SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

January 10, 2018 – April 19, 2022 R45071

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman:
Overview, History, and Current Issues
Updated April 19, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R45071

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Summary
The Office of the National Ombudsman, housed within the Small Business Administration
(SBA), was created in 1996 as part of P.L. 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act
of 1996 (Title II, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [SBREFA]).
The office’s primary purpose is to provide small businesses, small government entities (those
serving populations of less than 50,000), and small nonprofit organizations that believe they have
experienced unfair or excessive regulatory compliance or enforcement actions (such as repetitive
audits or investigations, excessive fines, and retaliation by federal agencies) a means to comment
about such actions.
The Office of the National Ombudsman is an impartial liaison that reports small business
regulatory fairness matters to the appropriate federal agency for review and works across
government to address those concerns and reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses.
SBREFA also created 10 Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards, one in each of the SBA’s
10 regions, to advise the National Ombudsman on matters related to federal regulatory
enforcement activities affecting small businesses.
Specifically, the National Ombudsman
 works with each federal agency with regulatory authority over small businesses
to ensure that small businesses are provided a means to comment on the federal
agency’s regulatory compliance and enforcement activities;
 receives comments from small businesses regarding actions by federal agency
employees conducting small business regulatory compliance or enforcement
activities;
 refers comments to the affected federal agency’s inspector general in appropriate
circumstances while maintaining the confidentiality of the person or small
business making these comments;
 issues an annual report to Congress and affected federal agencies evaluating the
agency’s compliance and enforcement activities, including a rating of their
responsiveness to small businesses;
 provides the affected federal agency with an opportunity to comment on the
annual report prior to publication and includes in the report a section in which the
affected federal agency may comment on issues that are not addressed by the
National Ombudsman in revisions to the draft; and
 coordinates and reports annually on the Small Business Regulatory Fairness
Boards’ activities, findings, and recommendations to the SBA Administrator and
the heads of affected federal agencies.
This report examines the Office of the National Ombudsman’s origin and history; describes its
organizational structure, funding, functions, and current activities; discusses recent legislative
efforts to enhance its authority; and examines some challenges facing the Office of the National
Ombudsman, such as the frequent turnover of national ombudsmen, its relatively limited budget,
and its lack of authority to compel federal agencies to undertake specific actions to resolve
disputes.
Congressional Research Service

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Introduction
About 150 ombudsman offices are located throughout the federal government.1 Of them, about a
third are statutorily authorized and the others were created through executive actions.2 Although
there are differences among them in terms of their origin, staffing, funding, and organizational
structure, they are all tasked with receiving and helping to resolve disputes in an impartial
manner. Some ombudsman offices are limited to helping to resolve disputes that arise within the
federal agency in which they are housed. Others are limited to helping to resolve disputes
received from the agency’s clients. Still others may help to resolve disputes that arise both within
the federal agency and from the agency’s clients.3
The Office of the National Ombudsman, housed within the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA), is fairly unique in that it is authorized to help resolve disputes received from the public
across federal agencies.4 It was created in 1996 as part of P.L. 104-121, the Contract with
America Advancement Act of 1996 (Title II, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 [SBREFA]).5 It is a relatively small office, with six employees: the National
Ombudsman (currently vacant), the Deputy National Ombudsman (Mina Wales), an external
relations manager, an administrative specialist, and two case management specialists.6 The
National Ombudsman position is appointed by the SBA Administrator.

1 Carole S. Houk et al., “Supplementary Table, Master List of Federal Ombuds Offices,” in The Ombudsman in Federal
Agencies–Final Report, Washington, DC: Administrative Conference of the United States, 2016, at https://acus.gov/
report/ombudsman-federal-agencies-final-report-2016.
2 The Ombudsman in Federal Agencies–Final Report. For example, the Small Business Ombudsman for defense audit
agencies was authorized by P.L. 112-239, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Division A,
Title XVI), §1612(a), “Small Business Ombudsman for Defense Audit Agencies.” The Small Business Ombudsman at
the Consumer Product Safety Commission is not statutorily authorized. Also, several statutes direct state agencies
implementing federal programs to establish ombudsman offices for those programs. For example, state education
agencies are required to have an ombudsman to monitor and enforce public and private school equity requirements
related to federal programs to assist children identified as failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet state academic
standards. See 20 U.S.C. §6320.
3 The Ombudsman in Federal Agencies–Final Report, “Part 2. Research Report,” pp. 20, 33-38.
4 The Office of the National Ombudsman’s statutory title is the Office of the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman. See P.L. 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Title
II, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), §30, “Oversight of Regulatory Enforcement.”
5 SBREFA’s seven statutory purposes are to (1) implement certain recommendations of the 1995 White House
Conference on Small Business regarding the development and enforcement of federal regulations; (2) provide for
judicial review of chapter 6 of Title 5, U.S. Code (which deals with federal regulatory analysis); (3) encourage the
effective participation of small businesses in the federal regulatory process; (4) simplify the language of federal
regulations affecting small businesses; (5) develop more accessible sources of information on regulatory and reporting
requirements for small businesses; (6) create a more cooperative regulatory environment among agencies and small
businesses that is less punitive and more solution-oriented; and (7) make federal regulators more accountable for their
enforcement actions by providing small entities with a meaningful opportunity for redress of excessive enforcement
activities. See P.L. 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Title II, the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), §203, “Purposes.”
For additional information and analysis concerning the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
see CRS Report RL32240, The Federal Rulemaking Process: An Overview, coordinated by Maeve P. Carey; and CRS
Report R43992, The Congressional Review Act (CRA): Frequently Asked Questions, by Maeve P. Carey and
Christopher M. Davis.
6 U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), “SBA Plan for Operating in the Event of a Lapse in Appropriations,”
October 2021, p. 40, at https://www.sba.gov/document/report-sba-plan-operating-event-lapse-appropriations; and SBA,
Office of the National Ombudsman, “Office Directory,” at https://proxy.www.sba.gov/ombudsman/office-directory.
Congressional Research Service

