The ombudsman concept has survived 162 years of operations first in the Scandina ian countries, was later developed with some adaptation in the English speaking nations, and has emerged as a unique, efficient, and inexpensive complaint response mechanism for the facile resolution of an individual citizen's complaint. In the United States, however, the potential conflict be tween elected officials and the ombudsman when both attempt to serve the citizen-voter, and other reasons have deterred development of the ombudsman in the United States. But the ombudsman has uniquely de veloped in colleges and universities. Throughout the country there are now approximately 65 campus om budsmen. California appointed 17 campus ombudsmen within a three-year span beginning in 1968. The move ment has not been devoid of difficulties. Characteristi cally, when administrators, faculty, students, and staff are queried about the office, responses are usually sup portive. But differences emerge, particularly regarding financial support. If the ombudsman role remains undefined, confusion will continue and may lead to an early demise, that is to say, the removal of funds for the ombudsman func tion. This article presents a summary of a doctoral dis sertation which probed deeply into the ombudsman issue. Its central concern was what the role ideally should be as compared with what is currently practiced. Included is a statement of the problem, methodology, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The findings should provide some insight for students of the idea and guide lines for initiating an ombudsman on a college or uni versity campus. The study sought to determine the extent of con sensus or dissensus on the role behavior of California campus ombudsmen as perceived by four selected groups: ombudsmen, executive-academic administrators, faculty, students. The focus of concern involved four areas: (1) major duties and among whom performed, (2) conflict management procedures, (3) twenty areas of college activity, and (4) institutional and financial support. Confusion as to ombudsman role has come about in part because of lack of a widely agreed upon role model, in-depth experience, and varied function empha sis from campus to campus. Conflict has been inevitable between principal actors and groups served, faculty leaders, key college officials, and student leaders. Om budsmen have been particularly vulnerable. Their leader ship has diminished. Most serious, the normal and pro fessional growth of the office and, thus, its effectiveness, has been endangered. The term "ombudsman," by its multiplicity of uses, has become diffused and thus weak ened. Additional dangers exist. The term itself can be come easy prey for those wishing to exploit its novelty. It may be captured and placed in the vest pocket of ad ministration, faculty, or students. In California univer sity and college environments, ombudsmen must look carefully at their salary and authority source before expressing a strong criticism or recommending a sub stantive change in the college bureaucracy. Data were collected principally by means of a 29 item questionnaire and interviews. Other sources of information were three years on-the-job experience, a survey entitled "Control Variables of an Ombudsman in an Educational Setting," the literature, and personal interaction with other California campus ombudsmen. The 153 subjects polled included all IS existing Cali fornia campus ombudsmen and more than twice that number of high level administrators, faculty, and stu dents. Wherever an ombudsman was operating, the president, chancellor, or other high-level administrators were included. All selected administrators, faculty, and students must have had a working knowledge of the ombudsman as well as negative and positive contacts with the office.

Ralph Poblano

Papers

The Campus Ombudsman