future evaluations intended to incorporate substantive comments
302
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
from constituent members will need to carefully consider various research strategies
that can ensure confidentiality while allowing for the collection of meaningful inputs.
The FDIC Office of the Ombudsman has assembled a strong, viable program
that serves the needs of the senior leadership and fulfills many organizational roles.
The significant downsizing, staff reductions, and restructuring initiatives that have
fundamentally changed the Corporation and Office have left staff concerned about
continued resource reductions. The researcher found staff members eager to share
forthright insights about their jobs, future challenges, their commitment to building
effective constituent and organizational relationships, and assorted opinions and
concerns. To a person, all agreed on the importance of the need to demonstrate value
through articulating the key results and impacts of the Office.
Several key findings emerged during the conduct of the preliminary
assessment which will be explored in greater detail. Issues associated with
constituent satisfaction and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of service
provision might benefit from a deeper examination of feedback tools, communication
strategies, and expanded opportunities for building stronger Corporation
relationships, including stronger linkages to the regional offices. The Office of the
Ombudsman has unique opportunities to clarify its function and articulate its purpose
with the genesis of the upcoming Call Center, which could greatly serve to reduce
perceptions of duplicative work. The linkages between role clarification, expanded
communications, and resource stability must be understood in the context of being
303
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
able to demonstrate value through tangible and meaningful results important to the
political leadership, the management of FDIC Divisions and Offices, and members of
the constituent groups. Additionally, systemic changes to the FDIC policies and
programs require an effective plan for disseminating the results and assessing their
corporate impact. Finally, the Office might consider creating additional feedback
tools that depict a comprehensive picture of the support provided, and not limited to
anecdotal data and positive letters of acknowledgment which have the potential for
depicting a distorted view. Feedback would appear to be most relevant when
demonstrating the strengths and the challenges associated with service provision and
constituent satisfaction.
In examining the perceptions related to access, positive agreement emerged
about the degree of access, the use of communications, level of community
involvement, and the outreach initiatives. The staff and constituents generally agreed
that the Office is effective in “getting the message” out to the public, the employees
and members of the banking industry. The primary forms of communication,
including 1-800 telephone lines, Internet, marketing materials, and outreach activities,
are considered to be useful mechanisms. However, staff and resource reductions
incurred during the past two years have impacted the previous customer service
standards of reaching “a live voice” during business hours. These reductions have
been attributed to an erosion in the degree of responsiveness desired by the staff as
connected with initial access. The lack of ongoing awareness into Ombudsman
304
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
activities by the FDIC Board of Directors was mentioned by a stakeholder. One staff
member made a provocative observation in suggesting uncertainty as to whether the
public knows of the Office’s existence like it should. The researcher noted that no
one in the course of the interviews addressed potential gaps in access and service.
Determining whether large segments of the American populace in need of information
about financial and regulatory actions which have the potential for impacting lives
could potentially be a powerful role for the Office and was not addressed. Outreach
venues involving the banking industry and trade associations are considered favorably
by the respondent groups. The Annual Report also discussed the Office’s active
involvement in outreach events to all portions of the banking community. Yet, except
for the financial literacy initiative jointed sponsored with several public organizations,
there appears to be no systematic process for providing outreach communications to
large segments of the population which are most vulnerable to financial malfeasance,
such as the growing segment of the elderly increasingly concerned about the safety of
their savings through an examination of gaps in access. Additionally, no feedback
mechanisms exist for assessing both the quality of the initial contact between
constituent member and staff member or the Outreach support except, as in the words
of one stakeholder, one can look at the number of “invites.”
Perceptions of satisfaction had a wider range of divergent opinions than in
other discussions. All three respondent groups remarked that the degree of
satisfaction is dependent on the issue resolution or the information provided. The key
305
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
indicator currently used in gauging satisfaction is the receipt of letters from
constituents or positive “word-of-mouth” comments following some level of
involvement with the Ombudsman. However, no tool exists to examine satisfaction
from a broader perspective, which some staff respondents noted would provide more
accurate assessments into the level of satisfaction. Some stakeholder perceptions are
also worth noting. A general sense of stratified reactions to Ombudsman service from
each constituent group was expressed, with the lowest degree of satisfaction
attributed to FDIC employees, followed by bankers, and with the highest level from
members of the public. Additionally, instances of strained relationships between the
Office and the other FDIC divisions and offices was also noted. The consideration of
a feedback mechanism that provides insights into the level of satisfaction experienced
by all constituent groups and a process for building stronger relationships across the
Corporation, include regional locations, suggest opportunities for further exploration.
Unlike the Ombudsman Ontario, the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman does not
maintain a complaint review system for government and constituent members who are
dissatisfied with how a case was handled by the Office.
Discussions of effectiveness and efficiency are central to examining
perceptions about achievement of resolution, timeliness and perceived responsiveness,
management feedback and internal communications, clarity of function, and the cost
benefit of the Office. The commitment of the staff to providing complete resource
information; the Office’s effective role in facilitation and reducing conflicts; the staffs
306
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
use as a communication conduit were cited as enhancing their effectiveness in the
FDIC. Data pertaining to timeliness in responses are not published but are maintained
as part of the case tracking system. The Office does not currently utilize service
standards which allows assessment against an established measure as a way to
evaluate support responsiveness.
One of the more provocative discussions centered on perceptions of
duplication in the Ombudsman role and the role of other FDIC offices and programs.
There was consensus from all respondent groups that the Ombudsman support
provided was consistently professional and responsive. Yet, a wide divergence of
opinion was noted in the potential duplicative initiatives of the Office. The need for
demonstrating the value of the Office by clearly delineating its role to the FDIC
political and senior leadership was asserted by a staff respondent. Areas that were
suggested as duplicative by stakeholders included customer service for issues of
general information, support to FDIC employees, calls from public members about
problems pertaining to specific banks which can be answered by appropriately by
other FDIC divisions, and FDIC programs dealing with personnel issues, such as the
those administered by Equal Opportunity Office. In examining some of the data
associated with the duplication in customer service calls, an appendix contained in the
“Headquarters Telephone Service to the Public and Financial Industry Project
Report” contained interesting insights into the provision of general information. Five
of ten FDIC offices and programs who interface routinely with the constituent groups
307
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
offer the following descriptions of service, including the Ombudsman (FDIC, A Model
for Developing an Ombudsman Function, Appendix H, September 1998).
Average Monthly
Description of Service
Provides mechanism to raise issues and
concerns about the FDIC, get necessary
information that applies to caller's situation.
Provides disclosure products to general
public, including Call Reports, Uniform Bank
performance reports and books, tapes, etc.
Serves as conduit to obtain publications,
documents and to be placed on mailing lists.
Answers consumer and banker questions
about the FDIC deposit insurance coverage.
Handles consumer complaints about FDIC
supervised financial institutions.
A recent development afforded an ideal opportunity for the Ombudsman to
more clearly focus on the primary functions of the Office. With the implementation of
the new centralized call center for the FDIC, the Office of the Ombudsman can
concentrate on those issues which are appropriate for Ombudsman intervention and
resolution to the three contact groups, as opposed to serving as a general FDIC pointof-reference. Additionally, the use of a protocol agreement that specifies the role of
the ombudsman in interfacing with other Divisions and offices could add a level of
specificity and clarity, which might build greater interorganizational understanding.
General perceptions about the efficiencies associated with issue or complaint
resolution focused on the Ombudsman as a provider of a cost effective alternative to
308
Office Calls
Office of the
Ombudsman 419
Disclosure Group 5,S05
Public Information 1,013
Center
Consumer Affairs 6,184
Call Center
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
litigious situations. All three respondent groups discussed the issue of capturing the
cost benefit or cost-effectiveness of the Office. The major concerns cited with
bottom-line cost reviews was that quantitative data could skew important issues of
social impacts and service provision. The ability to build a meaningful process that
captures associated costs was acknowledged to be very challenging but some staff
have begun preliminary investigations until cost models. The need to explore
potential cost models was linked to concerns about the continued erosion of
Ombudsman staff and resources, which ultimately impact service provision.
Discussions of capturing the costs associated with unintended consequences of
resource reduction and other intangible costs were notably absent in the interviews.
While operating in an environment which requires annual functional and process
reviews as part of the resource determination process, the Ombudsman may want to
explore mechanisms for capturing critical cost benefit information that explores
possible cost benefit strategies and captures unintended consequences and intangible
costs associated with FDIC actions and constituent needs.
Examining the systemic changes to FDIC policies and practices which
ultimately result in better, more accountable government should comprise some of the
Office’s most compelling contributions. Yet, the stakeholders were only able to
recount very broad narrative discussions of systemic changes to the Corporation as a
result of the work completed by the Ombudsman. The significance of most examples
cited in staff recounts were dominated by internally focused personnel practices. Staff
309
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
accounts of lasting changes include the prohibition of contractor personnel from
social gatherings, the significance of which was not clearly understood by the
researcher Only a few regulatory initiatives with dramatic impacts on the
constituency groups were addressed, including Y2K and the “Know Your Customer”
proposed regulation. Interesting to note, comments and concerns about both efforts
have come into the entire Corporation and have not been limited to the Office of the
Ombudsman. These finding from the interview data may indicate a problem with
communicating the impact of systemic changes to staff and stakeholders, including
internal communication through the divisions, offices and programs of the FDIC, as a
result of Ombudsman involvement. Likewise, the consistent transmittal of trend
information, including constituent groups and stakeholders within the FDIC, was
desired by several respondents.
Staff were the primary respondent group that addressed the need for
performance information, a program of evaluation, and demonstrated accountability.
A general sense from staff is that the current level of reporting is sufficient in building
a program of performance measurement, although the need for alternative feedback
mechanisms such as surveys were recommended to gauge how well the Office was
doing by some members. Some staff indicated that the value of the Office and its
contributions is adequately evaluated through self-assessment, senior leadership
feedback, anecdotal stories of support and letters of recognition and that the value is
demonstrated. A divergent opinion stated that the Office does not have mechanisms
310
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that gauge how well constituents are being served or how well the Office is
performing. It is worthwhile noting that four of ten strategic goals of the FDIC
Office of the Ombudsman focus on external relationships with constituent groups and
professional organizations. The goals include: (1) assisting the Division of Resolution
and Receiverships on FDIC bank closings (researcher’s note: which ultimately
support the public and banking constituencies); (2) serving as an effective liaison for
FDIC’s customers and employees; (3) conducting effective outreach to FDIC’s
customers and employees; and (4) building good networks with other professional
Ombudsman (FDIC, Office of the Ombudsman, Annual Performance Plan, 1999).
The measure o f goal accomplishment will be impeded by the lack of feedback
mechanisms to gauge the quality of support and the outcomes generated by
Ombudsman service. Currently, no such mechanisms, such as surveys, focus groups
or community forums have been included in the key measurement profiles contained
in the Office of the Ombudsman Annual Performance Plan for 1999. This is an area
that may be of use in building a relevant system of performance measurement and
accountability structures and may be worthwhile for the Ombudsman to explore in
greater detail. The Ombudsman has not yet deployed a systematic process of
conducting program evaluation that can ultimately drive decision-making,
demonstrate results-based accountability, and aid organizational learning.
Finally, key challenges were identified by several staff respondents that have
the potential for impacting the Office’s future function and effectiveness. Discussions
311
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ranged from the need to secure a more stable base of resources to the need to
demonstrate value and to stay flexible with a changing regulatory environment.
Suggestions for Alternative Assessment Tools
The FDIC employs a strategic management framework that explores changing
external and environmental impacts on the financial regulatory systems of the United
States. The process identifies strategic results, goals, objectives, and strategies for
achieving the goals. Likewise, the Office of the Ombudsman established a series of
goals linked to the corporate process and established key performance measures
intended to assess goal accomplishment. Stakeholders, other FDIC managers, Office
staff and representative members of the constituency groups should re-examine key
performance expectations in selected critical areas. Building a performance-based
management program that articulates key results and performance expectations
strengthens the Ombudsman’s ability to demonstrate accountability in the areas of
satisfaction, effectiveness, efficiency, and ultimate contribution to the FDIC. The
Office currently uses several data sources in assessing service provision such as the
case tracking system, trend analysis, and anecdotal evidence of satisfaction.
However, by asking what the truly significant impacts and outcomes are of the Office,
and tying a measurement and evaluation program to those outcomes, the ability to
track substantive results and use performance data to change or modify the Office
could offer meaningful benefits.
312
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The need for feedback mechanisms from stakeholders, constituent groups
and FDIC offices and programs is evident. Such tools might include the development
and administration of a survey instrument, the use of a focus group, an advisory
panel, or community forums. Surveys provide a mechanism to ascertain the level of
satisfaction which constituent members feel about Ombudsman service, advice,
informational resources, and assistance they received. It allows a predetermined
number of respondents to be questioned. A survey can be designed to elicit answers
about selected variables and open-ended responses that can provide greater insight
into constituent perceptions about their dealings with the Office. A survey tool could
be of great use in obtaining an independent assessment of service provision and to
identify service gaps. Additionally, a survey can be used to assess a general picture of
constituent needs which could integral to Ombudsman planning of outreach
initiatives, communication strategies, evaluation of access mechanisms, etc.
