University of California San Diego
Office of the Ombuds
Fiscal Year 2026 Annual Report
Conflict is not a sign of organizational dysfunction — it is a natural byproduct of bringing diverse perspectives, priorities, and personalities together toward shared goals. What separates high-performing organizations from struggling ones is not the absence of conflict, but the courage and competency to navigate it constructively.
For nearly 25 years, the Office of the Ombuds has proudly helped UC San Diego harness the potential for growth born in conflict, by providing a safe, confidential space for our visitors to explore options and resolve disputes.
In FY2026 (July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026), the UC San Diego Office of the Ombuds logged 318 cases, continuing a decade-long pattern of steady, and generally growing, demand for confidential, informal conflict resolution support. In 10 of the last 11 years — including FY2026 — Evaluative Relationships (conflicts rooted in supervision, evaluation, and the power dynamics between supervisors and employees or faculty and students) has been the single largest category of concern, representing 31.5% of FY2026's categorized cases, followed by Services/Administrative Issues (25.6%) and Peer and Colleague Relationships (16.7%).
The Office of the Ombuds is staffed by experienced, credentialed practitioners dedicated to providing confidential, informal conflict resolution support to the UC San Diego community.
Nicholas “Nick” Raichart (he/him/his) is an organizational ombuds with more than twelve years of experience helping students, faculty, and staff navigate conflict across the campus community. He holds a Juris Doctor and a Master of Dispute Resolution, with a background in education law advocating for parents of children with special needs. Earlier in his career, he served as a mediator in the Los Angeles Superior Court system and supported international graduate students at the Consulate General for the State of Kuwait.
A certified Crucial Conversations trainer, Nick has led workshops across campus on topics ranging from cognitive bias to its role in interpersonal conflict. Since 2020, he has taught a course on the organizational ombuds at the USC Gould School of Law. He has also served the International Ombuds Association as Conference Sponsorship Chair.
At the heart of his work is a commitment to helping people recognize the internal narratives that fuel conflict—and to creating spaces where safe, honest communication can take place.
Outside of work, Nick enjoys making music, cycling, and spending time with his partner and their two children.
Nick is a member of the International Ombuds Association and the California Bar Association.
Anthony (he/him/his) is a Certified Organizational Ombuds, seasoned student affairs professional, educator, and mediator — having served in multiple roles on multiple campuses, including, most recently, as Associate Ombuds at UC Santa Cruz and before that at UC San Diego, where he served for 8 years in residential life leadership roles supporting inclusive student community development with initiatives for student residents, including graduate students and students with dependents.
Anthony has a master’s degree in Dispute Resolution from the University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, and has served as a mediator for non-profit organizations and in private practice. He also has a master’s degree in Higher Education/Student Affairs from New York University, and a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from UC Riverside. He has also taught the “Mediation: Theory & Practice” course at USC Gould School of Law.
Anthony has a passion for helping universities support welcoming spaces for students, staff, academic employees, and the entire campus community.
Sue joined the Office of the Ombuds in February 2006. Sue currently serves as the initial point of contact for the office. Her career in education has spanned over three decades. She has worked extensively with both domestic and international students, scholars, parents, faculty, staff and administrators. Prior to joining UC San Diego, Sue served as Executive Assistant and Student Services Coordinator for Graduate Law Programs and Designated School Official (DSO) for the University of San Diego School of Law and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Sue received her Bachelor of Science in Business Management from San Diego Christian College and earned her Master of Arts degree in Leadership Studies from the University of San Diego’s School of Leadership and Education Sciences (SOLES) in 2008.
Sue is a member of the International Ombuds Association (IOA) and member of the International Leadership Association (ILA).
The Office of the Ombuds provides a confidential, independent, neutral, and informal resource for members of the UC San Diego community — consistent with the Standards of Practice of the International Ombuds Association (IOA), the professional body whose Uniform Reporting Categories are used to classify case data throughout this report.