1

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

The Office of the National Ombudsman’s primary purpose is to provide small businesses, small
government entities (those serving populations of less than 50,000), and small nonprofit
organizations that believe they have experienced unfair or excessive regulatory compliance or
enforcement actions (such as repetitive audits or investigations, excessive fines, and retaliation by
federal agencies) a means to comment about such actions.7 As an impartial liaison, the Office of
the National Ombudsman refers “comments submitted by a small business to the appropriate
agency for high-level fairness review, and ... works across the federal government to address
those concerns to help small businesses succeed.”8
SBREFA also created a five-person Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board in each of the
SBA’s 10 regions to advise the National Ombudsman on matters related to federal regulatory
enforcement activities affecting small businesses.
Specifically, SBREFA directs the SBA Administrator to designate an ombudsman to
 work with each federal agency with regulatory authority over small businesses to
ensure that small businesses that receive or are subject to an audit, on-site
inspection, compliance assistance effort, or other enforcement-related
communication or contact by federal agency personnel are provided a means to
comment on those regulatory compliance and enforcement activities;
 receive comments from small businesses regarding actions by federal agency
employees conducting small business regulatory compliance or enforcement
activities;
 refer comments to the affected federal agency’s inspector general in appropriate
circumstances and maintain the confidentiality of the person or small business
making these comments;9
 based on substantiated comments received from small businesses and Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards, annually report to Congress and affected
federal agencies an evaluation of the federal agency’s regulatory compliance and
enforcement activities, including a rating of the agency’s responsiveness to small
businesses;
 provide the affected federal agency with an opportunity to comment on the
National Ombudsman’s annual report to Congress prior to publication and
include in the final report a section in which the affected federal agency may
comment on issues that are not addressed by the National Ombudsman in
revisions to the draft; and
 coordinate and report annually on the Small Business Regulatory Fairness
Boards’ activities, findings, and recommendations to the SBA Administrator and
the heads of affected federal agencies.10

7 SBA, Office of the Ombudsman, “What We Do,” at https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-
national-ombudsman#section-header-0.
8 SBA, Office of the Ombudsman, “What We Do.”
9 SBREFA specifies that the National Ombudsman “seek to maintain the identity of the person and small business
concern making such comments on a confidential basis to the same extent as employee identities are protected under
section 7 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).” See P.L. 104-121, the Contract with America
Advancement Act of 1996 (Title II, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), §30,
“Oversight of Regulatory Enforcement.”
10 P.L. 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Title II, the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), §30, “Oversight of Regulatory Enforcement.”
Congressional Research Service

2

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

This report examines the Office of the National Ombudsman’s origin and history; describes its
organizational structure, funding, functions, and current activities; and discusses a recent
legislative effort to enhance its authority. During the 115th Congress, S. 1146, the Small Business
Regulatory Relief Act of 2017, would have, among other provisions,
 expanded the National Ombudsman’s authority to work with federal agencies on
the development of best practices for educating, training, and assisting small
entities in understanding and complying with federal regulations;
 authorized the National Ombudsman to evaluate federal agency regulatory
compliance guides, ensure that those guides are available to small business
development centers and other SBA management and training resource partners,
conduct small business customer service surveys on an ongoing basis to assess
the timeliness and quality of federal agency regulatory activities, and develop an
outreach program to promote awareness of the National Ombudsman’s activities;
and
 authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out these
additional responsibilities.
Origin
On March 19, 1996, the Senate passed, 100-0, S. 942, the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The bill, which included provisions creating the Office of the
National Ombudsman and 10 regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards, was later
incorporated into P.L. 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996. The bill
was based on recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business.11
The 1995 White House Conference on Small Business, like its 1980 and 1986 predecessors, was
preceded by state conferences and regional meetings.12 The 1,904 delegates to the 1995 White
House Conference on Small Business considered more than 150 policy recommendations
forwarded from the regional meetings and six petitions. Through a series of votes, the delegates
narrowed the list of policy recommendations to 60, which were sent to the President and
Congress for consideration.13 Improving the Regulatory Flexibility Act was the 3rd-highest vote-
getter (1,398 votes) at the conference and paperwork and regulatory reform was the 25th-highest
vote-getter (1,046 votes).14 SBREFA addressed both recommendations. The Office of the

11 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Small Business, S. 917 and S. 942: Implementing the White House Conference
on Small Business-Recommendations on Regulations and Paperwork, hearing, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., February 28,
1996, S.Hrg. 104-443 (Washington: GPO, 1996), pp. 1-33.
12 About 20,000 people participated in 59 state conferences held between June 2, 1994, and April 13, 1995. They
elected 1,130 delegates to participate in six regional conferences held between April 18, 1995, and May 12, 1995. The
five-day 1995 White House Conference on Small Business was held on June 11, 1995, to June 15, 1995. SBA, The
State of Small Business: A Report of the President, Washington, DC, 1996, p. 45; and U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Small Business, S. 111, National Conference on Small Business Act, 106th Cong., 1st sess., October 19,
1999, S.Hrg. 106-380 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 4.
13 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Small Business, Implementation of the Small Business Agenda, 104th Cong., 2nd
sess., June 5, 1996, S.Hrg. 104-579 (Washington: GPO, 1996), pp. 57-78; White House Conference on Small Business
Commission, Foundation for a New Century: A Report to the President and Congress, Washington, DC, June 1995.
Also see SBA, Office of Advocacy in cooperation with the White House Conference on Small Business, Foundation
for a New Century: Issue Handbook, Second Edition, Washington, DC, January 1995, at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/
pt?id=umn.31951d00289409m.
14 Sen. Kit Bond, “Consideration of the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional
Congressional Research Service