Focus groups provide another useful assessment tool which has relevance to
the Office. The groups typically consist of seven to twelve individuals who are
unknown to each other but share a degree of homogeneity. The sessions provide a
forum for discussing constituent experiences with the Office; reactions to proposed
changes in FDIC policies or procedures; key concerns; changes to lives that have
occurred as a result of Ombudsman involvement; and other useful information. A
moderator leads the informal discussion with the intent of obtaining in-depth
qualitative information. The tool provides a process for obtaining a deeper
313
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
understanding of constituent needs and the Ombudsman’s effectiveness in providing
meaningful service. A community forum provides a similar feedback tool to hear
about needs and responses to service. The concept of a community forum could be
readily adapted to be used with existing advocacy groups, community coalitions, and
trade associations with which the Office of the Ombudsman routinely interfaces. The
forum is self-selected, in that individuals who learn of the forum may or may not
decide to attend, and allows open access. Conversation centers around a core set of
questions designed to elicit feedback and ideas.
Process management is a useful assessment tool in gauging how the Office of
the Ombudsman addresses constituent needs, how products and services are delivered
and how processes can be improved through evaluation. The benefit of using this
assessment is that it affords an opportunity to explore areas of perceived duplication
or areas in need of greater clarity and definition of roles and functions. As suggested
by Bryson (1995), clarifying the purpose of the Office can significantly decrease the
level of organizational conflict and competition and can help focus employees, leaders
and constituents on productive activity and communication.
Given the community involvement the Office has fostered with members
across the Federal, public and private sectors, benefit may be derived from compiling
“benchmarks” and “best practices” drawn from exemplars who are performancebased organizations. Benchmarking is a way to institutionalize a “reality check”
against a known standard of excellence and a way for an organization to avoid an
314
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
inwardly-focused cycle of self-congratulation. It is an approach to process
improvement that looks for best-in-class processes that can be implemented to
achieve breakthrough levels of performance improvement. Benchmarking efforts
typically begin with high-level process mapping with performance levels identified for
each step in the process. A team can then segment the process which is a candidate
for benchmarking, allowing for comparisons to external ombudsman organizations.
Examining Ombudsman practices identifies the most effective and proactive in terms
of demonstrating the value of their service, which could be very instrumental in
designing comprehensive performance measurement systems.
The development of staff competencies in the area of performance-based
management offers significant value to public organizations (GAO, 1997). A
suggested framework for training would include topics such as program evaluation,
performance measurement, feedback tools, including surveys, reengineering, and
communication strategies (Hatry, as cited in Wholey, 1999). Additionally, other
topics for inclusion in a training program might center on understanding the political
and environmental contexts, exploring program logic and performance expectations
from stakeholders and constituent groups, specific methodologies for measuring and
evaluating program performance, uses of performance information, and ensuring
program value (Wholey, 1999, p. 303). With two of the ten goals of the Office of the
Ombudsman focused on employee development, the use of a training curriculum
315
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
focused on issues that can ultimately optimize program accountability and program
performance would be a strong tool for the organization.
The Office of the Ombudsman currently maintains performance information
that tracks complaint and trend analysis. A. process of systematic evaluation that
looks at aspects of performance in terms of key outcomes that identify the desired
results of the Office would put the current performance measurement in context of
the need to assess the value and contribution. The Office has already taken steps to
define key performance measures in its performance plan process and would benefit
from an evaluative process that examines an organization’s readiness to be managed
by results, what changes are needed to become performance-based, and whether an
evaluation is likely to contribute to improved performance (Wholey, 1983). One of
the more relevant tools for consideration involves the use of an evaluability
assessment. The evaluation includes the users of program information by clarifying
the programmatic intent through the perspective of key stakeholders, staff, public
complainants, and key leaders of the public service. An evaluability assessment
systematically examines what a program should be doing, how it currently performs,
and how performance can best be measured by building a model of the program
theory based on multiple viewpoints. The reality of the Office is explored, the
participants reach agreement on the changes that need to occur in activities and
objectives; and alternative evaluation designs are explored, which result in evaluation
316
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
priorities being designated. The testing of key aspects of the program theory include
examining program activities and outcomes (Wholey, 1993).
Recommendation for Outcome Measures
Outcomes are often described as “the results achieved in the individuals,
organizations, or populations outside the agency or program” (Wholey, 1999, p. 290)
and may be short-term, long-term, or focused on the unintended outcomes of
organizations. Three types of outcome categories and associated measurement, as
suggested by Weiss (1998), will serve as the framework of this discussion—
measuring effects on the individuals served, measuring effects on government
organizations, and measuring effects on the public.
Ultimately, the Ombudsman and staff should explore the desired outcomes,
which define what the Office intends to achieve, in conjunction with the key users of
information, including the FDIC leadership and selected leaders from across FDIC
Divisions and Offices. The researcher offers candidate intermediate and end
outcomes for Office consideration which grew out of the interviews conducted,
program data, and the official strategic goals. For purposes of clarification,
intermediate outcomes are considered to be those one could reasonably assume to see
in the short-term and which focus on the behavior of individuals and organizations
(Wholey, 1999); end outcomes focus on the desired end-state. Candidate outcomes
are proposed in Table 65.
317
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 65
CANDIDATE OUTCOMES
CANDIDATE OUTCOMES FOR THE FDIC OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES
• Increased Constituent Satisfaction
• Decreased Costs and Time in Complaint
Resolution
• Decreased Number of Grievances, Hotline
Reports and Congressional Inquiries
• Expanded Staff Skills
• Increased Informal Resolution
• Systemic Changes to FDIC Policies and
Programs
ACTIVITIES
END OUTCOMES
• Provide Critical Information to Decision
Makers
• Improved FDIC Service to Constituents
• Minimized Cases of Maladministration
• Improved Perception of FDIC
O U TC O M ES--------------------- RESULTS & VALUE
Measuring Effects in Individuals Served. Changes in the attitudes or needs
of individuals who use the Office of the Ombudsman can be assessed in many ways:
in terms of receiving fair treatment, the quality of the information resource, the quality
of meeting and communication facilitation, impacts on lives, responsive settlements or
action, thorough research, achieving resolution, or adequacy of employee and benefit
advisory support. Recommended intermediate outcomes which address short-term
improvements would include: increased constituent satisfaction and decreased time
and costs in resolving complaints. The outcomes are intended to streamline the
provision of services, especially those requiring information or causing contention or
constituent concern. They also provide an opportunity to listen to the constituent by
managing satisfaction. There are several mechanisms for listening to constituent
318
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
members. In addition to customer-satisfaction indices, feedback and front-line
personnel have a superb opportunity to listen and capture key comments, complaints
and questions. A survey would be a useful tool in evaluating the outcomes associated
with individual impacts, as are other mechanisms such as post-investigation or
resolution feedback captured in discussions or correspondence after case closure.
Measuring the individual’s perception of fairness with the resolution and investigation
process may be a more accurate gauge of satisfaction than measuring
agreement/disagreement with the resolution. As previously noted, assessing
satisfaction is often dependent on the individual’s feelings about the finding and
whether or not their desired resolution was achieved. Assessing the decrease in time
and costs might involve examining resources expended with other alternatives, such
as formal Federal grievance processes, litigation, dedicated staff time, etc. One
additional outcome for consideration would be to increase access to the FDIC Office
of the Ombudsman through examining service gaps. As a result of this examination,
subsequent communication strategies intended to reach constituents segments who
may need Ombudsman support but who are uninformed about the Office could be
designed. All of these strategies would be useful in assessing the Ombudsman
support to individuals.
Measuring Effects on Government Organizations. Changes to FDIC
policies and programs as a result of Ombudsman involvement and diagnostic ability
are a vitally important result of the Ombudsman function. Changes can involve new
319
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
or modified policies, programs, administrative guidelines, service standards, or
practices which result in responsive, timely, and streamlined service to the FDIC
constituency. Recommended intermediate outcomes offered for consideration might
include: decreased numbers of grievances, Hotline reports or Congressional inquiries;
systemic changes to organizations and programs; and an increased number of
complaints resolved informally. If positive changes in FDIC programs and operations
are occurring as a result of better accountability and government, the changes should
be reflected in a decreased need for formal investigations and oversight. Assessing
the Ombudsman’s effect on Corporate changes and results requires some innovative
measurement systems. For instance, the decrease of formal oversight actions and
increased informal resolution require that strategies for greater interorganizational
cooperation be explored. The Ombudsman will improve prospects for more
responsive and favorable resolution through increased intergovernmental networks.
Systemic change initiatives could include the clarification of roles and functions,
which serves to streamline customer support and reduce resource competition.
Providing communicative and facilitative services for Divisions or Offices trying to
identify and implement change could be useful in strengthening FDIC relationships.
Measuring Effects on the Public. The ultimate performance indicator of an
effective Ombudsman is that the constituency expresses increased confidence and
trust in the FDIC. Changes in attitudes and sense of perceived value about the FDIC
are effected by perceptions of responsiveness, fair treatment, significantly minimized
320
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
instances of malfeasance or poor service, and other attributes. Measuring these
effects will be challenging but the Office may want to consider suggesting or
sponsoring a cross-organizational initiative that administers a constituent-wide survey
or other feedback tools to evaluate attitudes about the FDIC’s programs and
provision of service. Some type of feedback mechanism focused on members of the
public and the banking industry would serve as a baseline and would evaluate changes
in constituent perceptions over the years.
321
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER VI
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE OMBUDSMAN ROLE IN
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE
Without results we know that democracy means nothing and
ceases to be alive in the minds and hearts of men. (Baker, as cited
in Waldo, 1984, p. 74)
Introduction
This chapter provides a general overview of the findings associated with the
five research questions. Additionally, the common issues that emerged during the
research are presented, as are key differences that became evident. The applicability
of the rapid assessment design and subsequent feedback to the two ombudsman
offices suggest relevance and utility to the larger ombudsman community. Finally,
questions of future research and the importance of the ombudsman role to democratic
governance are offered.
The Need for Exploring the Public Ombudsman
Exploring dimensions of the public ombudsman provided the researcher with a
unique opportunity to explore critical premises that underpin democratic governance.
This research resulted in more than an examination of two ombudsman functions in
322
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
different public environments. It afforded the opportunity to gain insights into public,
stakeholder, and staff thoughts about the core foundation of governance—access to
government, public satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness of complaint resolution,
and changes in governmental agencies and program operations as a result of
ombudsman involvement. As other variables emerged during the research, they
served to create a richer assessment. Political access, communications and
relationships; complaint feedback; cost benefit and unintended consequences;
perceptions of duplication; use of trend analysis; and the need for accountability and
performance-based management all were explored and discussed from the vantage
point of multiple perspectives.
General impressions obtained from respondent perspectives were the intended
evaluative result, using the broad design of the research’s inquiry process.
Discussions about ombudsman successes, opportunities for improvement, emerging
challenges, accountability mechanisms, purported myths, governmental relations, and
program assumptions were also explored as the interviews progressed. Insights
obtained from the document analysis served to support or dispute information that
surfaced through the interview process.
The need for accountability mechanisms has grown in the past decade with
key changes in legislative, political, and public performance expectations. The public
ombudsman has a viable role in ensuring an increasingly responsive government,
through the power of independent scrutiny and impartial complaint resolution. Yet,
323
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the public ombudsman function has become increasingly unfocused and diluted, as
evidenced by inconsistent jurisdiction, questions of perceived value, and role
definition. Aufrecht and Hertogh (1999) assert that, as a community, few steps have
been made by a public ombudsman towards engaging in a rigorous assessment of
effectiveness. The primary reasons for the need to evaluate include accountability to
stakeholders, which include members of the public, to promote responsive
bureaucracy; a clearer understanding of public need and of the impact the Office has
on its constituents; improving organizational performance; and ensuring the
ombudsman “walks the talk” by being willing to be the subject of evaluation.
If the need to evaluate is increasingly becoming a priority of the ombudsman
community, what is a valid design in evaluating the public ombudsman? The primary
difficulty in proposing one common framework is that no two ombudsman
organizations are alike. Common goals, practices and measures of performance may
be desired, but each Office exists in its own unique political and environmental
context. Stakeholder expectations of the ombudsman role, the needs of the
population served, emerging external trends, resource challenges, and past
performance comprise organizational contexts which impact evaluation. The
examination of public ombudsman performance is currently limited by a lack of “best
practices” data or rich examples of assessment that are relevant for other
organizations. Yet, a meaningful program of evaluation can be framed that is
324
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
intended to improve performance, demonstrate value and accountability, or aid
decision-making.
This research proposed a preliminary step in building a general evaluation
framework that could rapidly assess various types of public ombudsman offices and
provide insight into the context of the organization and its readiness for more
comprehensive evaluation. The rapid assessment methodology was designed to
explore important variables associated with ombudsman contribution. The rapid
assessment framework also provided insights into two relatively dissimilar public
offices that perform substantively different functions and roles for their respective
governments. The assessment tool provided each Office with evaluative information
and results that had immediate use.
The Research Results
The research provided useful insights into and information about the five key
research questions:
1. Did citizens perceive they had achieved access to their government as a
result of interaction with the public ombudsman?
2. Did citizens perceive they were satisfied with their government as a result
of involvement with the public ombudsman?
