U.S. International Broadcasting: New Strategic Approach Focuses  
on Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program	 
Objectives (15-JUL-03, GAO-03-772).				 
                                                                 
Prompted by a desire to reverse declining audience trends and to 
support the war on terrorism, the Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG), the agency responsible for U.S. international		 
broadcasting, began developing its new strategic approach to	 
international broadcasting in July 2001. This approach emphasizes
the need to reach mass audiences by applying modern broadcast	 
techniques and strategically allocating resources to focus on	 
high-priority markets. GAO was asked to examine (1) whether	 
recent program initiatives have adhered to the Board's new	 
strategic approach to broadcasting, (2) how the approach's	 
effectiveness will be assessed, and (3) what critical challenges 
the Board faces in executing its strategy and how these 	 
challenges will be addressed.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-772 					        
    ACCNO:   A07541						        
  TITLE:     U.S. International Broadcasting: New Strategic Approach  
Focuses on Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program 
Objectives							 
     DATE:   07/15/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Broadcasting					 
	     International relations				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Broadcasting standards				 
	     Radio broadcasting 				 
	     Television broadcasting				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-772

                                       A

Report to the Committee on International Relations, House of
Representatives

July 2003 U. S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING New Strategic Approach Focuses
on Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program Objectives

GAO- 03- 772

Contents Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Projects Supporting War on Terrorism
Adhere to Board*s New

Approach 10 Effectiveness Is Difficult to Assess Absent Measurable Program
Objectives 14

Board Plans to Address Many Challenges, but Scope of Operations May Limit
Its Impact 18 Conclusions 26 Recommendations for Executive Action 27
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27 Scope and Methodology 28

Appendixes

Appendix I: Challenges Facing U. S. International Broadcasting 30

Appendix II: Survey Development 32

Appendix III: Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities 33

Appendix IV: Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors 47

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 50 GAO Contact 50
Acknowledgments 50

Tables Table 1: The Board*s Recently Implemented Initiatives 11 Table 2:
Costs of BBG New Initiatives 13

Table 3: Planned Actions and Additional Options 23 Table 4: Board-
Identified Challenges 30 Table 5: Proposed Solutions Strategic Goals and
Objectives 31

Figures Figure 1: U. S. Public Diplomacy Community 5 Figure 2: The Board*s
New Strategic Plan 8

Abbreviations

ARN Afghanistan Radio Network BBG Broadcasting Board of Governors CEO
Chief Executive Officer COO Chief Operating Officer IBB International
Broadcasting Bureau OMB Office of Management and Budget RFA Radio Free
Asia RFE/ RL Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty PART Program Assessment
Rating Tool VOA Voice of America

This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

Letter

July 15, 2003 The Honorable Henry J. Hyde Chairman The Honorable Tom
Lantos Ranking Minority Member International Relations Committee House of
Representatives Millions of foreign listeners and viewers turn each week
to U. S. international broadcasting to obtain news and information about
the United States and the world. However, the United States* share in
several broadcast markets has been declining or static for decades due to
increasing competition and an outdated approach to broadcasting. Prompted
by a desire to reverse this trend and a sense of urgency created by the
war on terrorism, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG or the

*Board*), 1 the agency responsible for nonmilitary U. S. international
broadcasting programs, initiated a new strategic approach to international
broadcasting in July 2001. The new strategy emphasizes the need to reach
large audiences by applying modern broadcast techniques and strategically
allocating resources to focus on high- priority broadcast markets, such as
the Middle East.

The BBG and the Department of State share an annual budget of about $1
billion for public diplomacy activities designed to inform, engage, and
influence foreign audiences. The BBG manages and oversees the Voice of
America (VOA), WorldNet Television and Film Service, Radio/ TV Marti,

Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa, and Radio
Farda (collectively referred to as the broadcast entities). This report
focuses on the BBG*s public diplomacy efforts. A planned follow- on report
will assess the Department of State*s public diplomacy efforts.

1 Congress created the BBG when it passed the United States International
Broadcasting Act of 1994 (title III of P. L. 103- 236), which sought to
reorganize and consolidate U. S. international broadcasting efforts in
light of the end of the Cold War and administrative efforts to meet
deficit reduction targets. The Board is composed of nine voting members.
Eight members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
for 3- year terms. The ninth member of the Board is the Secretary of
State. Under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (P.
L. 105- 277), the BBG was removed from the U. S. Information Agency and
established as an independent entity.