3

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

National Ombudsman and the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards were created to
address the recommendation concerning federal regulatory reform.
During Senate floor debate, the bill’s proponents argued that the Office of the National
Ombudsman was part of the bill’s overall effort to create a “more cooperative and less punitive
regulatory environment between agencies and small business that is less threatening and more
solution-oriented than we have achieved in the past.”15 They argued that it would “help small
businesses get fair and legal treatment from the government if they have been treated unfairly”
and “also assist small businesses in recovering legal fees as a result of unfair Government
actions.”16
During floor debate, Senator John Glenn indicated that he supported the legislation but was
concerned that the Office of the National Ombudsman and the Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards could “end up creating a one-sided record of complaints that will distort the
broad public mission of our agencies.”17 He also indicated that federal agencies are not “the
enemy when they carry out the laws passed by the people’s representatives in Congress” and was
“happy, at least, that in the final version of the bill before us, the Ombudsman will focus on
general agency enforcement activity and not attempt to evaluate or rate the performance of
individual agency personnel.”18
Senator Carl Levin also supported the legislation but argued that “the committee [on Small
Business] should have taken more time to look at the pros and cons of placing an ombudsman in
each regulatory agency, rather than relying on a lone ombudsman in the Small Business
Administration to cover all agencies.”19

Record, vol. 141, part 115 (July 17, 1995), p. S10139; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Small Business, S. 917
and S. 942: Implementing the White House Conference on Small Business-Recommendations on Regulations and
Paperwork, hearing, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., February 28, 1996, S.Hrg. 104-443 (Washington: GPO, 1996), pp. 14, 28.
15 Sen. Jeff Bingaman, “Consideration of S. 492, the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1995,” remarks in the
Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 142, part 38 (March 19, 1996), p. S2310.
16 Sen. John Kerry, “Consideration of S. 492, the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1995,” remarks in the
Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 142, part 38 (March 19, 1996), p. S2310.
17 Sen. John Glenn, “Consideration of S. 492, the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1995,” remarks in the
Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 142, part 38 (March 19, 1996), p. S2311.
18 Sen. John Glenn, “Consideration of S. 492, the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1995,” p. S2311.
19 Sen. Levin argued that it was unreasonable to expect the ombudsman “to become familiar with the operations of
hundreds of programs in dozens of agencies” and stated that
rather than investigating and mediating individual disputes himself or herself, the ombudsman
would have to refer alleged cases of agency misconduct to the inspector general of the relevant
agency. In other words, the ombudsman wouldn’t receive information for the purpose of mediating
disputes, solving problems, and fostering collaboration between agencies and regulated parties.
Instead the ombudsman would receive information primarily for assessing agency performance.
That doesn’t help get immediate and specific problems solved. At the hearing on S. 942 in the
Small Business Committee, several representatives of the small business community said that they
would prefer to have a single ombudsman in the Small Business Administration rather than an
ombudsman in each individual regulatory agency. They argued that agency ombudsmen could be
influenced by internal agency politics and that, because of this, small businesses would be
susceptible to intimidation by regulators if they came forward with complaints. While I understand
the reluctance of small businesses to complain directly to an agency official about inappropriate
regulatory practices, I believe that ombudsmen in regulatory agencies can be given sufficient
independence from the regulatory structure to act fairly and to assure regulated parties that their
inquiries will not be used against them.
See Sen. Carl Levin, “Consideration of S. 492, the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1995,” remarks in the
Congressional Research Service

4

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

History
Initially, the Office of the National Ombudsman was located in Chicago and had a three-person
staff.20 The first National Ombudsman (Peter Barca) was appointed in November 1996, and 50
small business owners were appointed to the 10 Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards in
that same month. The Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards were all chartered by February
1997, and became operational in June 1997.21
During its first year, the Office of the National Ombudsman also created its first small business
appraisal form to receive small business comments, developed a structure to evaluate federal
agency regulatory compliance and enforcement activities, instructed Small Business Fairness
Board members about SBREFA, published a brochure, established its toll-free 1-888-REGFAIR
telephone number, created a website, and held 10 public hearings across the nation “to enable
small businesses to publicly bring forth their concerns of the regulatory enforcement structure.”22
The Office of the National Ombudsman also received 735 telephone calls, had more than 56,000
hits on its website, and had 110 small businesses initiate an appraisal form. Fifty small businesses
filed a completed appraisal form, and 33 of these forms were forwarded to federal agencies for
responses.23
To the dismay of some Members, the Office of the National Ombudsman did not issue a report
card on federal agency compliance and enforcement practices in its first annual report to
Congress, dated December 31, 1997, primarily because the National Ombudsman felt that the
office had not had sufficient small business participation to grade the agencies’ performance.24
Instead, the National Ombudsman provided synopses of 12 small business appraisal forms that
illustrated what the National Ombudsman identified as “four common themes in the regulatory
environment” that are faced by small businesses: “(1) agencies change their rules in the middle of
the game; (2) agencies disregard the economic and other consequences of their actions on small
businesses; (3) small businesses often get ensnarled in conflicting regulatory requirements when
two federal agencies’ jurisdiction overlap; and (4) small businesses fear federal agency
retaliation.”25

Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 142, part 38 (March 19, 1996), p. S2314.
20 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork
Reduction, The First Report to Congress by the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman,
hearing, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., March 4, 1998, Serial No. 105-37 (Washington: GPO, 1998), p. 6.
21 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork
Reduction, The First Report to Congress by the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman,
hearing, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., March 4, 1998, Serial No. 105-37 (Washington: GPO, 1998), pp. 3, 40.
22 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork
Reduction, The First Report to Congress by the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman,
pp. 4, 40, 41.
23 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork
Reduction, The First Report to Congress by the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman,
p. 42.
24 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Small Business, Oversight of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Red Tape
Reduction Act, 106th Cong., 1st sess., March 10, 1999, S.Hrg. 106-292 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 58-61; and U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Small Business, The President’s Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the Small
Business Administration, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., March 18, 1998, S.Hrg. 105-637 (Washington: GPO, 1998), pp. 63, 64,
157.
25 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Small Business, The President’s Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the
Small Business Administration, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., March 18, 1998, S.Hrg. 105-637 (Washington: GPO, 1998),
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 9 SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

In FY1998, the SBA provided the Office of the National Ombudsman its first annual budget (see
Table 1). The SBA provided $500,000 ($351,000 was actually spent that year), sufficient to hire
seven staff members (a writer, clerk or receptionist, agency investigator, attorney, public
information officer, special assistant, and policy coordinator), and pay for travel, printing, and
overhead expenses (photocopying, telephone line, postage, supplies, etc.).26
Table 1. Office of the National Ombudsman, SBA Funding
(includes direct and indirect costs)
Fiscal Year
Amount
1998
$351,000
1999
$524,000
2000
$514,000
2001
$554,000
2002
$362,000
2003
$1,200,000
2004
$1,469,000
2005
$1,348,000
2006
$1,111,000
2007
$1,257,000
2008
$1,518,000
2009
$1,236,000
2010
$1,426,000
2011
$1,787,000
2012
$1,770,000
2013
$1,270,000
2014
$1,804,000
2015
$1,804,000
2016
$1,309,000
2017
$967,000
2018
$1,313,000
2019
$1,511,000
2020
$1,550,000
2021
$1,416,000
2022 estimate
$2,531,000
2023 request
$2,630,000

pp. 42-43.
26 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Small Business, The President’s Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request for the
United States Small Business Administration, 105th Cong., 1st sess., February 26, 1997, S.Hrg. 105-44 (Washington:
GPO, 1997), p. 60; and SBA, “FY2002 Budget Request and Performance Plan,” p. 47.
Congressional Research Service

6

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), SBA Budget Request and Performance Plan: FY2003
Congressional Submission, p. 12; SBA Budget Request and Performance Plan: FY2004 Congressional Submission, p. 5;
FY2007 Budget Request and Performance Plan, p. 29; FY2008 Performance Budget, p. 25; FY2009 Performance Budget
and FY2007 Performance Report, p. 27; FY2010 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 19; FY2011 Congressional Budget
Justification and FY2009 Annual Performance Report, p. 21; FY2012 Congressional Budget Justification and FY2010
Annual Performance Report, p. 27; FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification and FY2011 Annual Performance Report, p.
27; FY2014 Congressional Budget Justification and FY2012 Annual Performance Report, p. 28; FY2022 Congressional
Justification and FY2020 Annual Performance Report, p. 98; and FY2023 Congressional Budget Justification FY2021
Annual Performance Report, p. 22.
Notes: These funding amounts include direct costs from the SBA operating budget, including contracts;
compensation and benefits; agency-wide costs, such as rent and telecommunications; and indirect costs.
Actual staffing levels have varied somewhat over the years. Including the National Ombudsman,
there were 3 staff members in FY1997, 11 in FY1999, 9 in FY2000, 8 in FY2002, 7 from
FY2007 through FY2014, 4 in FY2015 and FY2016, 5 in FY2017 and FY2018, and 6 from
FY2019 through FY2022.27
The Office of the National Ombudsman’s annual report to Congress subsequently included its
mandated report card on federal agency regulatory performance, and that section of the report
became the focus of congressional hearings, primarily because several federal agencies received
relatively low grades, especially in the timeliness of their responses to small business
comments.28 The National Ombudsman added a “best practices” section to the annual report to
Congress “so one agency would know what the other agencies are doing and have that dialogue
going on, and to encourage them” to do better.29
Peter Barca left the National Ombudsman position in July 1999, leaving the position vacant until
January 2000 when Gail A. McDonald was appointed the second National Ombudsman. Shortly
after her appointment, the SBA’s Administrator at that time, Aida Alvarez, decided to relocate the
Office of the National Ombudsman from Chicago to SBA’s headquarters in Washington, DC,