3. Did interactions with the ombudsman impact citizen perceptions of
complaint or issue resolution?
4. Has the ombudsman been able to afreet changes to agency and programs?
325
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
S. What factors emerged in a comparative analysis of the public-sector
ombudsman between an American and Canadian public organization?
Each research question has been explored in depth in Chapters IV and V
through an examination of interview perceptions, documents, and researcher
assessment.
Perceptions of Access
General perceptions generated from the interviews and feedback surveys
demonstrated that citizens and constituent members perceived greater access to their
government as a result of the public ombudsman. Having a mechanism for redress
made a notable difference to the Office users. Access clearly served as the critical
service foundation for both Offices. The use of the Office was clearly connected to
the mechanisms for service delivery, such as technology tools, physical locations,
adequacy of staffing levels, outreach, public education, and communication tools.
Additionally, the clarity of ombudsman purpose and role ensured that the boundaries
of service provided by the Office were understood by the constituent member and
potentially impacted perceptions of satisfaction. An area worthy o f greater
examination unexpectedly emerged during the conduct of this research. The need for
greater political access to the Office by key stakeholders emerged as a noteworthy
finding. Both organizations have limited opportunities for regular and recurring
involvement and feedback opportunities with the key Ontario provincial and top
FDIC Board leadership. Both Offices would benefit from a more substantive
326
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
outreach process involving both constituent and stakeholder members that
demonstrates the usefulness of the Office in terms of service and key products.
Perceptions of Satisfaction
The degree of satisfaction with the government as a result of ombudsman
support was more difficult to characterize for both organizations because of the
complexities associated with assessing public satisfaction. Discussions of satisfaction
appeared to be dependent on the resolution finding and the individual’s positive or
negative reaction to the finding. Apparent misperceptions about the Ombudsman’s
role in service advocacy versus serving as an impartial neutral impacted degrees of
satisfaction. The importance of communication, strengthening relationships across
government programs and agencies, employing tools that capture feedback pertaining
to satisfaction and articulating the ombudsman function to its constituent groups were
evident in a range of respondent perceptions. This research effort was able to explore
the complexities associated with satisfaction. The use of feedback mechanisms
provided invaluable insight into public perceptions of satisfaction with the Office.
They serve as viable tools for exploring changes in satisfaction with government
because of the Ombudsman.
Perceptions of Complaint Resolution (Effectiveness and Efficiency)
How citizens and constituent members perceived resolution of the complaint
or issue was typically described in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency of the
327
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
resolution. Specifically, service time lines, responsiveness, intangible costs or
unintended consequences o f complaints or issues, management and communication
feedback mechanisms, cost savings associated with the avoidance of litigation,
duplication of efforts with other government entities, service quality, and issues
associated with the role of the public ombudsman were addressed by the respondents
of both organizations as each explained his/her perceptions of resolution. Perceptions
of how an issue or complaint was handled had notable impact on public members.
The ability to achieve resolution was clearly impacted by cross-government
relationships, the need for effective communication, and ongoing feedback about
resolution status and outcomes. Both organizations employed automated tracking
processes in an attempt to capture critical data about the types of issues and
complaints being received, the length of time spent in resolving the concern, and the
final disposition of the issue. Both performed only limited exploration into the
unintended consequences and intangible costs associated with both the governments’
programs or policies or with the ombudsman offices. Yet this data could serve as a
powerful tool in identifying governmental and ombudsman service gaps or in
identifying population segments most in need of a particular government service.
Ability to Affect Change in the Government
The ability of both ombudsman Offices to affect changes to agency and
programs appeared to be significantly impacted by communication success or
constraints and first-hand knowledge of specific instances of program and policy
328
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
changes. In both research cases, the staff were able to recount several changes as a
result of their efforts and oversight. Yet, few tangible changes were able to be
identified by members of the public and constituent groups, stakeholders, or members
of the public service in both cases. There is a general, intuitive sense expressed by
some stakeholders that changes have probably occurred, but no substantive data was
provided by the respondent groups who should be most able to articulate the impacts.
Systemic diagnosis is capable of rendering the most significant impact on the lives of
the populace and on governmental operations yet appears to be either minimally
communicated or unfocused.
Governmental Accountability
Governmental accountability was addressed as being critical to Ombudsman
effectiveness and credibility in both Offices. The use of performance data, trend
analysis, reporting systems, demographic data, and an evaluation process were
identified as key factors in enhancing organizational accountability and depicting the
ombudsman’s contribution to service users and stakeholders. The organizations are
at varying levels of maturity in building a system for performance-based management
at this time. Both would benefit from the development of a systemic strategic
framework that inextricably involves the key stakeholders and identifies the desired
outcomes and key goals which will drive decision making and results-based
accountability.
329
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Other areas were unintentionally explored as part of this research effort, given
the open-ended nature of the interview process. The issue of changes in scope,
authority, or resources of the Offices were discussed by respondents. In one
organization, an expanded role was recommended by multiple respondent groups as a
means of minimizing gaps in government service and oversight and for ensuring
public redress. Considerations of expanded scope were not recommended for the
second organization, with stakeholders suggesting the possible decrease in constituent
scope.
Finally, the respondent groups for both Offices discussed key challenges
facing the organizations, with only a few commonalties. Both organizations expected
decreased resource stability in the future, with marked impact on service delivery,
responsiveness, staffing levels, and the need to show programmatic and political
value. The interviewees in one organization discussed governmental moves towards
privatization of the ombudsman and recalibrated outreach focused on ensuring service
equity.
The assessment design appeared to be highly transferable to other ombudsman
offices that want to take an initial look at their readiness for a more substantive
evaluation. It proved to be a useful feedback mechanism for the two Offices
separated by two important distinctions: the type of ombudsman office (a classical
and hybrid ombudsman environment) and type of government (a federal and
330
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
international [provincial] environment). Both Offices indicated that they benefited
from the insights generated by multiple perspectives.
Examining the substantive contribution of the ombudsman office required an
integrated performance measurement and results-based methodology that identified
specific indicators of performance and the associated criteria. This research effort
suggested that an evaluation methodology could be designed using criteria, such as
the needs of the stakeholders, including the citizenry and constituencies of the Office;
the functions of the Office and program intent; the time and resources available to
conduct an assessment; and the needs of the staff. Weiss (1998, p. 49) suggests that
the evaluator must work “to discover the reality of the program rather than its
illusion.” The process of discovering program reality was accomplished by
understanding the program that was being evaluated through examining what the
public ombudsman was supposed to achieve, how it operated, gaps in service or
performance, and perceptions about the service. Several sources of information aided
the discovery process, including people and written documents. Pursuing any course
of ombudsman evaluation considered the benefits in having stakeholders involved in
the evaluation. Stakeholder involvement offered significant benefits to an evaluation
of the public ombudsman. Their participation ensured that the political and
organizational context was more clearly articulated. Their involvement also afforded
them the opportunity to learn about the assessment process and methods for assessing
accountability.
331
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Comparing the Two Offices
The Offices shared many similar findings but had some fundamental
differences in structure, powers, environments, and role. The common threads
represented key challenges and shared issues for each Office that emerged from the
rapid assessment. Principal differences were also explored for the two organizations
since the context of the Offices are contrasting. Table 66 summarizes critical
comparative perspectives.
TABLE 66
COMPARATIVE SNAPSHOT
Factor Ombudsman Ontario
FDIC Office of the
Ombudsman
Environment Office of the Canadian provincial
government; Offices
geographically dispersed
throughout province; most Office
staff centralized in Toronto;
supports demographically diverse
public
Office of a U.S. Federal agency;
Offices geographically dispersed
throughout the U.S.; less than
one-half the staff in Washington,
DC; supports 3 constituent
groups: public, banking industry
and employees
Roles Serves as Officer of the
Legislature; reports to Speaker of
the Legislature; in role to create
service equity, protects fairness
and justice in administration of
government policy through
independent investigation and
resolution of public complains
Serves as independent Office
reporting to the COO; role is to
facilitate resolution of constituent
problems, serve as feedback
mechanism for FDIC and
influences change to improve
operations, regulations and
customer service
332
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Factor Ombudsman Ontario
FDIC Office of the
Ombudsman
Experience with
Performance-Baaed
Management
Developed strategic plan;
identified goals and associated
work plans; preliminary
performance measurement system
with established standards of
service; interest in program
evaluation; no stakeholder
involvement in development of
strategy; desired outcomes and
results not developed
Developed strategic plan and
performance plan; identified goals
and preliminary performance
measure program; no established
standards of service or feedback
mechanisms; interest in program
evaluation; limited stakeholder
involvement in development of
strategy; outcomes focused on
external results not developed
Activities Investigations; outreach; public
education; complaint resolution;
information referral; policy and
legal research; communications;
complaints analysis; international
outreach; program documentation;
management information; trend
analysis
Outreach; information referral;
special projects; limited
investigatory role; federal
outreach; complaint and analysis;
assistance in bank closings and
special support; program
documentation; management
information; trend analysis
Key Challenges Building political relationships in
context of Ombudsman
independence; transparency of
support; achieving resource
stability, increasingly
unresponsive government service
and need for greater
accountability; trend towards
privatization
Demonstrating value; changing
political leadership; being
responsive to environment;
achieving resource stability;
building internal FDIC
relationships; clarifying role of
Office
The Common Threads
Issues that emerged in both rapid assessments point to several commonalties
that were critical in the execution of the public ombudsman programs. These shared
insights emerged as a result of examining the perceptions of public, constituent, and
stakeholder members within a context of a broad set of variables. Each issue was
considered to be a viable candidate for further exploration in a research context:
333
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Stable resources are an important factor in the performance of the Office.
Both Offices experienced significant resource reductions during the three years, which
left several staff members verbally concerned about continued impact on the
Ombudsman function and resource stability. Discussions were validated by
documented evidence of staff reductions. In the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman, a
65% reduction in staff had occurred since 1996. The Ombudsman Ontario
experienced a 32% reduction in staff since 1996 and remain concerned about
continued reductions. As governments continue their movement towards linking
performance results to the budget allocation process, Offices such as the public
ombudsman need to be able to demonstrate their value in terms of the differences
made as a result of their function. Being able to articulate the differences made as a
result of the ombudsman function requires much more than a system of output
measures. The Offices would benefit from exploring methods to qualitatively depict
the key results on the constituencies, which requires innovative evaluative approaches
that utilize feedback mechanisms. Evaluative efforts cannot continue to rely on a
program of self-reporting and be deemed as viable or relevant.
—Public ombudsman, while serving as neutral and being transparent to
political agendas, benefit from strong, visible support from their political
leadership. The leadership should clearly understand the unique role and
function provided by the Ombudsman.
334
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The irony of the public ombudsman is that it performs a critical albeit neutral
oversight function which has its own political context. Both organizations benefited
historically and currently from informed stakeholder advocates who understood the
importance of the ombudsman. Ensuring that a process which explains the unique
role and the tenets of the public ombudsman would be very important in enhancing
the political education of key stakeholders. A regular process for meeting new
stakeholders, including Members of Ontario’s Provincial Parliament and new FDIC
Board of Director members, would serve as a strong tool for communicating the
value and function of the Offices. It would also enable the members to know what
could be expected in terms of regular products or in requesting tailored products.
— Analysis of gaps in governmental service are critical in understanding
public and constituent needs.
The identification of governmental policies, procedures, and programs in need
of change appears to be a very important function of the public ombudsman. The
ability to identify systemic problems that are currently impacting or have the potential
to impact segments of the population render significant effects on the lives of public
or constituent members. Effective trends analysis and systemic diagnosis are critical
to the forecasting of the service gaps and should be considered as a key focus of a
public ombudsman. They require both formal and informal communication
mechanisms and should be considered for inclusion in a process of impact evaluation
335
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
as a means for assessing the true significance of the trend on the organization or on
the system o f government.
—Program goals, performance measures and outcomes should be
developed in consultation with key stakeholders and identified prior to
embarking on a program of evaluation.
The performance-based management challenges facing the public ombudsman
are impacted by a diverse citizen base with disparate needs and interests, political
outcomes associated with evaluation results, and unique oversight authorities. As
long as the conflict resolution community and, specifically, the public-sector
ombudsman, fail to demonstrate results of their service, government agencies and
their stakeholders may trivialize the important contributions made by these
professionals. The viability of the services and the required resources may be
questioned.
Evaluation readiness occurs when an organization’s “conceptual basis has
been developed by linking programs to desired outcomes and the objectives of the
programs (Posavac & Carey, 1997, p. 32). As has been discussed in preceding
chapters, the evaluation process must be considered within a comprehensive strategic
management framework that definitizes goals, objectives, and outcomes, all of which
have been vetted with key stakeholders. The system of performance measurement
can be subsequently identified and can provide an important base for program data
and results.
336
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
—Public and constituent education about the role of the Office is
important to effective use.
The use of tailored public education is critical in ensuring a public
understanding o f the ombudsman role. Tailored educational outreach, referred to as
equity outreach by one of the Offices, affords the opportunity to focus on “groups
who have traditionally experienced barriers to service, in general, and to government
programs in particular” (Ombudsman Ontario 1998/99 Annual Report, 1999, p. 13).
