The International Ombuds Association outlines four fundamental principles that buttress the practice of organizational ombuds. They include independence, impartiality, informality, and confidentiality. I would like to talk a little about what confidentiality is and why it is such an important part of any ombuds office.
According to the IOA’s Code of Ethics, confidentiality “is the defining characteristic of Ombuds practice.” That bold claim centers confidentiality at the core of what it means to be an Ombuds. Confidentiality allows visitors to be completely open with the Ombuds, which gives the Ombuds a better perspective from which to suggest options. To get the most out of visiting the office, openness from both the visitor and the Ombuds is essential, and confidentiality facilitates that openness.
According to the IOA’s Standards of Practice (to which UNLV’s Ombuds Office adheres), the identity of people who seek assistance from the Ombuds, as well as all communications with them, are considered confidential information. That means that not only will the content of your discussions with the Ombuds remain confidential; the fact that you met at all with the Ombuds will.
Confidentiality means that I’m not allowed to tell people outside the office who is specifically meeting with me or what they are talking about. It doesn’t, however, mean that the business of the office remains completely opaque to those outside it. As the IOA’s Standards of Practice note, it is permissible (and even encouraged) for the Ombuds to provide non-confidential information about the office “in any appropriate forum.” This would include discussing in general terms the work of the office, including in places like this blog. Ombuds are also specifically empowered to share “data, trends, or reports in a manner that protects confidential information.”
The Office’s annual and quarterly reports, for example, share data in a way that protects confidential information. As you can see by looking at them, they summarize the general demographics of those who visit the office and report on general topics of discussion, but never with a level of specificity that would make it easy to surmise who in particular visited. If, in any organization, I tell you that some people are not happy with the way that their supervisor communicates with them, I’m not narrowing it down that much, am I? (Supervisor/supervisee communication has remained at the top of the list of issues brought to the Office.) By reporting on the general trends, the campus community has an idea of whether the office is serving its constituents.
I also think that regular reports from the Ombuds Office—and public communications like this one—may help erase some of the uncertainty around it. After all, if you don’t know exactly who is being seen in the Office, how do you know that you are welcome? The answer is, you are, but I understand that having more information about the Ombuds Office may help ease doubts about what it does.
One of the most important questions I get—and usually the second thing I discuss with any visitor—is whether there are any exceptions to confidentiality. Under the IOA standards that we have incorporated into UNLV’s Ombuds Office, there are four potential reasons that confidentiality might be breached.
The first is if a visitor gives express permission to the Ombuds to do so. For example, one of the techniques in the Ombuds toolbox is “shuttle diplomacy.” While two parties may not feel comfortable speaking directly to each other, they may be willing to “negotiate” an informal resolution to their disagreement through an intermediary. If someone wants to go this route, I specifically tell them that this requires breaching confidentiality, and get their agreement on what exactly I am permitted to share. I would never reveal all the details of our entire discussion, but would only disclose that the visitor had asked me to approach the other person with a specific request or piece of information. And before going down this route, I am careful to review all options with the visitor, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each. Similarly, while Ombuds doesn’t advocate for individuals, there may be occasions where I might be able to assist in an informal resolution of a procedural or administrative issue. In these cases, I ask for permission to share the issue before doing so.
The second potential reason for breaching confidentiality is if, in the Ombuds’ judgment, failure to do so could result in the imminent risk of serious harm. This includes unreported child or elder abuse and the imminent threat of harming oneself or others.
The third exception to the confidentiality standard is if the Ombuds is compelled by “an appropriate judicial or regulatory authority” to disclose information either “to prevent a manifest injustice” or because “the interests served by the disclosure clearly outweigh the interests served by ombuds confidentiality.”
The fourth reason that an Ombuds may be compelled to breach confidentiality is if it is necessary to defend the Ombuds themselves or the Office against a formal complaint of professional misconduct.
Outside of those narrow exceptions, you can feel secure that your confidentiality is being zealously safeguarded. I don’t have any statistical information on how often Ombuds are forced to breach confidentiality, but my conversations with my colleagues internationally suggest that many Ombuds go their entire career without doing so. In other words, if you don’t want the Ombuds to share what you have discussed, it is extremely unlikely that they would have to do so.
Confidentiality is the bulwark of an Ombuds practice, and one that bolsters the other three fundamental principles. It is the first thing I discuss with a new visitor to the Office, and is, I think, the biggest difference between visiting an Ombuds and utilizing other channels for conflict resolution.
The confidentiality afforded by the Ombuds Office allows you to discuss, with a neutral third party, your conflict, issue, or complaint, with no possibility of it escalating beyond your control. I see it as a chance for you to take a “time out” from whatever is bothering you, and to get another perspective. And that confidentiality lets the Ombuds ask you questions and discuss options that might otherwise be difficult.
All this is my way of reassuring you that we take confidentiality seriously in the Ombuds Office, working every day to ensure it. So, if you have any issue you want to discuss, you can rest secure that your meeting will remain private. With no barriers to meeting, and no downside outside of an hour you might have spent doing something else, now may be the time to make an appointment. My door is open.
David G. Schwartz
UNLV Ombuds