27 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork
Reduction, The First Report to Congress by the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman,
hearing, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., March 4, 1998, Serial No. 105-37 (Washington: GPO, 1998), p. 6; U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations for 2000, Part 4: Justification of the Budget Estimates, hearing, 106th Cong., 1st sess., January 1, 1999
(Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 1019; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory
Reform and Paperwork Reduction, Hearing on the National Ombudsman’s 2000 Report to Congress and the
Regulatory Fairness Program, hearing, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., June 15, 2000, Serial No. 106-65 (Washington: GPO,
2000), p. 95; SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, “1999 National Ombudsman’s Report to Congress: Securing
Rights and Benefits for Small Business,” 1999; SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, “Office Directory,” at
https://proxy.www.sba.gov/ombudsman/office-directory; SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, “National
Ombudsman’s Annual Reports to Congress,” at https://www.sba.gov/document/report--national-ombudsmans-annual-
reports-congress; and SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, correspondence with the author, June 19, 2020, and
March 4, 2021.
28 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork
Reduction, Hearing on the National Ombudsman’s 2000 Report to Congress and the Regulatory Fairness Program,
hearing, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., June 5, 2000, Serial No. 106-65 (Washington: GPO, 2000), pp. 6, 7.
29 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork
Reduction, Hearing on the National Ombudsman’s 2000 Report to Congress and the Regulatory Fairness Program, p.
7. At that time, agencies that provided, on average, a written response to small business comments within 45 days of
receipt were rated as excellent on this criteria; those that took, on average, 46 to 60 days were rated good; those that
took, on average, 61 to 90 days were rated average; and those that took, on average, more than 90 days were rated
unsatisfactory. The 1999 Annual Report to Congress rated the timeliness of two federal agency responses to small
business comments as unsatisfactory and the 2000 Annual Report to Congress rated the timeliness of eight federal
agency responses to small business comments as unsatisfactory.
Congressional Research Service

7

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

reportedly in an effort to increase the office’s “visibility” within the administration.30 The
physical relocation was completed in August 2001.31
In 2002, the Office of the National Ombudsman entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the SBA Office of Advocacy in which both parties “pledged the highest degree of
cooperation” and the Office of Advocacy (which focuses on issues related to the development of
federal regulations and their impact on small businesses) agreed “to offer the services of its
Regional Advocates in planning the Ombudsman’s regional fairness board hearings.”32
In 2003, the third National Ombudsman, Michael L. Barrera, testified during a congressional
hearing that “as public awareness of ONO [Office of the National Ombudsman] grows,
cooperation among the small business community and Federal regulatory agencies is [also]
growing.”33 He noted that federal agency attendance at Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board
hearings “has improved dramatically” and pointed out that the Internal Revenue Service, through
its Taxpayer Advocate system, “now attends every RegFair Hearing and Roundtable conducted by
ONO.”34
In 2006, the Office of the National Ombudsman renewed its previous memorandum of
understanding with the SBA Office of Advocacy “to foster increased cooperation between the
offices as they both work to provide a more small business friendly regulatory environment.”35
Specifically, the Office of the National Ombudsman agreed to
 receive comments and concerns regarding the impact of regulations on small
business and the burden of regulatory compliance and federal regulatory
enforcement;
 where appropriate, forward such comments to the Office of Advocacy;
 provide information and materials generated through the Office of the National
Ombudsman’s activities that are more appropriately within the Office of
Advocacy’s jurisdiction; and
 promote the SBA’s programs and services, including the Office of Advocacy’s
regulatory and research role, through its various hearings and roundtables and

30 The relocation took place during the second quarter of FY2001. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small
Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction, Hearing on the National Ombudsman’s
2000 Report to Congress and the Regulatory Fairness Program, hearing, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., June 5, 2000, Serial
No. 106-65 (Washington: GPO, 2000), p. 4.
31 SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, Creating a More Small Business Friendly Regulatory Enforcement and
Compliance Environment: Fiscal Year 2001 Report, p. 4, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/
ombud_ono2001.pdf.
32 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight, Small
Business Advocacy Improvement Act of 2003, 108th Cong., 1st sess., April 1, 2003, Serial No. 108-9 (Washington: GPO,
2003), pp. 33, 34.
33 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight, Federal
Agency Treatment of Small Business, 108th Cong., 1st sess., May 15, 2003, Serial No. 108-15 (Washington: GPO,
2003), p. 35.
34 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight, Federal
Agency Treatment of Small Business, pp. 4, 35.
35 SBA, Office of Advocacy and SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, “Memorandum of Understanding Between
the Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration and the Office of the National Ombudsman, U.S. Small
Business Administration,” at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/MOU_National_Ombudsman.pdf. For additional
information and analysis of the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, see CRS Report R43625, SBA Office of Advocacy:
Overview, History, and Current Issues, by Robert Jay Dilger.
Congressional Research Service

8

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

“include the Office of Advocacy Regional Advocates in the planning and
implementation of those activities as appropriate.”36
The SBA Office of Advocacy, which has a larger budget and more staff than the Office of the
National Ombudsman, agreed to
 provide material that may be distributed to participants in the Office of the
National Ombudsman’s Regulatory Fairness Program; and
 provide the National Ombudsman with regulatory complaints and other
information generated by small business interests that are more appropriately
within the Office of the National Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.37
The Office of Advocacy’s FY2022 appropriation is $9.466 million and it has authorization for 52
full-time equivalent employees.38
In recent years, Congress has focused increased attention on the Office of the National
Ombudsman’s efficacy in helping small businesses resolve their regulatory disputes with federal
agencies, as opposed to focusing on how many small businesses contacted the office, submitted a
formal comment, or participated in one of the office’s hearings and roundtable discussions. For
example, in 2016, the House Committee on Small Business noted that the National Ombudsman
“has no investigative capacity nor authority to overrule, stop or delay a federal action” and asked
the National Ombudsman to report back to the committee the percentage of cases that were
referred to federal agencies for resolution in FY2014 (420) that resulted in a favorable outcome
for the small businesses, “such as reduction of a penalty.”39 The National Ombudsman reported
that 41 of the 420 small businesses (about 10%) that had a regulatory compliance or enforcement
dispute forwarded to a federal agency in FY2014 for resolution received a favorable outcome.
Current Organizational Structure and Funding
As noted, the Office of the National Ombudsman currently has six employees: the National
Ombudsman (currently vacant), the Deputy National Ombudsman (Mina Wales), an external
relations manager, an administrative specialist, and two case management specialists.
The 10 Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards are required to meet at least annually to
advise the National Ombudsman on matters related to federal agency small business regulatory
activities, report substantiated instances of excessive federal enforcement actions against small