Those most in need of ombudsman service but with the least access are provided
information about available services through this approach. This mechanism is an
effective way to serve marginalized populations through targeted resources. It also
affords opportunities for relaying critical information about accessing other
government offices and for tracking gaps in government service provision.
—The use of communication mechanisms is critical in demonstrating
impact, providing optimized access, building intergovernmental relations, and
strengthening stakeholder awareness.
A prevailing finding throughout this research has identified the importance of
internal, external, and political communication across all areas of both organizations.
The effectiveness of the public ombudsman will be impacted by awareness and
utilization of available services, which may require public and political outreach
mechanisms. The linkage between achieving resource stability, increasing political
337
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
knowledge and use of the Offices, and the dissemination of results is inextricably
critical.
Principal Differences
The key differences between the two organizations involved the powers and
jurisdiction afforded each Office, the governmental structure, and the political
systems. The right to petition and seek redress serves as an underlying premise to the
United States constitutional and political systems. The implementation of the United
States public ombudsman function has historically faced interesting challenges, given
a society much more prone to solve its problems and complaints through litigation
than that of Canada. In recent years, the U.S. government mandated the
establishment of federal complaint-handling mechanisms intended to support public
citizens to be used as a responsive and cost-efficient alternative to judicial
proceedings. The ombudsman is one of the less commonly used mechanisms
employed by federal agencies to provide the public conduit. The Canadian provincial
governments, on the other hand, established a strong, visible ombudsman to protect
fairness and justice in the administration of government policy a few decades ago.
American history, with the use of the federal public ombudsman, is one marked by
inconsistency and a lack of statutory mandate or authority.
Jurisdiction and Powers. Notable differences exist in the jurisdiction and
powers involving the two organizations evaluated as part of this research.
Ombudsman Ontario is responsible for serving as the Office of last resort over the
338
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
majority of provincial organizations. Currently, the Office conducts complaint
inquiries involving over 23 Ministries, including Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs;
Community and Social Services; Finance; Municipal Affairs and Housing; Natural
Resources; Solicitor General and Correctional Services; and Transportation. Each
Ministry has an expansive number of agencies and programs serving as a microcosm
of the types of broad public services representative of an American state or the federal
government. Given the unique needs of the Province's diverse population, these type
of broad public programs and services pose challenges to the Ombudsman in terms of
staff qualifications, knowledge of governmental services, and the ability to provide
advisory support. In comparison, the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman must have indepth knowledge of three major Corporation programs: insurance, supervision
(including safety, soundness, and consumer rights), and receivership management.
Subject-matter expertise and advisory support is primarily limited to financial
regulatory issues.
As previously noted, Ombudsman Ontario has been given the authority to
conduct investigations, develop and conduct “Own Motion” investigations, subpoena
in support of an investigation, and seize files. The later two powers are rarely used.
However, they serve to insure the authorities needed to perform as the “office of last
resort” in the investigation of maladministration about governmental ministries,
boards, agencies, commissions and Tribunals. The FDIC Office of the Ombudsman's
powers are limited. The Ombudsman strives to bring people together through the
339
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
informal resolution process and must rely heavily on the powers of persuasion and
neutrality. The Ombudsman does not possess the authority to issue findings or make
decisions or judgments. The function has limited investigatory authority.
Governmental Structure. One key difference involves the placement of the
positions within the governmental structure. As a member of the Legislature, the
Ombudsman Ontario has served with all of Canada’s primary parties. As an
appointed official, the incumbent serves a term appointment and reports directly to
the Speaker. This placement of the Ombudsman insures a greater level of political
and positional independence. The FDIC Ombudsman reports to the Deputy Vice
Chairman, is two levels below the Chairman. This placement insures independence
from the other Corporation Divisions and programs but limits access to the Board of
Directors.
Level of Activities. Finally, the activities of both organizations demonstrate
fundamental differences in scope and clarity of responsibility. The Ombudsman
Ontario serves as the office of last resort that investigates and resolves complaints of
maladministration about provincial governmental ministries, agencies, commissions
and Tribunals. The Office investigates incoming complaints and issues involving over
28 ministries and specific provincial agencies, which provide a comprehensive range
of government services for the provincial populace. The majority of the Office's
activities involve informal complaint resolution and formal investigations on a wide
range of service concerns. From 1998 to 1999, this support translated to assistance
340
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with approximately 5,000 verbal complaints and inquiries and 10,000 written
complaints and inquiries that came into the Office about ministries and agencies over
which the Ombudsman maintains jurisdiction. The FDIC Office of the Ombudsman,
on the other hand, provides service to one financial regulatory organization. The
majority of staff support serves as a general information resource to the public. The
Office performs public relations outreach for the FDIC leadership, often supporting
information resource activities such as theY2K issue, proposed FDIC regulatory
actions, and general updates of interest to the banking industry and members of the
public. Another critical role of the Office includes the provision of feedback to
Corporation management about emerging issues impacting employees and other
constituent groups. No clearly defined investigatory role exists for the Office, and it
is designed to focus on informal complaint or issue resolution.
Providing the Research Results
The results of each rapid assessment were provided to the Ombudsman
Ontario and the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman during the week of September 13,
1999. Each Ombudsman was provided the first three chapters, which lay the research
context, and the chapter relevant to their organization. Additionally, each
Ombudsman was provided a top-level briefing that provided a synopsis of the key
findings associated with the rapid assessment. These briefings addressed the original
research questions, the types of variables explored, the research methodology, the
results of the rapid assessment (including key findings, suggestions for alternative
341
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assessment tools, and recommendations for outcome measures), and the initial
comparative information about the two organizations. These briefings are included in
Appendices 2 and 3.
The researcher met with the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman’s Acting
Ombudsman on September 17, 1999, to review the briefing and key information from
the chapters. The Acting Ombudsman concurred with many of the findings and
presented them at a national meeting of the headquarters and regional FDIC
ombudsman during the week of September 27, 1999. He expressed satisfaction with
the usefulness of the data, since it focused on several issues with which he had been
wrestling, such as the need to enhance internal organizational communications, build a
stronger performance-based management system, and the need for feedback
mechanisms. In a subsequent discussion on October IS, 1999, the Acting
Ombudsman noted that, as a result of the evaluation, he began a process for eliciting
feedback from constituent groups. At a recent conference for FDIC examiners in the
Division of Compliance and Supervision, the Office of the Ombudsman sponsored a
booth and offered a prize raffle for employee examiners who completed a survey
about the Office. He was pleased with the results, with hundreds of employees taking
the time to offer feedback about their knowledge and use of the Ombudsman and their
perceptions about the service. The staff are continuing to look into creative ways for
polling members of the three constituent groups about their experiences with the
Office. He commented that the research helped him conduct his own critical analysis
342
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and was satisfied with the evaluation results. Three minor corrections to the narrative
about the Office were proposed, and all were incorporated into the final text.
Ombudsman Ontario was provided three copies of the draft chapters for the
Ombudsman, the Executive Director, and the Manager for Complaints Analysis. The
consolidated feedback from the Manager of Complaints Analysis was provided in a
telephone conversation on October 14, 1999. He indicated that he liked the format
and the content. He also noted that the key findings were relevant to the Office. He
emphasized that the findings related to the need for expanded communications
strategies, and political relationships were viable, but some were impacted by
statutory requirements (such as the Annual Report). The findings represented those
areas which he would put on his own “wish list” for Ombudsman Ontario's
consideration and as key change initiatives. The Manager reported in the October
discussion that other reviewers expressed their concern about integrating stakeholder
needs into evaluation and strategic management initiatives due to the need for
Ombudsman independence from political agendas. One minor editorial change was
requested and was incorporated into the text.
On November 11, 1999, the researcher received additional feedback from the
Acting Ombudsman. She disagreed with several of the opinions identified by other
respondents in the interviews. We discussed several editorial changes and updates
which she offered for consideration; in some cases, where appropriate, recommended
343
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
changes were made. Additionally, she surfaced several concerns about my findings.
The key points of the discussions are as follows:
—Regarding the recommendation for improving relationships with Members
of Parliament through such processes as political outreach, she noted that the
Ombudsman has periodic meetings with the MPP's and annual meetings with the
Legislative Interns. The Ombudsman meets quarterly with the Legislature's Standing
Committee members and regular meetings are held with the constituency assistants.
—Regarding the recommendation of a systemic strategic management
framework, the Acting Ombudsman commented that the Office has a framework in
place that links goals, outcomes, measures and results together. She reported that the
Strategic Plan provided to the researcher represents a public plan that is a w y
general, top-level document; it does not identify performance measure and desired
results, However, the Executive Director produces a detailed annual workplan which
ties the strategic management process together. It is a confidential document that
cannot be shared because it would be in violation of the Act's confidentiality
provisions.
—Regarding the need for a systemic process for program evaluation, the
Acting Ombudsman indicated that the Office has built an evaluation program. The
fact that the Ombudsman has developed an effort to build an evaluation process has
been noted throughout the research. However, there is no evidence that the use of
stakeholder consultation has been utilized in the effort.
344
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
—Finally, she indicated that the Office hired an individual to conduct
environmental scans in the September/October 1999 time frame.
Future Research Implications
This research was significant for several reasons. The research provided an
opportunity to explore the connectivity between increased government access and the
degree of citizenry satisfaction with their government, as compared to stakeholders
and ombudsman professionals. A meaningful comparison was able to be drawn from
the assessment that proved to be relevant for both the federal and international
ombudsman environments. Results capable of being immediately used by the
respective organizations, and potentially by the wider community of public
ombudsman through design of a relevant assessment methodology, were produced.
At a more practical level, this research effort resulted in the development of a
rapid assessment pilot study that was of use in displaying a rich panorama of insights
centered on a number of variables from the three respondent groups. Alternative
tools for assessing the programs were offered, as were suggestions for outcomes and
outcome measures.
This research initiative lay the groundwork for additional research into the
employment of evaluability assessments as the foundation for building future program
evaluations. Further probing into the issue of the public ombudsman’s demonstration
o f value is worthy of future research. Determining ombudsman accountability to the
public and programmatic “worth” would benefit from being evaluated through a
345
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
rigorous research methodology. Issues such as stakeholder advocacy, perceptions of
fairness and equity, and public/constituent satisfaction with the government as a result
of the ombudsman function are inextricably linked to the further exploration of
ombudsman effectiveness.
What are the key questions for future research?
1. Evaluation of the Ombudsman Office:
—Does the use of evaluability assessment result in a substantive
evaluation of the ombudsman office?
—How is the ombudsman best able to demonstrate value and
contribution?
—What tools can be employed to measure the unintended consequences
or intangible costs associated with the ombudsman function?
—What political challenges are faced by involving stakeholders in building
the performance-based management process when the position must be neutral and
transparent to political influences?
—What opportunities and examples are available to encourage
ombudsman collaboration in building “best practices” and “benchmarks” of the bestin-class processes and methodologies?
—What business processes would enhance the public ombudsman
effectiveness and efficiency, including information management; budgeting, planning
and control; forecasting; decision support; and system design?
346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
—What external and internal assessment processes hold the most
relevance to the public ombudsman in such projections as the future trends in
populace need or in demographic composition, governmental services, or emerging
issues?
2. Focusing the Ombudsman's Role
—What opportunities and examples are available to improve integration
and communication between the ombudsman and the public agencies and offices over
which they have oversight in order to optimize informal resolution?
—Does a case exist for evolving the ombudsman role from one concerned
with administrative fairness of governmental services and procedures to one
concerned with natural justice of governmental actions?
Conclusion
The essence of democratic governance lies in the visible evidence of how
people are treated. The sense of fairness, equity, and dignity perceived by members
of the public in their dealings with the government establish the foundation for
democratic participation, engaged citizenship, and satisfaction. The public
ombudsman serves as a powerful tool for democracy by ensuring a government that
affords dignity and responsive public service to the populace. The public ombudsman
gives a voice to individuals or groups who have concerns about government policies,
programs, services, or operational philosophies. That voice is extended to members
of the public who are often most in need of governmental assistance. As Canada’s
347
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
first ombudsman in the Manitoba province noted prior to his retirement in 1982:
“Bureaucracy is impenetrable to the humble working man who doesn’t understand the
system” (Maltby, as quoted by The Canadian Press, 1999). The ombudsman can
provide a critical role in establishing public accountability mechanisms that improve
the quality of government. Democratic systems are well-served by including the
public ombudsman with clearly defined jurisdictions, mandated powers, and a purpose
that advances democratic avenues of access and redress for the populace.
Waldo (1980) observes that complexities associated with the graying of public
and private roles and the lack of moral inquiry associated with many governmental
actions in the Twentieth Century require that ethical dilemmas be addressed in new
ways. Perhaps one of the suggestions includes a thoughtful examination of the tools
used by the government to demonstrate accountability to members of the public and
to the core principles underpinning democratic governance. The public ombudsman is
a mechanism that can help to identify ethical abuses and malfeasance within
governmental agencies and programs.
The role, as evidenced by Ombudsman Ontario and the FDIC Office of the
Ombudsman, represents the best of what democratic government provides its
citizenry in terms of recourse and redress for concerns and issues. Likewise, the
ombudsman role is notably strengthened by the systematic assessment of its
effectiveness and services through a program of rigorous evaluation. The value and
348
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
contribution of the ombudsman community is well-served by a commitment to
explore its own practices, results, and impacts.