The IOA Uniform Reporting Categories are a standardized taxonomy used by ombuds offices across higher education, corporate, and government settings to classify the issues visitors bring forward. Cases are sorted into nine top-level categories — such as Evaluative Relationships, Peer and Colleague Relationships, and Legal/Regulatory/Financial and Compliance — each with detailed lettered subcategories beneath it (for example, 2f Bullying/Mobbing within Evaluative Relationships). This shared framework, referenced throughout this report, lets the office track trends over time and benchmark patterns against peer institutions, all without compromising the confidentiality of any individual visitor.
A typical case moves through the stages below. Times are illustrative and vary by complexity — hover or tap any step for a typical time spent and a short description.
The office serves the full UC San Diego community — faculty, staff, academic personnel, postdoctoral scholars, students and trainees. Although not specifically chartered to serve patients, the office responds to such inquiries with referrals to appropriate resources.
FY2026 cases by constituent group. Staff and Student/Trainees together account for about 73% of cases; the balance is spread across Faculty, Academic Personnel, Patients, Family members, and Post-Docs.
The online scheduler went live in July 2026, and the effect shows up immediately. The office handled 113 cases in the first quarter of FY2027 (July–September 2026), about 41% above the 80 cases the office typically saw in those same three months over the previous four years.
Annual case volume had been climbing at roughly 12 cases per year, a trend that points to about 338 cases in FY2027 even without the scheduler. The first quarter suggests the office is running well above that line. Two simple projections bracket the likely total: a low estimate of about 342 cases (the first-quarter total of 113 plus the typical remaining nine months, which lands almost exactly on the existing trend) and a high estimate of about 435 cases (the first quarter scaled up at its usual share of the year, about 26%). A projection between the two, about 388 cases, would put FY2027 roughly 15% above the trend line and about 29% above the five-year average of roughly 301 cases (FY2022–FY2026).
Annual cases by fiscal year, FY2016–FY2026, with the FY2027 projection. The dashed line is the linear trend fitted to FY2016–FY2026 (before the scheduler) and extended into FY2027. The FY2027 point is a projection, not an actual, and assumes the first-quarter increase persists; it will be revisited as more months are recorded.
Among other achievements this year, the Office of the Ombuds is proud to present its first-ever official logo:
Two voices, one shared space. The cyan and gold speech bubbles are two people, each with their own perspective. Their tails point in opposite directions (one down-left, one up-right), which suggests they started from different places. Where they overlap is the heart of the mark.
The navy center is the ombuds. Where the bubbles meet, the color becomes a third, distinct shade instead of a blend. That is a visual statement of neutrality: the office isn’t cyan or gold, doesn’t belong to either side, and exists where people come into contact. The overlap also forms an “O,” so it doubles as the initial of the office’s name.
The three dots. Read left to right, the white dots form an ellipsis, the “…” of a conversation still in progress or someone composing a reply. That fits informal resolution well: the work is about keeping dialogue open rather than closing it with a verdict. The dots can also read as faces or eyes, so the mark feels human and attentive, a reminder that the office listens before it does anything else.
Venn diagram logic. The structure is essentially a Venn diagram: common ground isn’t imposed from outside, it’s found in the space the two parties already share. That echoes the ombuds role of helping people find what they have in common rather than deciding who’s right.
Thank you to Senior Designer Joshric Aurea of UC San Diego’s A.S. Graphic Studio, who designed our new logo.
From April 2–5, 2006, the newly formed International Ombuds Association (IOA) held its first-ever annual conference — “Anchors Aweigh: Charting a New Course for Organizational Ombuds” — right here in San Diego, hosted jointly by the La Jolla Marriott and UC San Diego. The conference brought together ombuds practitioners from higher education, corporate, and government settings to help establish the shared Standards of Practice that still guide the profession today. This year marks the 20th anniversary of that milestone gathering — a fitting moment to reflect on two decades of growth in the ombuds profession, and on this office's own role in helping shape it from the very beginning.
A note on what a "case" represents: each case is a discrete issue or inquiry brought to the office, not a headcount of visitors — a single case may involve, and be raised by, more than one person (e.g. both parties in a dispute), and typically represents several hours of dedicated ombuds staff time across intake, appointments, research, and follow-up.