36 SBA, Office of Advocacy and SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, “Memorandum of Understanding Between
the Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration and the Office of the National Ombudsman, U.S. Small
Business Administration,” at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/MOU_National_Ombudsman.pdf.
37 SBA, Office of Advocacy and SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, “Memorandum of Understanding Between
the Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration and the Office of the National Ombudsman, U.S. Small
Business Administration,” at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/MOU_National_Ombudsman.pdf.
38 SBA, Office of Advocacy, FY2023 Congressional Budget Justification and FY2021 Annual Performance Report, p.
151, at https://www.sba.gov/document/report-congressional-budget-justification-annual-performance-report; SBA,
Office of Advocacy, “Staff,” at https://advocacy.sba.gov/about/staff/; and P.L. 117-103, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022.
39 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight and Regulations,
Oversight of the Office of Advocacy and the Office of the National Ombudsman at the SBA, hearing, 114th Cong., 2nd
sess., February 10, 2016, H.Hrg. 114-042 (Washington: GPO, 2016), p. 37.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

businesses, and prior to publication, comment on the National Ombudsman’s annual report to
Congress.40
The boards are composed of five volunteers who are an owner, operator, or officer of a small
business.41 Board members are appointed by the SBA Administrator, after receiving the
recommendations of the chair and ranking minority member of the House Committee on Small
Business and the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.42 No more than
three board members may be of the same political party; they cannot be a federal officer or
employee, in either the executive branch or Congress; and they serve at the pleasure of the SBA
Administrator for terms of three years or less.43
The boards are based in the SBA’s 10 regions:
 Region 1 (serving Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont);
 Region 2 (serving New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands);
 Region 3 (serving Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia,
and the District of Columbia);
 Region 4 (serving Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee);
 Region 5 (serving Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin);
 Region 6 (serving Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas);
 Region 7 (serving Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska);
 Region 8 (serving Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming);
 Region 9 (serving Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the territories of
Guam and American Samoa); and
 Region 10 (serving Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington).44
In recent years, the SBA has focused on finding ways to reduce vacancies on Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. As shown in Table 2, in FY2015 and FY2016, about three-quarters

40 P.L. 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Title II, the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), §30, “Oversight of Regulatory Enforcement.”
41 Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board members serve without compensation but are allowed reimbursement for
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence at rates authorized for federal employees while away from
their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Board. See P.L. 104-121, the Contract
with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Title II, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996),
§30, “Oversight of Regulatory Enforcement.”
42 Although the SBA Administrator is required by statute to make these appointments after receiving the
recommendations of the chair and ranking minority member of the House Committee on Small Business and the Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, some Members have complained that the SBA has often ignored
this statutory requirement. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Investigations,
Oversight and Regulations, Oversight of the Office of Advocacy and the Office of the National Ombudsman at the SBA,
hearing, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., February 10, 2016, H.Hrg. 114-042 (Washington: GPO, 2016), pp. 10, 11.
43 P.L. 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Title II, the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), §30, “Oversight of Regulatory Enforcement.”
44 SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, “Fairness Boards,” at https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/
office-national-ombudsman#section-header-8.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 9 SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

of Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board seats across the SBA’s 10 regions were filled. In
FY2017, less than half of those seats were filled (46%), primarily because the SBA purposively
did not fill vacancies “to preserve the prerogative of the incoming SBA Administrator to make
appointments based upon recommendations by the incoming National Ombudsman.”45 The
Board’s occupancy rate remained at or below 50% from FY2018 through FY2020, and increased
to 66% in FY2021.
Table 2. Office of the National Ombudsman, Small Business Regulatory Fairness
Board Membership Rate, FY2015-FY2021
FY
Percent of Board Seats Filled
2015
74%
2016
76%
2017
46%
2018
50%
2019
40%
2020
48%
2021
66%
Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, FY2022 Congressional Justification and FY2020 Annual Performance
Report, p. 99, at https://www.sba.gov/document/report-congressional-budget-justification-annual-performance-
report; and U.S. Small Business Administration, FY2023 Congressional Budget Justification FY2021 Annual
Performance Report, p. 98, at https://www.sba.gov/document/report-congressional-budget-justification-annual-
performance-report.
As shown in Table 1, the SBA provided the Office of the National Ombudsman $1.416 million in
FY2021 and anticipates providing $2.531 million in FY2022. The SBA has requested $2.630
million for FY2023.
Unlike the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, which is also tasked with serving as an independent
advocate for small businesses in the regulatory process (but primarily at the developmental stage),
the Office of the National Ombudsman does not have its own funding account. The SBA funds
the Office of the National Ombudsman through its salaries and expenses’ executive direction
subaccount. That account includes funding for the SBA’s Office of the Administrator, Office of
General Counsel, Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Office of Hearings and
Appeals, Office of Communications and Public Liaison, Office of Planning, Performance, and
Chief Financial Officer, Office of Continuous Operations and Risk Management, and Office of
the National Ombudsman.46
The Office of Advocacy was also funded through that account, but Congress directed the SBA to
provide the Office of Advocacy its own budgetary account in P.L. 111-240, the Small Business
Jobs Act of 2010, as a means to enhance the Office of Advocacy’s independence from the SBA
Administrator. To date, similar legislation has not been introduced to provide the Office of the
National Ombudsman its own funding account within the SBA. Instead, ombudsman advocates
have argued that ombudsman offices “should not have duties within the agency that might create