349
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abel, Albert S. (1968). Commonwealth Constitutional Complications. In Donald C.
Rowat (Ed.), The Ombudsman: Citizen's defender (2d ed.) (pp. 281-287).
London: Allen and Unwin.
Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) (1990). The ombudsman in
federal agencies: Recommendation 90-2. Washington, DC (photocopy).
________ (1991). The ombudsman: A primer for federal agencies. Research paper
in Administrative Law. Washington, DC (photocopy).
Agence France Press (1998, September 4). Child rights defenders urge action
against Internet pom . Worldwide Web.
AgranofF, Robert, & Radin, Beryl A. (1991). The comparative case study approach
in public administration. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Research in public
administration: A research annual (Vol. 1, pp.203-231). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
American Bar Association (1911, April). Information item update and status o f ad
hoc ombudsman committee project. Available: http://www/abanet.
Anderson, David R., & Stockton, Diane M. (1991, Summer). Federal ombudsmen:
An underused resource. The Administrative Law Journal, 5 (2), 275-345.
________ (1990). Ombudsmen in federal agencies: The theory and the practice.
Research paper. Washington, DC: ACUS.
Anderson, Stanley V. (Ed.) (1968). Ombudsman for American government?
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
(Anonymous, 1999, August). Report offers bold agenda to improve citizen trust in
government. PA Times, 22 (8), 1, 7.
350
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ashton, Carolyne (1996, May/June). Evaluation: Why it’s worth the pain. National
Institute of Dispute Resolution News, 3 (3), 1, 7-8.
Aufrecht, Steven E., & Hertogh, Marc (1999). Ombudsman evaluation. Paper
prepared for the Working Group for the Ombudsman, The International
Institute for Administrative Sciences, Brussels, Belgium.
Bailey, Mary Timney (1994). Do physicists use case studies? Thoughts on public
administration. In Jay D. White and Guy B. Adams (Eds.), Research in public
administration (pp. 183-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Barber, Benjamin (1985). Strong democracy. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Behn, Robert D. (1995, July/August). The big questions of public management.
Public Administration Review, 55 (4), 313-324.
Bellone, Carl J., & Goerl, George Frederick (1992, March/April). Reconciling public
entrepreneurship and democracy. Public Administration Review, 52 (2)
(March/April), 130-134.
Bingham, Lisa B., & Wise, Charles R. (1994). The Alternative Dispute Resolution
Act o f1990: How do we evaluate its success? Paper presented at the annual
conference o f the Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution, Dallas,
Texas.
Blake, Robert R. & Mouton, Jane Srygley (1984). Solving costly organizational
conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bozeman, Barry, & Bretschneider, Stuart (1994, April). The “publicness puzzle” in
organization theory: A test of alternative explanations of differences between
public and private organizations. Journal o f Public Administration Research
and Theory, 4, 197-223.
Box, Richard C. (1998). Citizen governance: Leading America's communities into
the 21“ Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Breslin, J. William, & Rubin, Jeffrey Z. (Eds.) (1993). Negotiation theory and
practice (2d ed.). Cambridge, MA: The Program on Negotiation Books.
351
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Brisban, Richard A., Jr., & Hunter, Susan (1990, Fall). Alternative dispute resolution
and the serial formulation of policy: A study of a state consumer protection
agency. Policy Studies Journal, 19 (1) 22-39.
Bryson, John M. (1995). Strategic planningfor public and nonprofit organizations.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Burton, John, & Dukes, Frank (Eds.) (1990). Conflict: Readings in management
and resolution. Houndmills, UK: The MacMillan Press.
Burton, John W. (1993). On the need for conflict prevention (Occasional Paper
No. 1). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Institute for Conflict Analysis
and Resolution.
Bush, Robert, Baruch A., & Folger, Joseph P. (1994). The promise o f mediation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Caiden, Gerald E. (1991). Administrative reform comes o f age. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Caiden, Gerald E. (Ed.) (1983). International handbook o f the ombudsman: Country
surveys (Vol. 2). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
________ (1983). International handbook o f the ombudsman: Evolution and
present function (Vol. 1). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
________ (1991, November/December). What really is public maladministration?
Public Administration Review, 51 (6), 486-493.
Canadian Ombudsman Association (1999). A Federal ombudsman for Canada.
Unpublished document. Toronto, Ontario. Available:
http://www/ombudman.on.ca.
Canadian Press, The (1999, June 17). Manitoba’sfirst ombudsman dies. Available:
dcallen@law.ualberta.ca.
Camevale, David G. (1999, June). Conflict, alternative dispute resolution, and public
administration. PA Times, 22 (6), 3-7.
Carpenter, Susan L., & Kennedy, W. J. D. (1988). Managing public disputes. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
352
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Carr, Frank (1993, August). Alternative dispute resolution: A deliberative process to
establish an organizational program. Federal Bar News and Journal, 40 (7) ,
444-447.
Caudle, Sharon L. (1994). Using Qualitative Approaches. In Joseph S. Wholey,
Harry P. Hatry, & Kathryn E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook o f practical
program evaluation (pp. 69-95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Central Office of Information (1996). Government and the individual: The citizen’s
means of redress. London: HMSO.
Chelimsky, Eleanor (1994). Making evaluation units effective. In Joseph S. Wholey,
Harry P. Hatry, & Kathryn E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook o f practical
program evaluation (pp. 493-509). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
________ (1991, October). On the social science contribution to governmental
decision-making. Science, 254, 226-231.
Churchman, David (1995). Negotiation: Process, tactics, theory. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, Inc.
City of Detroit. Office of the Auditor General (1984). The Detroit Ombudsman: An
assessment o f community impact. Detroit, MI (photocopy).
City of Detroit, Office of the Ombudsman (1998). Ombudsman biennial report: July
1993-June 1995. Detroit, MI (photocopy).
Cleveland, Harlan (1988, May/June). Theses of a new reformation: The social fallout
of science 300 years after Newton. Public Administration Review, 48, 681-
686.
Comptroller of the Currency (1997). Report o f the ombudsman: 1995-1996.
Washington, DC (photocopy).
Connell, James P., & Kubisch, Anne C. (1997, January). Evaluating complex
community initiatives using a “theories of change” approach. Forum (32), 6-
10.
Cooper, Terry L. (1984). Public administration in an age of scarcity: A citizenship
role for public administration. In Jack Rabin & James S. Bowman (Eds.),
Politics and administration (pp. 306-309). New York: Marcel Dekker.
353
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(1987, July/August). Hierarchy, virtue, and the practice of public
administration: A perspective for normative ethics. Public Administration
Review, 47, 320-328.
Coser, L. (1956). The functions o f social conflict. New York: Free Press.
Costantino, Cathy A. (1992). FDIC uses spectrum of ADR options to resolve.
Federal Bar News and Journal, 39 (9), 324-327.
Costantino, Cathy A., & Merchant, Christina Sickles (1994, July). How to set up an
ADR program. Government Executive, 26 (7), 44-45.
Costantino, Cathy A., & Merchant, Christina Sickles (1996). Designing conflict
management systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
CPR Model ADR Procedures and Practices Series (1994). ADR cost savings and
benefits studies. New York: CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution.
________ (1994). Multiparty ADR & cost-effective practices. New York: CPR
Institute for Dispute Resolution.
Dachler, H. Peter, & Wilpert, Bernhard (1978, March). Conceptual dimensions and
boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 75-113.
Danet, Brenda (1978, November). Toward a method to evaluate the ombudsman
role. Administration and Society, 10 (3), 335-370.
Dean, Debra L. (1994). How to use focus groups. In Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P.
Hatry & Kathryn E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook ofpractical program
evaluation (pp. 338-349). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Denhardt, Robert B. (1990). Public administration theory: The state of the
discipline. In Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky (Eds.), Public
Administration (pp. 43-72). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
_________ (1992, March/April). Morality as an organizational problem. Public
Administration Review, 52 (2), 104-105.
________ (1993). The pursttit o f significance. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
354
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
________ (1993). Theories o f public organization. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
________ (1994, July). Critical theory revisited. Journal o f Public Administration
Research and Theory, 4 (3), 417-421.
________ (1999, February 16). Public administration in the age o f Dilbert. Speech
presented at meeting of University of Southern California and Washington
Evaluator’s Group, Washington, DC.
Dilulio, John D. (1994, July). Principled agents: The cultural bases of behavior in a
federal government bureaucracy. Journal o f Public Administration Research
and Theory, 4 (3), 277-318.
Dispute Systems Design Working Group (1993). Performance indicators for ADR
program evaluation. Research paper sponsored by the Administrative
Conference of the United States (ACUS). Washington, DC.
________ (1995). Evaluating ADR programs. Research paper sponsored by the
Administrative Conference of the United States. Washington, DC.
Douglas, J. D. (1976). Investigative social research: Individual and team field
research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Emery, Fred, & Emery, Merrelyn (1976). A choice o f futures, to enlighten or inform.
Hague: Nijhoff.
Feagin, Joe R., Orum, Anthony M., & Sjoberg, Gidion (Eds.) (1991). A Case for the
case study. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Federal Benchmarking Consortium (1997). Serving the American public: Best
practices in one-stop customer service. Study Report. Available:
httpWwww.npr.gov.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (1996). The FBI's ombudsman program.
Washington, DC (photocopy).
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (1994, September 23). Public Law 103-325
Section 309. The Riegle Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
355
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(1998). A model for developing an ombudsman function. Unpublished
manual. Washington, DC.
(1998). FDIC Ombudsman '97. Annual Report of the FDIC Office of the
Ombudsman. Washington, DC.
(1998). FDIC Strategic plan 1998-2003. Washington, DC.
(1998). Headquarters Telephone Service to the Public and Financial
Industry. Project Report. Washington, DC.
(1998, December 18). Office of the Ombudsman third quarter 1998
report (memorandum). Washington, DC.
(1999). FDIC Ombudsman 1998: A Retrospective. Annual Report of the
FDIC Office o f the Ombudsman. Washington, DC.
(1999, February 25). Interview with Denise Lindsey-Parker, Senior
Ombudsman Specialist, FDIC Office of the Ombudsman. Washington, DC
(tape recording).
(1999, February 25). Interview with Antoniette Pavone, Senior
Ombudsman Specialist, FDIC Office of the Ombudsman. Washington, DC
(tape recording).
(1999, February 25). Interview with Leslie Crawford, Deputy
Ombudsman, FDIC Office of the Ombudsman. Washington, DC (tape
recording).
(1999, March 4). Interview with Arleas Upton Kea, Ombudsman, FDIC
Office of the Ombudsman. Washington, DC (tape recording).
(1999, March 6). Interview with Michael Turpenoff, Ombudsman
Specialist, FDIC Office of the Ombudsman. Washington, DC (tape
recording).
(1999, May 18). FDIC News Release. Washington, DC (PR-24-99,
photocopy).
(1999, June 22). Interview with Andrew Hove, Vice Chairman, FDIC.
Washington, DC (tape recording).
356
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
________(1999, June 22). Interview with Dennis Geer, Deputy Chairman and Chief
Operating Officer, FDIC. Washington, DC (tape recording).
________(1999, June 25). Telephone interview with William Parker, President,
West Texas State Bank (tape recording).
________ (1999, July 2). Telephone interview with Sharon Allen, Department Head
of Customer Service, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, FDIC
Dallas Regional Office (tape recording).
________ (1999, July 15). Interview with Deana Nichelson, Executive Director,
American League o f Financial Institutions. Washington, DC (tape recording).
________ (1999, July 15). Interview with Norma Hart, President, National Banker’s
Association. Washington, DC (tape recording).
________ (1999). Ombudsman automated tracking system: User Manual. Version
1.0. Washington, DC.
________ (1999). Office o f the Ombudsman 1999 annual performance plan.
Washington, DC.
Financial Services Education Coalition (n.d.). Helping people in your community
understand basic financial services. Guidebook developed for community
educators, in conjunction with numerous federal and private organizations.
Washington, DC.
Fisher, Roger, Kopelman, Elizabeth, & Schneider, Andrea Kupfer (1994). Beyond
Machiavelli. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fisher, Roger, & Ury, William (1981). Getting to yes. London: Penguin Group.
Folger, Robert, & Greenberg, Jerald (1985). Procedural justice. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 3, 141-183.
Frederickson, H. George (1982, November/December). The recovery of civism in
public administration. Public Administration Review, 42, 501-508.
________ (1991, February). Toward a theory of the public for public administration.
Administration and Society, 22, 395-417.
________ (1992, October). Painting a bull’s-eye around bullet holes. Governing, 13.
357
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
________ (1992). Toward a New Public Administration. In Jay M. Shafritz &
Albert C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics o f Public Administration (3d. ed., pp. 368-
381). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. (Original work
published in 1971.)
________ (1994, November 3-5). American public administration: Pushing things
up to their first principles. Paper presented at Fall meeting for the National
Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC.
________ (1996, September/October). Can public officials correctly be said to have
obligations to future generations? Public Administration Review, 54 (5), 457-
464.