Case volume (counted from the case-number field) has risen steadily over the past decade, with a peak of 334 cases in FY2025. The dashed line shows the linear trend across these ten closed fiscal years.
Evaluative Relationships (supervisor–employee and faculty–student dynamics) has been the top issue area, as a share of categorized cases, in 10 of the last 11 years since FY2016. The one exception is FY2024, where Services/Administrative Issues narrowly edged ahead. Services/Administrative Issues and Peer/Colleague Relationships round out the consistent top three every year.
Staff and Student/Trainee cases have consistently made up the largest share of cases; Patient and Family visits (reflecting UC San Diego Health) have grown as a share since FY2020.
| Issue Area | FY2016 | FY2021 | FY2025 |
|---|
FY2026 case counts by constituent group.
Different populations bring different concerns to the office. In FY2026, Staff cases most often involve Evaluative Relationships concerns (44% of their categorized cases), while Student/Trainee cases most often involve Services/Administrative Issues (41%) — pointing to distinct underlying drivers (supervisory dynamics for employees; administrative process friction for students).
Most FY2026 cases (61%, among those with a recorded source) already knew of the office before their visit — through prior experience, campus knowledge, or word of mouth — underscoring the value of sustained outreach and name recognition over time.
Trend in how cases came to the office, FY2023–FY2026, grouped into categories.
Each IOA top-level category is itself made up of specific, lettered subissues (e.g. "2f Bullying, Mobbing" within Evaluative Relationships). Looking at case data this way — FY2016 through FY2026, 2,607 categorized cases in all — surfaces patterns the top-level categories alone can't show. Each card below lists a category's most common subissues by share of that category's cases, a note on how the mix has shifted from the early decade (FY2016–FY2020) through the middle years (FY2021–FY2025) to FY2026, and a year-by-year line chart of the same three subissues. Categories with small annual case counts (notably Compensation & Benefits, Safety/Health, and Organizational/Strategic) will show noisier year-to-year lines — read those with caution.
Subissue codes come from the IOA Uniform Reporting Categories (v2, Oct. 2007).
Not every case can be shared in detail — confidentiality is central to how this office operates — but the arc of one FY2026 case illustrates the kind of impact this work can have. A graduate student was referred to the office by campus leadership after a breakdown in their relationship with their faculty advisor put their ability to complete their PhD in serious jeopardy. Through a series of confidential conversations, the ombuds helped the student think through their options, clarify what they needed, and develop a plan for engaging their advisor and department more constructively. With the office's support, the student was able to navigate the relationship, stay enrolled, and ultimately graduate.
“I couldn't have done it without the ombuds office.”Actual quote from an ombuds visitor
Members of the UCSD community continue to rise to new and unprecedented challenges, in large part due to our ability to communicate effectively, empathetically, and creatively with one another. In addition to serving as a resource when conflicts arise, the Ombuds Office believes that providing people leaders with the right tools and support for difficult conversations before conflict arises is vital, and is placing a greater emphasis on educational and outreach initiatives for FY2027:
This report defines the fiscal year as July 1 – June 30, labeled by the calendar year in which it ends (so FY2026 runs July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026). Case volume, issue-area, and constituent figures for FY2016–FY2025 are drawn directly from the office's own fiscal-year-labeled workbook tabs, which each already span the corresponding July–June window.
In determining what level of detail to include in this report, we sought to balance leadership's need for actionable information against our obligation to protect the confidentiality of those who bring matters to our attention. We elected to organize findings by issue type and constituency group rather than by individual Vice Chancellor area.
This approach reflects the relative size of each VC area against our current sample sizes. Reporting at the VC-area level risks making individuals identifiable, particularly in units with lower case volumes, and could discourage future reporting. Aggregating by issue type and constituency instead allows us to surface meaningful patterns across campus while preserving anonymity.
Where a pattern is concentrated enough within a specific VC area to warrant that office's direct attention, we are addressing it through individualized feedback to the relevant stakeholders rather than through this report. We believe this protects confidentiality while still ensuring the information reaches those positioned to act on it.