45 SBA, FY2019 Congressional Justification and FY2017 Annual Performance Report, p. 99, at https://www.sba.gov/
sites/default/files/2018-06/Fiscal%20year%202019.zip.
46 SBA, FY2023 Congressional Budget Justification FY2021 Annual Performance Report, p. 11, at
https://www.sba.gov/document/report-congressional-budget-justification-annual-performance-report.
Congressional Research Service

11

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

a conflict with their responsibilities as a neutral, and their budgets should be publicly
disclosed.”47
The Ombudsman’s Regulatory Activities and
Outreach Efforts
Small businesses that believe they have experienced excessive or unfair federal regulatory
compliance or enforcement actions may file a formal comment with the Office of the National
Ombudsman. The formal comment typically includes the following basic information and a
signed consent form (SBA Form 1993) authorizing the Office of the National Ombudsman to
pursue the matter with the federal agency:
 a description of the specific action taken by the federal agency and the results of
this action;
 the specific resolution sought; and
 any relevant documentation.48
These comments may be filed online or in paper form, and commenters can receive information
regarding the comment form or information about the Office of the National Ombudsman by
calling the National Ombudsman’s Regulatory Fairness Helpline at 888-REG-FAIR.49 In
addition, small businesses may file comments “on-the-spot” at any of the Office of the National
Ombudsman’s regional hearings and roundtables.
Once a comment is submitted, a case management specialist reviews the case and any supporting
documentation to ensure that the necessary authorization and other information are present. The
case management specialist then determines how the Office of the National Ombudsman can best
assist the small business, advises the small business of expected next steps, and, if the comment is
to be forwarded to a federal agency, explains the parameters of the SBREFA review.
Comments forwarded to a federal agency include a request for “a prompt, high-level, responsive
review of the matter reported.”50 The federal agency is asked to consider the fairness of the case
from a small business perspective and “to provide a practical, timely response that balances the
spirit of the regulation with the specific circumstances of the small business.”51 All comments are
handled on a confidential, protected basis, and can be raised anonymously, if preferred by the
small business.
The case management specialist then follows up with the federal agency and the small business as
appropriate and communicates with the small business owners the actions taken to assist them.52

47 Carole S. Houk, Mary P. Rowe, Deborah A. Katz, Neil H. Katz, Lauren Marx, and Timothy Hedeen,
“Recommendation,” in The Ombudsman in Federal Agencies – Final Report, Washington, DC: Administrative
Conference of the United States, 2016, at https://acus.gov/report/ombudsman-federal-agencies-final-report-2016.
48 SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, 2015 Annual Report to Congress, p. 3, at https://www.sba.gov/sites/
default/files/ONO_2015.pdf.
49 SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, 2015 Annual Report to Congress, p. 3.
50 SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, 2015 Annual Report to Congress, p. 4.
51 SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, 2015 Annual Report to Congress, p. 4.
52 SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, 2015 Annual Report to Congress, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 16 SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

As shown in Table 3, in FY2021, the Office of the National Ombudsman intervened on behalf of
657 small businesses that filed formal complaints, completed 55 outreach events through federal
agencies, trade associations, and various resource partners, and, due to its interventions, affected
4 regulatory compliance issues that were raised by small businesses. In addition, the Office of
National Ombudsman responded to numerous general inquiries, conducted regional regulatory
fairness roundtables, and initiated contact with many national and local trade associations and
senior officials throughout the federal government.53
Table 3. Office of the National Ombudsman, Small Business Comments Received,
Outreach Events, and Regularity Compliance Concerns Affected, FY2015-FY2021
Regulatory
Outreach Events
Compliance
Interventions on
through Federal
Concerns
Behalf of Small
Agencies, Trade
Affected by
Businesses that
Associations, and
National
Filed Formal
Resource
Ombudsman
FY
Complaints
Partners
Interventions
2015
412
66
7
2016
316
102
6
2017
460
134
23
2018
354
118
0
2019
292
45
12
2020
485
41
4
2021
657
55
4
Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, FY2022 Congressional Justification and FY2020 Annual Performance
Report, pp. 98, 99, at https://www.sba.gov/document/report-congressional-budget-justification-annual-
performance-report; and U.S. Small Business Administration, FY2023 Congressional Budget Justification FY2021
Annual Performance Report, pp. 97, 98, at https://www.sba.gov/document/report-congressional-budget-justification-
annual-performance-report.
In addition, the National Ombudsman’s annual report includes a report card providing letter
grades (which can range from A to F) for each federal agency (and in several instances, for
individual offices within the federal agency):
 two grades rating the agency’s responsiveness to small business concerns (the
timeliness of the agency’s response and the quality of the response);
 three grades rating the agency’s compliance with SBREFA (the agency’s
nonretaliation policies against small business commenters, the provision of
regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses, and the provision of notice
to small businesses of their rights under SBREFA); and
 an overall grade.54
In FY2019, 39 federal agencies and offices received an overall grade of A, 2 received an overall
grade of B, 1 received an overall grade of C, and the Department of Veterans Affairs and the

53 SBA, Fiscal Year 2022 Congressional Justification and Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Performance Report, p. 100.
54 SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, 2019 Annual Report to Congress, pp. 34-51, at https://www.sba.gov/
document/report—national-ombudsmans-annual-reports-congress.
Congressional Research Service