________ (1996, May/June). Comparing the reinventing movement with the new
public administration. Public Administration Review, 56 (3), 263-270.
Frederickson, H. George, & Hart, David K. (1985, September/October). The public
service and the patriotism of benevolence. Public Administration Review, 45,
547-553.
Futter, Victor (1990, November). An answer to the public perception of
corporations: A corporate ombudsperson? The Business Lawyer, 46, 29-56.
Gellhom, Walter (1966). When Americans complain: Governmental grievance
procedures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glaser, Barney G., & Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). The discovery o f grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing.
Goldberg, Stephen B., Green, Eric D., & Sander, Frank E. A. (1985). Dispute
resolution. Boston: Little Brown and Co.
Goldberg, Stephen B., Sander, Frank E. A., & Rogers (1992). Dispute resolution:
Negotiation, mediation, and other processes (2d ed.). Boston: Little, Brown
and Company.
Golembiewski, Robert T. (1969). Organization Development in Public Agencies:
Perspectives on theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 29, 7-
377.
________ (1992, March/April). Excerpts from “Organization as a moral problem.”
Public Administration Review, 52 (2), 95-98.
358
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(1992, March/April). Organization is a moral problem: Past as prelude to
present and future. Public Administration Review, 52 (2), 99-103.
(1996, March/April). The future of public administration: End of a short
stay in the sun? Or a new day a-dawning? Public Administration Review, 56
(2), 139-148.
Goodsell, Charles (1990). Emerging issues in public administration. In Naomi B.
Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky (Eds.), Public Administration (pp. 495-512).
Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
________ (1994). The Case for bureaucracy (3d. ed.). Chatham, NJ: Chatham
Publishers, Inc.
Graham, Jill W. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 1-52.
Gray, Barbara (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration.
Human Relations, 38 (10), 911-936.
________ (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greening, Daniel W., & Gray, Barbara (1994). Testing a model of organizational
response to social and political issues. Academy o f Management Journal, 37
(3), 467-498.
Gregory, Robert J. (1999, January/February). Social capital theory and administrative
reform: Maintaining ethical probity in public service. Public Administration
Review, 59 (1), 63-75.
Guba, Egon S., & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Guess, George M. (1989). Comparative and international administration. In Jack
Rabin, W. Bartley Hildreth & Gerald J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook o f public
administration. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Hall, Lavina (Ed.) (1993). Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain. Newbury Park,
CT: Sage Publications.
359
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, & Jay, John (1961). In Clinton Rossiter (Ed.),
The Federalist papers (No. 51, Madison, pp. 323-324). New York: Mentor.
(Originally published in 1788.)
Hill, Larry B. (1982, February). The citizen participation-representation roles of
American ombudsmen. Administration & Society, 13 (4), 405- 433.
________ (1992). The state of the public bureaucracy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe,
Inc.
________ (1997). American ombudsmen and others; or American ombudsmen and
“wannabe ” ombudsmen. Address delivered to the American Bar Association,
Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, Washington, DC.
________ (1998, November 10). Institutionalizing a bureaucratic monitoring
mechanism: The first thirty Years of Hawaii's ombudsman. Paper presented
at the 1998 Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association,
Boston, MA, revised.
Himes, J. (1980). Conflict and conflict management. Athens, GA: University of
Georgia Press.
Hoffman, Eileen Barkas, & Wagner, John A. (1993, October). Courtbusters.
Government Executive, 25 (10), 29-33.
Honeyman, Christopher (1995). Financing Dispute Resolution. Washington, DC:
National Institute for Dispute Resolution.
House of Commons of Canada (1964). An Act to establish the Office o f
Parliamentary Commissioner (2nd session, 26th Parliament). 13 Elizabeth n,
Bill C-7.
Inter Press Service The (1999, June 18). Rights-Columbia: Ombudsman condemns
FARC fo r massacre. Worldwide Web.
Internal Revenue Service (1997). Problem resolution service (briefing).
Jabbra, Joseph, & Dwivedi, O. P. (1988). Public service accountability. West
Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
360
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kaboolian, Linda (1998, May/June). The new public management: Challenging the
boundaries o f the management vs. administration debate. Public
Administration Review, 58(3), 189-193.
Kamensky, John M. (1996, May/June). Role of the “reinventing government”
movement in Federal management reform. Public Administration Review, 56
(3), 247-255.
Kaufman, Herbert (1992). Administrative decentralization and political power. In
Jay M. Shafritz & Albert C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics o f public administration
(3d ed., pp.339-352). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
(Original work published in 1969).
Kelly, Marisa, & Maynard-Moody, Steven (1994). Policy analysis in the
postpositivist era: Engaging stakeholders in evaluating the economic
development district’s program. In Jay D. White & Guy B. Adams (Eds.),
Research in public administration (pp. 197-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Kettl, Donald F. (1995). Performance measurement, benchmarking, and
reengineering. Testimony provided to the United States House of
Representatives, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology,
Washington, DC.
King, Cheryl Simrell, & Stivers, Camilla (1998, July/August). Government is us: The
citizen-govemment connection. Public Administration Times, 21 (4), 1, 6.
King, Cheryl Simrell, Feltey, Kathryn M., & O’Neill-Susel, Bridget (1998). The
question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public
administration. Public Administration Review, 58 (4,), 317-326.
Kirlin, John J. (1995). What government must do well: Creating value in society.
Version 1.05 of draft article, Sacramento, California (photocopy).
________ (1996, September/October). The big questions of public administration in
a democracy. Public Administration Review, 56 (5), 416-423.
Kolb, Deborah M., & Associates (1994). When talk works. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers.
361
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kramer, Henry S. (1998). Alternative dispute resolution in the workplace. New
York: Law Journal Seminars-Press.
Kravchuk, Robert S., & Schack, Ronald W. (1996, July/August). Designing effective
performance measurement systems under the Government Performance and
Results Act. Public Administration Review, 56(4), 348-358.
Kressel, Kenneth, & Pruitt, Dean G. (1989). Mediation research. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc.
LaPorte, Todd R., & Metiay, Daniel S. (1996, July/August). Hazards and
institutional trustworthiness: Facing a deficit of trust. Public Administration
Review, 56 (4), 341-347.
Levine, Charles (1984). Citizenship and service delivery: The promise of
coproduction. Public Administration Review, 44, 178-187.
Llambias, Henry J. (1983). Canada: Introduction. In Gerald E. Caiden (Ed.),
International handbook o f the ombudsman (Vol. 2, pp. 27-34). Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Lowery, David (1993, April). A bureaucratic-centered image of governance: The
Founder's thought in modem perspective. Journal o f Public Administration
Research and Theory, 3 (2), 182-208.
Madigan, Denise, McMahon, Gerard, Susskind, Lawrence, & Rolley, Stephanie
(1990). New approaches to resolving local public disputes. Washington,
DC: National Institute for Dispute Resolution.
March, J., & Olsen, J. (1995). Democratic governance. New York: Free Press.
Marshall, Catherine, & Rossman, Gretchen B. (1995). Designing qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McCauley, Cynthia D., Moxley, Russ S., & Van Velsor, Ellen (Eds.) (1998).
Handbook o f leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
McGregor, Eugene B. (1984). The great paradox of democratic citizenship and
public personnel administration. Public Administration Review, 44, 126-132.
Meier, Kenneth J. (1993). Politics and the bureaucracy (3rd. ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
362
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Meltzer, D. Leah (1996). Federal Workplace Ombuds. Research paper prepared for
the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), Washington,
DC.
Mihm, J. Christopher (1996, Winter). GPRA and the new dialogue. The Public
Manager, 24(4), 15-18.
Milakovich, Michael E. (1995, Fall). Improving customer service in government.
The Public Manager, 24 (3), 5-9.
Miles, Matthew B., & Huberman, A. Michael (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2d.
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mills, Jon (1983). The ombudsman in the American constitutional, legal, and political
structure. In Gerald E. Caiden (Ed.), International handbook o f the
ombudsman (Vol. 2, pp. 209-215). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
Mill, John Stuart (1993). [From] Considerations on representative government. In
Patricia Smith (Ed.), The nature and process of law (pp. 115-119). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, Deborah, Rasmussen, Michelle, Scollard, Andy, & Yates, Fred (1991). A
study o f satisfaction with the Ombudsman’s Office among citizens. Juneau,
Alaska: Ombudsman Office (photocopy).
Mintzberg, Henry (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: The
Free Press.
________ (1996). Managing government, governing management. Harvard
Business Review, 74 (3), 75-83.
Mitchell, Roger, Stevenson, John, & Florin, Paul (1997, January). Managing conflict
and generating partnerships among stakeholders in the evaluation process.
Forum 32, 1-5.
Mitchell, Terence R., & Scott, William G. (1987, November/December). Leadership
failures, the distrusting public, and prospects of the administrative state.
Public Administration Review, 47, 445-452.
Moe, Ronald C. (1994). The reinventing government exercise: Misinterpreting the
problem, misjudging the consequences. Public Administration Review, 54
(2), 111- 122.
363
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Moe, Ronald C., & Gilmour, Robert S. (1995, March/April). Rediscovering
principles of public administration: The neglected foundation of public law.
Public Administration Review 55 (2), 135-146.
Morand, Donald (1983). In Gerald E. Caiden (Ed.), International handbook o f the
ombudsman (Vol. 2, pp. 53-72). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Morgan, Douglas, Bacon, Kelly G., Bunch, Ron, Cameron, Charles D., & Deis,
Robert (1996, July/August). What middle managers do in local government:
Stewardship of the public trust and the limits of reinventing government.
Public Administration Review, 56(4), 359-366.
Mosher, Frederick C. (1982). Democracy and the public service (2d. ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press.
National Institute for Dispute Resolution (1992). National survey findings on public
opinion towards dispute resolution. Prepared by The Wirthlin Group.
Washington, DC: NIDR.
________ (1992). Resolving disputes in nursing homes: A collaborative approach.
Washington, DC: NIDR.
________ (1993). The transboundary initiative: Inventory o f activities.
Washington, DC: NIDR.
________ (1994). Statewide offices o f dispute resolution: Initiating collaborative
approaches to dispute resolution in state government. Authored by Kristen
L. Dillon. Washington, DC: NIDR.
________ (1995). Performance-based assessment. The Test Design Project.
Washington, DC: NIDR.
National Performance Review (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a
government that works better and costs less. Washington, DC: NPR.
(1997). Putting Customers First '97. Database on-line. Available:
httpWwww.npr.gov.
_________(1997). Serving the American public: Best practices in customer-driven
strategic planning. Database on-line. Available: httpWwww.npr.gov.
364
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
________ (1998). High performance agencies: A background paper. Database online. Available: httpWwww.npr.gov.
Newcomer, Kathryn E. (1996). Evaluating public programs. In James L. Perry (Ed.),
Handbook o f public administration (pp. SSS-S73). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Newcomer, Kathryn E., & Downey, Amy (1998, Winter). Performance-based
management: What is it and how do we get there? The Public Manager, 26
(4), 37-40.
Ombudsman Ontario (n.d.). Biography—Roberta Louise Jamieson. (Photocopy)
________ (1991). Public opinion survey. (Photocopy)
________ (1996). Annual report 1995/96.
________ (1996). Ombudsman fairness standards. (Photocopy)
________ (1996, November 27). Ombudsman's response to recommendations o f the
standing committee (photocopy). Submitted by Ms. Roberta Jamieson to the
Legislative Assembly.
________ (1996, November 27). Remarks to the Standing Committee on the
Ombudsman report (photocopy). Speech by Ms. Roberta Jamieson to the
Standing Committee, Toronto, Ontario (photocopy).
________ (1996). Serving with equity: Report of a journey.
________ (1996). Transforming our organization. (Photocopy)
________ (1997). Annual report 1996/97.
________ (1997, September 17). Remarks to the Standing Committee on the
Ombudsman concerning the case report in the matter o f Mr. H and the
Ministry of Finance. Speech provided by Ms. Roberta Jamieson to the
Standing Committee, Toronto, Ontario (photocopy).
________ (1997). Restructuring Ombudsman Ontario. (Photocopy)
________ (1998). Annual report 1997/98.
365
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(1998). Complaints resolution manual
(1998, Spring). Connection Newsletter.
(1998, Summer). Connection Newsletter.
(1998). Protocol between Ombudsman Ontario and the Family
Responsibility Office for the handling o f Ombudsman Ontario inquiries.
(Photocopy)
(1998). Strategic plan 1998-2001. (Photocopy)
(1999). Annual report 1998/99.
(1999). Client survey questionnaire. (Photocopy)
(1999, Summer). Connection Newsletter.
(1999, July 8). Interview with Amita Shunglu, Ombudsman
Representative, Ombudsman Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (tape recording).
(1999, July 8). Interview with Christine Angus-Jones, Investigator,
Ombudsman Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (tape recording).
(1999, July 12). Interview with Bev Folkes, Executive Director, Black
Inmates and Friends Assembly. Toronto, Ontario (tape recording).
(1999, July 12). Interview with David Reville, President, David Reville
and Associates. Toronto, Ontario (tape recording).
(1999, May 11). Interview with Dianne King, Systems Specialist,
Ombudsman Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (notes).
(1999, July 9). Interviews with Duncan Newport, Complaint Resolution
Manager, Ombudsman Ontario. Tape recording and notes, Toronto, Ontario
(tape recording and notes).
(1999, May 12). Interview with Elizabeth Weston, Investigator,
Ombudsman Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (notes).
(1999, May 13). Interview with Eva Kalisz, Client Access Center Team
Leader, Ombudsman Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (notes).
366
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
_______ (1999, May 11 & July 13). Interviews with Fiona Crean, Executive
Director, Ombudsman Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (tape recording and notes).
_______ (1999, July 9). Interview with Francois Beliveau, Client Access
Representative, Ombudsman Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (tape recording).
_______ (1999, July 29). Interview with Giles Moran, Former Member of
Provincial Parliament, Ontario Province, Canada. Ottawa, Ontario (tape
recording of telephone conversation).
________(1999, August 10). Interview with John Rabeau, Deputy Minister of the
Solicitor General and Correctional Services, Ontario Province, Canada.
Toronto, Ontario (tape recording of telephone conversation).
________(1999, May 12). Interview with Kathy Penfold, Investigator, Ombudsman
Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (notes).
________(1999, May 12). Interview with Lise Corbeil, Complaint Resolution
Manager, Ombudsman Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (notes).
________(1999, May 12). Interview with Michael Orr, Senior Policy Analyst,
Ombudsman Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (notes).
________(1999, May 11 & July 13). Interviews with Roberta Jamieson,
Ombudsman, Ombudsman Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (tape recording and
notes).
________ (1999, May 11). Interview with Robin Bosworth, Ombudsman
Representative, Ombudsman Ontario. Toronto, Ontario (notes).
________ (1999, July 8). Interview with Tim Arkell, Team Leader, Ontario
Ombudsman. Toronto, Ontario (tape recording).
________ (1999). Training program. (Photocopy)
________ (1999). Survey final report. Draft by Arkelon Research. (Photocopy)
Ombudsman Act (1990). Regulation 865, Chapter 0.6, Sec 1-28. Toronto, Ontario
(photocopy).
367
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Oosting, Martin (1995, September 14). The ombudsman and his environment: A
global view. Weir Memorial Lecture presented to the Faculty of Law,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
O’Sullivan, Elizabethann, & Rassel, Gary R. (1989). Research methods fo r public
administrators. New York: Longman.
Overman, E. Sam, & Boyd, Kathy J. (1994, January). Best practice research and
postbureaucratic reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 4, 67-83.
Osborne, David, & Gaebler, Ted (1992). Reinventing government. New York:
Plume.
Patton, Michael Quinn (1986). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
________ (1982). Practical evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
________ (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation (3d. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Peal, C. Wayne (1999). Strategies for success. Government Executive, 31 (7), 68-
74.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (1998). Deconstructing distrust.
Washington, DC.
Pflaum, A., & Delmont, T. (1987). External scanning: A tool for planners. Journal
o f the American Planning Association, 53 (1), 56-67.
Poister, Theodore H., & Streib, Gregory D. (1999, March). Strategic management in
the public sector. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22 (3), 308-
325.
Posavac, Emil J., & Carey, Raymond G. (1997). Program evaluation: Methods and
case studies (5th. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pruit, Dean G., & Rubin, Jeffrey Z. (1986). Social conflict. New York: McGrawHill Publishing Company.
368
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Putnam, Robert D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modem
Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
________ (1993, Spring). What makes democracy work. National Civic Review, 82,
101- 107.
Putt, Allen, & Springer, J. Fred (1989). Policy Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Radin, Beryl A. (1998). The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA):
Hydra-headed monster or flexible management tool? Public Administration
Review 58 (4), 307-315.
Redford, Emmett S. (1969). Democracy in the administrative state. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Reichardt, Charles S., & Cook, Thomas D. (Eds.) (1979). Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.
Reuters Limited (1999, June 21). Philippine police chief charged with graft.
Worldwide Web.
Rimmerman, Craig A. (1997). The new citizenship: Unconventional Politics,
activism, and service. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Rist, Ray C. (Ed.) (1990). Program evaluation and the management o f government.
New Brunswick, CT: Transaction Publishers.
Roberts, Alasdair (1997, November/December). Performance-based organizations:
Assessing the Gore plan. Public Administration Review, 57 (6), 465-478.
Robertson, Peter J. (1995, January). Involvement in boundary-spanning activity:
Mitigating the relationship between work setting and behavior. Journal o f
Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 73-98.
Rogers, Thomasina V., Chair (1995). Toward improved agency dispute resolution
implementing the ADR Act. Report on agency implementation of the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act for ACUS. Washington, DC
(photocopy).
369
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rohr, John (1986). To Run a Constitution. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas
Press.
Ross, Marc Howard (1993). The Culture of conflict. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
_________(1993). The management o f conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Roth, Carolyn (1997). Overcoming the research/practice/evaluation gap. Forum, 32,
19-22.
Rowat, Donald C., & Llambias, Henry J. (1968). In Donald C. Rowat (Ed.), The
Ombudsman: Citizen's Defender (2d. ed., pp. 186-193). London: George
Allen and Unwin LTD.
_________(1985). The ombudsman plan. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
________ (1996, May 15-18). A worldwide survey o f ombudsman. Draft paper
prepared for the First North American Conference of Ombudsman
Associations, St. Louis, Missouri.
Rowe, Mary P. (1987, April). The corporate ombudsman: An overview and analysis.
Negotiation Journal, 3, 127-135.
________ (1995, April). Options, functions, and skills: What an organizational
ombudsperson might want to know. Negotiation Journal, 11 (2), 103-114.
Saltzstein, Grace Hall (1992). Explorations in bureaucratic responsiveness. In Larry
B. Hill (Ed.), The State o f the Public Bureaucracy (pp. 171-189). Armonk,
NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
Sandel, Michael J. (1996). Democracy’s discontent. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap
Press.
Sanders, James R. (1997, January). Evaluation as a collaboration among funders,
implementers and other stakeholders. Forum 32, 15-18.
Sandole, Dennis J. D., & van der Merwr, Hugo (Eds.) (1993). Conflict resolution
theory and practice. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
370
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Schachter, Hindy Lauer (1995, November/December). Reinventing government or
reinventing ourselves: Two models for improving government performance.
Public Administration Review, 55 (6), 530-537.
Scheirer, Mary' Ann (1994). Designing and using process evaluation. In Joseph S.
Wholey, Harry P. Hatry & Kathryn E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of
practical program evaluation (pp. 40-68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Selznick, Philip (1992). The cooptative mechanism. In Jay M. Shafritz & Albert C.
Hyde (Eds), Classics o f public administration (3d. ed., pp. 171-178).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. (Original work published in
1949).
Serra, George (1995, April). Citizen-initiated contact and satisfaction with
bureaucracy: A multivariate analysis. Journal o f Public Administration
Research and Theory, 5, 175-188.
Shadish, William R., Jr., Cook, Thomas D„ & Leviton, Laura C. (1991).
Foundations o f program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Silverman, David (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage Publications.
Singer, Linda R. (1994). Settling disputes (2d. ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Staby, Hans-Erik (1998, September 11). Dealing with corruption. Originally
published in The Namibian. Worldwide Web.
Stake, R. E. (1975). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation
(occasional paper No. 5). Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University
Evaluation Center.
Stivers, Camilla (1990, May). The public agency as polis: Active citizenship in the
administrative society. Administration and Society, 22 (1), 86-105.
Strauss, Anselm, & Corbin, Julie (1990). Basics o f qualitative research. Newbury
Park: Sage Publications.
Susskind, Lawrence, & Field, Patrick (1996). Dealing with an angry public. New
York: The Free Press.
371
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Thomas, Craig W. (1993). Reorganizing public organizations: Alternatives,
objectives, and evidence. Journal o f Public Administration Research and
Theory, 3, 457-486.
Thomas, John Clayton (1999, January/February). Bringing the public into public
administration: The struggle continues. Public Administration Review, 59 (I),
83-88.
Thompson, Dennis (1970). The democratic citizen. London: Cambridge University
Press.
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1981). [From] Democracy in America. In Frederick C.
Mosher (Ed.), Basic literature o f American public administration, 1787-1950
(pp. 29-45). New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc. (Original work
published in 1900).
Tolchin, Susan J. (1996). The angry American. Boulder: Westview Press.
Uhr, John (1999). Institutions of integrity. Public Integrity 1 (1), 98.
Umbreit, Mark S. (1995). Mediating interpersonal conflicts. West Concord, MA:
CPI Publishing.
United States Congress (1990, November 20). An Act: To establish a framework for
the conduct of negotiated rulemaking by federal agencies. Public Law 101-
648. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1996). Final report on the review
o f the Times Beach Site. Washington, DC: Office of the Ombudsman
(photocopy).
United States General Accounting Office. (1990). Case study evaluations. Transfer
Paper 10.1.9. Washington, DC.
________ (1990). Handbook on mediation. Prepared by Center for Dispute
Settlement (Civil Rights Office). Washington, DC: GAO.
________ (1990). Case Study Evaluations. Program Evaluation and Methodology
Division. (GAO/PEMD-IO.1.9, 1990.) Washington, DC: GAO.
372
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
________ (1991, May). Designing evaluations. Program Evaluation and
Methodology Division. (GAO/PEMD-10.1.4, May 1991). Washington, DC:
GAO.
________ (1991). Using structured interviewing techniques. Program Evaluation
and Methodology Division. (GAO/PEMD-10.1.5, July 1991.) Washington,
DC: GAO.
________ (1996). Executive guide: Effectively implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act. (GAO/GGD-96-118). Washington, DC:
GAO.
________ (1997). Managing for results: Analytic challenges in measuring
performance. Washington, DC: GAO.
United States Office of Personnel Management and Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (n.d.). ADR resource guide. Course material associated with
Officer of Personnel Management’s Western Executive Seminars series.
United States Ombudsman Association (undated). Public sector ombudsman.
(Photocopy, p. 1.)
________ (1996). Bylaws, as amended between February 14, 1980- May 15, 1996.
________ (1997). Model ombudsman act for state governments.
United States President (1993, October 4). Executive Order: Regulatory planning
and review of September 30, 1993, Executive Order 12866. Federal Register
58 (190), 51735-51744. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vogelsang-Coombs, Vera (1997, November/December). Governance education:
Helping city councils learn. Public Administration Review, 57 (6), 490-500.
Waldo, Dwight (1980). The enterprise of public administration. Novato, CA:
Chandler and Sharp Publishers.
________ (1984). The administrative state (2d. ed). New York: Holmes & Meier
Publishers.
Weimer, David L., & Vining, AidanR. (1992). Policy analysis: Concepts and
practice (2d ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
373
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Weiss, Carol H. (1992). Purposes of evaluation. In Jay M. Shafritz & Albert C.
Hyde (Eds.), Classics o f public administration (3d. ed., pp. 397-405).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. (Original work published in
1973).
________ (1998). Evaluation (2d. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weitzman, Eben A., & Miles, Matthew B. (1995). Computer programs for
qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Whelan, Robert K. (1989). Data administration and research methods in public
administration. In Jack Rabin, W. Bartley Hildreth & Gerald J. Miller (Eds.),
Handbook o f public administration (pp. 657-682). New York: Marcel
Dekker, Inc.
Wholey, Joseph S. (1979). Evaluation: Promise and performance. Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute.
________ (1983). Evaluation and effective public management. Boston: Little
Brown and Company.
________ (1987). Using program theory in evaluation. In Leonard Bickman (Ed.),
New directions for program evaluation (pp. 77-92). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
________ (1994). Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In
Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry & Kathryn E. Newcomer (Eds.).
Handbook of practical program evaluation, (pp. 15-39). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
________ (1999, March). Performance-based management. Public Productivity and
Management Review, 22 (3), 288-307.
Wholey, Joseph S., Hatry, Harry P., & Newcomer, Kathryn E. (Eds.) (1994).
Handbook o f practical program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Wildavsky, Aaron (1992). The self-evaluating organization. In Jay M. Shafritz &
Albert C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics o f public administration (3d ed., pp. 382-
396). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. (Original work
published in 1972).
374
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Wilensky, Harold L. (1967). Organizational intelligence. New York: Basic Books,
Inc.
Wilson, Ian (1994). Strategic planning isn’t dead—It changed. Long Range
Planning 27 (4), 12-24.
Wilson, James Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books.
________ (1993). The moral sense. New York: The Free Press.
________ (1995). New politics, new elites, old publics. In Marc K. Landy & Martin
A. Levin (Eds.), The new politics o f public policy (pp. 249-267). Baltimore,
MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
________ (1995). Political organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Wilson, S. (1977). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research.
Review o f Educational Research 47, 245-265.
Worthen, Blaine R., Sanders, James R., & Fitzpatrick, Jody L. (1997). Program
evaluation (2d. ed.). New York: Longman Publishers.
Yin, Robert K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (2d ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
________ (1994). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, C A: Sage
Publications.
Ziegenfuss, James T. (1988). Organizational troubleshooters. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
375
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIXES
376
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX 1
BRIEFING: DRAFT RESULTS OF THE OMBUDSMAN ONTARIO'S
RAPID ASSESSMENT
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Draft Report
BUILDING AN EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
FOR ASSESSING
THE PUBLIC OMBUDSMAN
- DRAFT RESULTS OF THE
OMB UDSMAN ONTARIO’S RAPID ASSESSMENT -
Research conducted by
Barbara D. Male
9 September 1999
Draft Results'.