13

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Nuclear Regulatory Commission received an overall grade of D.55 No agencies received an
overall grade of F.
Current Congressional Issues
Some Members and small business advocates have argued that the Office of the National
Ombudsman should be provided additional resources. For example, on March 29, 2017, a small
business advocate argued the following at a Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship hearing:
Where the Office of Advocacy works on the front end of a development of a significant
regulation, the Office of the National Ombudsman is charged with helping small businesses
on the back end, with all regulation compliance. It serves as the conduit for small
businesses to have their grievances about compliance problems, or other issues, with
Federal agencies, heard directly by the agencies, in an effort for successful resolution. In
this way, the Office of the National Ombudsman, and the agencies, can detect patterns of
compliance problems so that the agencies can revisit rules for modification.
This important component of the rulemaking process is woefully underfunded. The Office
of the National Ombudsman actually relies on volunteers to help get the message out about
its vital small business services. It is, for the most part, unknown and underutilized. If
Congress really wants to help small businesses with Federal regulations, invest more in the
small business outreach, support, and feedback loop.56
As mentioned previously, many small businesses that submit formal comments to the Office of
the National Ombudsman do not receive a favorable outcome from the federal agency. Some
Members and small business advocates have argued that the Office of the National Ombudsman
should be provided additional authority to assist small businesses in their efforts to resolve their
regulatory disputes with federal agencies. For example, during the 115th Congress, S. 1146, the
Small Business Regulatory Relief Act of 2017, would have, among other provisions,
 expanded the National Ombudsman’s authority to work with federal agencies on
the development of best practices for educating, training, and assisting small
entities in understanding and complying with federal regulations;
 authorized the National Ombudsman to evaluate federal agency regulatory
compliance guides, ensure that those guides are available to small business
development centers and other SBA management and training resource partners,
conduct small business customer service surveys on an ongoing basis to assess
the timeliness and quality of federal agency regulatory activities, and develop an
outreach program to promote awareness of the National Ombudsman’s activities;
and
 authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out these
additional responsibilities.

55 SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman, 2019 Annual Report to Congress, pp. 49-51.
56 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Examining How Small Businesses
Confront and Shape Regulations, hearing statement by Frank Knapp Jr., co-Chairman, American Sustainable Business
Council (ASBC); President and CEO, South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, 115th Cong., 1st sess.,
March 29, 2017, S.Hrg. 115-21 (Washington: GPO, 2017), p. 13.
Congressional Research Service

14

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Others Members appear unconvinced that providing the Office of the National Ombudsman
additional resources and/or authority is necessary. They have argued, for example, that the best
way to reduce small business regulatory burden is not more government but less regulation.57
Concluding Observations
The Office of the National Ombudsman is a small office with a relatively large mandate—to
serve as an impartial liaison across federal agencies for small businesses that believe they have
not been treated fairly in the enforcement of federal regulations. It faces several challenges.
First, the Office of the National Ombudsman is generally recognized as being an independent,
impartial office, but it is housed within the SBA and remains subject to its influence through (1)
its proximity to the agency and its organizational culture; (2) the budgetary process, which
provides the SBA Administrator the authority to determine the Office of the National
Ombudsman’s budget; and (3) the appointment and removal process, which provides the SBA
Administrator the authority to hire and fire the ombudsman. In addition, the sheer size of the SBA
(7,586 full-time employees anticipated in FY2022) relative to the Office of the National
Ombudsman (6 employees), and the existence of the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, which has a
similar mission (but focused primarily on regulatory development as opposed to regulatory
compliance and enforcement), makes it more difficult than would otherwise be the case for the
Office of the National Ombudsman to be recognized by stakeholders as the definitive voice for
small businesses in the regulatory process.
Second, the National Ombudsman has often had a relatively short tenure. The position is
currently vacant and the four most recent National Ombudsman (Earl L. Gay, Nathan J. Miller,
Stefanie Baker Wehagen, and Amber Richards) each served for less than two years.58 The
National Ombudsman has left office for various reasons, such as a change in Administration or
for opportunities in the private sector. Frequent turnover can lead to continuity problems for the
office.
Third, the Office of the National Ombudsman does not have the authority to compel federal
agencies to undertake specific actions to resolve disputes. As a result, although its annual rating
of federal agency responsiveness to small business concerns does provide it a means to exert
some influence on federal agency actions, its role in resolving disputes is somewhat constrained.
Finally, the Office of the National Ombudsman’s relatively limited budget and staffing level
restricts its ability to engage in outreach activities that could increase small business awareness of
its existence and services.

57 For example, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Examining How Small
Businesses Confront and Shape Regulations, hearing statement by Sen. John Kennedy, 115th Cong., 1st sess., March 29,
2017, S.Hrg. 115-21 (Washington: GPO, 2017), p. 22.
58 Ten people have served as the National Ombudsman: Peter Barca (1996-1999), Gail A. McDonald (2000-2001),
Michael L. Barrera (2001-2005), Nicholas N. Owens (2006-2009), Esther H. Vassar (2009-2012), Brian M. Castro
(2013-2015), Earl L. Gay (2015-2016), Nathan J. Miller (2017-2018), Stefanie Baker Wehagen (April 2019-August
2020), and Amber Richards (October 2020-Janaury 2021). SBA, Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
correspondence with the author, December 18, 2017; and SBA, “SBA Appoints Two New Executives,” February 6,
2019, at https://www.sba.gov/article/2020/feb/06/sba-appoints-two-new-senior-executives.
Congressional Research Service

15

SBA Office of the National Ombudsman: Overview, History, and Current Issues

Author Information

Robert Jay Dilger

Senior Specialist in American National Government

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R45071 · VERSION 18 · UPDATED
16

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Apr. 19, 2022

HTML · PDF

Jul. 2, 2021

HTML · PDF

Mar. 4, 2021

HTML · PDF

Jun. 19, 2020

HTML · PDF

18% changed