The Ombudsman Ontario Rapid Assessment
♦ Research Presentation
- The Questions that were Explored
» Types of Information Explored
- The Methodology
» The Five-Step Assessment Process and Methodology Information
- Results of Rapid Assessment
» Key Findings
» Suggestion for Alternative Assessment Tools
» Recommendations for Outcome Measures
- Initial Comparative Information about the Two
Case Studies
378
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Questions that Were Explored
♦ Public satisfaction with their government through interactions with the
Ombudsman?
♦ Greater access to government through interaction with the Ombudsman?
♦ How was resolution of complaint/issue perceived?
♦ Has the Ombudsman been able to affect changes to government and
programs by use of organizational diagnosis?
♦ What factors emerge in a comparative analysis of the public ombudsman
between a Canadian and U.S. government organization?
Types of Information Explored
• D escrip tio n o f O ffice:
Service Delivery, jurisdiction, scope,
professional qualifications, functional
organization, use of perform ance
inform ation, key challenges
• E ffectiveness an d E fficiency n f
C n m n lain t n r Issue R esnlutinn:
N ature of outcomes, effect on
environm ent, costs, timeliness, intangible
benefits, unintended consequences, and
• Perceptions regarding Access: esternal relationships
Ease o f accessibility, involvement in
comm unity, responsiveness to need,
known use by others, outreach. • P ercep tio n s re g ard in g C h an g es to
O overnm ew t/P rngram s;
Use of trend analysis, observable im pacts
on policies and program s, and
communication o f trends
technologies used
• Perceptions regarding Satisfaction:
w ith the process, the O m budsm an's
interpersonal relationship, outcomes,
results o f service, and communications
379
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
The Methodology
♦ Developed and pilot>tested an assessment
framework with potential for evaluating the
public ombudsman
The 5-Step Assessment Process___________
1) Collection of New Program Data (Interviews)
2) Collection of Existing Data (Documents)
3) Preliminary Assessment
4) Suggestions for Alternative Assessment Tools
5) Recommendations for Outcome Measures
Prim ary Source o f Data Collection:
- Interview Data from T hree Respondent G roups
- Docum ent Analysis
380
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Methodology Information
♦ Unstructured Interviews occurred between 11 M ay - 10 A ugust 1999
- Eleven form al interviews (ranging in tim e from 25-90 m inutes)
» 7 with staff, 2 with stakeholders, 2 citizen representatives
» citizen perceptions augmented by 1999 survey responses
» nine involved face-to-face interviews; two interviews conducted by
phone
» all formal respondents recorded
- T w elve inform al discussions with staff
- Full set o f transcripts and field notes m aintained
- O ver tw enty-five Office docum ents reviewed
Key Findings
• Professional com m itm ent of
Staff clearly evident - eag er to
discuss wide range of issues
• Office is cap tu rin g critical data
related to timeliness a n d responsiveness
• Key challenge o f Office: balancing
im partiality w ith need for expanded
political com m unications & relationships
• Ability to resolve is im pacted by
relationships and is dependent on attributes
o f individual staff m em bers
• Need for recu rrin g outreach to
m em bers o f Legislative Assembly
♦ Systemic changes a n d trend diagnosis
would benefit from g re a te r comm unication
and im pact evaluation to M PP’s and leaders
o f provincial governm ent
♦ Perceptions o f satisfaction with the
Office not as - regarded as o th er variables
- dependent on the individual’s
satisfaction w ith the resolution finding
♦ G enerally perceived th at the O m budsm an
ultim ately restores public confidence in
governm ent and dem onstrates comm itm ent to
accountability - w ould benefit from a
system atic evaluation process tied to goals,
outcomes, results and ultim ately value
381
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Suggestions for Alternative Assessment Tools
♦ Development of a comprehensive strategic management framework that links
goals & strategies (developed in conjunction with key stakeholders),
performance measurement system, outcomes and results.
♦ Use of environmental assessments to systematically identify emerging trends for
Ontario populace and government.
♦ Use of stakeholder analysis, to gain insight into areas of Ombudsman
performance deemed to be important, of no value, etc.
♦ Development of a performance measurement system with strong linkage between
what is measured and desired results.
♦ Development of evaluation process tied to performance-based management
system - beginning with an evaluability assessment.
♦ Expansion of the strategic communications plan to include internal and political
communications.
♦ Use of focus groups.
♦ Development of staff competencies in area of performance-based management.
Recommendation of Outcomes Measures
♦ Recommended developing a set o f measures tied to three main
categories:
(1) Measuring Effects in Individuals Served
- additional variables in survey .post-investigation or resolution
fesdback.ftnal disposition o f case, focus groups, advisory panels
(2) Measuring Effects on Government Organizations
- expanded communication o f trend analysis, outreach/educatioonal
activities w ith political and public service leadership
(3) Measuring Effects on the Public
- Cross-governm ent feedback mechanism (survey)
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX 2
BRIEFING: DRAFT RESULTS OF THE FDIC OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN'S RAPID ASSESSMENT
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Draft Report
BUILDING AN EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
FOR ASSESSING
THE PUBLIC OMBUDSMAN
- Draft Results o f the FDIC Office o f the
Ombudsman’s Rapid AssessmentResearch conducted by
Barbara D. Male
17 September 1999
Draft Results:
The FDIC Office of the Ombudsman’s Rapid Assessment
♦ Research Presentation
- The Questions that were Explored
» Types of Information Explored
- The Methodology
» The Five-Step Assessment Process and Methodology Information
- Results of Rapid Assessment
» Key Findings
» Suggestion for Alternative Assessment Tools
» Recommendations for Outcome Measures
- Initial Comparative Information about the Two
Case Studies
384
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited without permission
The Questions that Were Explored
♦ Public satisfaction with their government through interactions with the
Ombudsman?
♦ Greater access to government through interaction with the Ombudsman?
♦ How was resolution of complaint/issue perceived?
♦ Has the Ombudsman been able to affect changes to government and
programs by use of organizational diagnosis?
♦ What factors emerge in a comparative analysis of the public ombudsman
between a Canadian and US. government organization?
Types of Information Explored
• Description o f Office:
Service Delivery, scope, professional
qualifications, functional organization, use
o f perform ance inform ation, training, key
challenges. Office resources
• Perception* regarding Access;
Ease o f accessibility, involvement in
community, responsiveness to need,
outreach, technology tools
• Perceptions regarding Satisfaction:
w ith the process, the Om budsm an’s
in ter and external relationships, outcomes,
results o f service, and communications
• E ffectiveness e n d E fficiency o f
C om plaint o r Issu e R esolution;
N ature of outcom es, cfliect on
environm ent, m anagem ent
feedback, effecting public confidence,
costs, timeliness, a n d duplicative efforts
• Perceptions regarding C hanges to
G overnm ent/Program s:
Use o f trend analysis, observable im pacts
on policies and program s, and
communication o f trends
385
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Methodology
♦ Developed and pilot-tested an assessment
framework with potential for evaluating the
public ombudsman
The 5-Step Assessment Process__________
1) Collection of New Program Data (Interviews)
2) Collection of Existing Data (Documents)
3) Preliminary Assessment
4) Suggestions for Alternative Assessment Tools
5) Recommendations for Outcome Measures
Primary Source of Data Collection:
- Interview Data from Three Respondent Groups
- Document Analysis
386
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Methodology Information
* Unstructured Interviews occurred between 14 December -15 July 1999
- Eleven formal interviews (ranging in time from 20 >70 minutes)
» 5 with staff, 3 with stakeholders, 3 constituents (banking industry)
» citizen perceptions augmented by “Brag Book” letters
» seven involved face-to-face interviews; four interviews conducted
by phone
» all formal interviews recorded
- Two informal discussions with staff
- Full set of transcripts and field notes maintained
- Over thirty Office documents reviewed
Key Findings
• Office of the Ombudsman serves the
needs of FDIC leadership well —
fulfills many organizational roles
• Perceptions of duplicative efforts
identified in assessment - explore role
clarification, especially peruining to
FDIC employee constituency
• All agreed on importaoee of
demonstrating value through
artieulating results and impaets on
FDIC and constituents
• Systemic changes and trend diagnosis
would benefit from greater
communication and impact evaluation to
FDIC leadership, to include senior
management team throughout
• Positive agreement related to degree organization
of aecess to Ombudsman services
• Constituent satisfaction, and the
evaluation of elfcetiveness and
efficiency, would benefit from
• Standards for service responsiveness
would aid evaluation of Office
performance
feedback mechanicau that provide a
comprehensive picture of support and
• Divergent perceptions pertaining to the
level of performance measurement noted -
ranging from a sense of‘known value’ to
a sense that contribution is unknown
to gauge the quality of support
387
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Suggestions for Alternative Assessment Tools
♦ Develop a performance-based management program that articulates
desired results and performance expectations - build more externallyfocused outcomes for focus.
♦ Need for feedback mechanisms from stakeholders, constituent groups
and FDIC Offices and programs
- surveys, use of focus groups, community forums, advisory panels
♦ Need to develop tool for process management - should depict how
products and services are delivered, bow constituent needs are
addressed by Office and FDIC, and explore areas of perceived
duplication
« Compile •benchmarks'and ‘bestpractices' to draw from exemplars
♦ Develop staff competencies in area of performance-based management
♦ Development of evaluation process tied to performance-based management
system - beginning with an evaluability assessment.
Recommendation of Outcomes Measures
♦ Recommended developing a set of measures tied to three
main categories:
(1) Measuring Effects in Individuals Served
- constituent-satisfaction indices, feedback, service gaps,
measures of timeliness and cost associated with resources expended on
other alternatives
(2) Measuring Effects on Government Organizations
- changes in policies and procedures, facilitative support,
communication mechanisms within FDIC
(3) Measuring Effects on the Public
- FDIC-wide feedback mechanism to capture constituent
perceptions about service
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Initial Comparative Info about Two Case Studies
KEY
characteristics'
O B b id iu i ,FDicpfflcctribe'.,.
.^Ontario '■ -
* Cam
Groap
Rcpertiag Cbaia
Cases ia 1991 ;
(resolution)
Employees •: '
Age of Office
Powen of Office
L*. *• ”•
•. .V tji • v r *v**
Mcmbm tftfce • f f nMic,a>
« W - j^U nldif^Bdw ^aFD IC
% 1:1: .* ... ; ^ Employes _v*(*r ,
•*’ . ^v/-. * ■■
Chief Operating Officer '
; -36,943 “ '
■ -(not available) -t.'V •" • : i
Speaker of the Legislative
Assembly (Parliament)
29,396 ' . -r.'. :
98%.:':
• . i- • !.■ 9 5 :;- ‘ •
24 yean -
subpoena, lavtstigatioas, .
own motion 'lavenigatioah ••
'record seisaniij-.^frsirs > v,
4ytan
389
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
Assessing ombudsman performance: Two case studies in North America
Conceptually similar
PDF
Federal mentor -protege programs: A pilot study on protege survival and growth
PDF
Defending against bioterrorism: Lessons from the 2001 anthrax attacks
PDF
An analysis of third -party regulatory audit systems for medical device safety
PDF
A preliminary assessment of the influence of certain variables on the implementation of recommendations by scientific -technical advisory committees
PDF
A search for theory: Performance management to improve transportation safety
PDF
An organizational history of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: A critical comparison of administrative decision making in two pivotal eras
PDF
A comparative study of administrative corruption in ancient and modern China
PDF
Comparative study of organizational commitment in the public and private sectors: The case of transportation agencies in Thailand
PDF
Internal venturing in public agencies
PDF
A configuration study of multiagency partnerships as practiced in Taipei City government
PDF
Assessing United States information assurance *policy response to computer -based threats to national security
PDF
Ideologies and champions: Universal Service from Congress to your telephone bill
PDF
Determining acceptable seismic risk: A community participation-based approach
PDF
"Focused free thinking" in military intelligence analysis: Lessons from best practices
PDF
Getting 'how' and 'why' straight: A critical discourse analysis of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government's ideological discourse on information and communication technologies
PDF
Conversion of health care organizations from non -profit to for -profit status
PDF
"Are we really in charge?": An analysis of the principal -agent relationship
PDF
Executive development and effectiveness: A study of mobility assignment experiences of career executives in federal research and development agencies
PDF
Shortcomings of institutional reform in public sector governance: the case of Kyrgyzstan
PDF
Interoperability among complex defense computer -based systems: The Navy case
Asset Metadata
Creator
Male, Barbara Detrick
(author)
Core Title
Assessing ombudsman performance: Two case studies in North America
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Public Administration
Degree Program
Public Administration
Degree Conferral Date
1999-12
Publication Date
12/09/1999
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Caiden, Gerald (
committee chair
), Aristigueta, Maria (
committee member
), Barkdoll, Jake (
committee member
), Wholey, Joseph (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-209482
Unique identifier
UC11334814
Identifier
3073732.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-209482 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Male
Dmrecord
209482
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Male, Barbara Detrick
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
political science