As agreed with your staff, this report examines (1) whether recent program
initiatives have adhered to the Board's new strategic approach to
broadcasting, (2) how the approach*s effectiveness will be assessed, and
(3) what critical challenges the Board faces in executing its strategy and
how these challenges will be addressed.

To accomplish our objectives, we met with individual Board members and
senior managers from each broadcast entity (including Radio Free Europe/
Radio Liberty officials in Prague) to discuss a range of management issues
including the Board*s new 5- year strategic plan (titled *Marrying the

Mission to the Market* and issued in December 2002), which defines the
Board*s new approach to broadcasting. We met with foreign ministry
officials in London and Berlin and broadcasting officials from the British
Broadcasting Corporation in London and Deutsche Welle in Cologne and
Berlin to compare their respective approaches to public diplomacy and
international broadcasting with the Board*s activities. We also met with
several private sector audience research firms to discuss a range of
performance management and measurement issues. Finally, we administered a
survey to 34 senior program managers across all 7 BBG broadcast entities
to obtain their views on strategic planning, current operations, program
challenges, and various program options.

Results in Brief Consistent with its new strategic approach to
broadcasting, the Board has initiated several new programs focusing on
attracting larger audiences in

priority markets and supporting the war on terrorism. Launched in March
2002, Radio Sawa in the Middle East replaced VOA*s Arabic- language
service and represents the Board's first attempt to implement the new
tailored approach to broadcasting. Based on extensive research of the
target audience, Radio Sawa incorporates brief news bulletins in a popular
music format aimed at young listeners. A new initiative in Afghanistan
called the Afghanistan Radio Network and a language service to Iran called
Radio Farda also have adhered to the Board's new broadcasting approach and
support the Board*s efforts in the war on terrorism. Estimated start- up
and recurring costs for these three projects through fiscal year 2003
total about $116 million. As funds become available, the Board intends to
launch other high- priority projects using its new broadcasting approach,
such as an Arabic language television network in the Middle East.

While the Board*s new approach to broadcasting is based on the need to
reach large audiences in priority markets, there is not a single long-
term strategic goal or related program objective to gauge the Board*s
success in

increasing audience size. Further, the strategic goals that are included
in the plan (for example, employing modern broadcast techniques, assuring
broadcaster credibility, and telling America*s story) are not supported by
measurable program objectives and do not provide a basis for assessing the
Board*s performance in these key areas. While we recognize that measuring
impact is complex, we identified a number of key effectiveness measures
that could form a starting point for creating measurable program
objectives that support the full range of the Board*s strategic goals.
These measures

include audience size in specific markets; audience awareness of BBG
broadcasting; the credibility of U. S. language service broadcasts; and
whether VOA language services effectively present information about U. S.
thought, institutions, and policies to target audiences.

The Board*s key challenge in executing its strategy is how to generate
large audiences while dealing with a number of market, organizational, and
resource issues. The Board identified several shortcomings in U. S. market
competitiveness including outdated programs and delivery systems. It plans
to overcome these problems by promoting, among other things, new formats
and technologies. Topping the list of organizational challenges is the
disparate structure of the agency, which consists of seven separate
broadcast entities and a mix of federal agency and grantee organizations
that must be collectively managed by a part- time Board of Governors. To
overcome this challenge, the Board proposes treating the broadcast

services of the separate entities as a *single system* under the Board*s
direct control and ongoing oversight. While the Board*s solutions to many
of its challenges may suffice, our analysis revealed that a number of
other program options could be considered in the future if the Board*s
efforts falter or prove ineffective. One option would be to further
consolidate all entities into one organization to streamline the
management structure, simplify budget and programming decisions, and
reduce duplicative staff and functions. Finally, the Board has concluded
that the agency*s resources are currently spread across too many language
services. We found strong support among BBG managers for cutting the
number of language services

to focus resources on a limited number of priority markets. However, the
Board has not established a strategic vision for how many languages should
be pursued and what level of overlap and duplication among its many
entities is appropriate.

This report makes several recommendations to the Board to help improve
agency operations and measurement of program performance. The Board
provided written comments on a draft of this report and largely concurred
with our report recommendations.

Background U. S. international broadcasting efforts support the three key
objectives of U. S. public diplomacy, which are to engage, inform, and
influence overseas

audiences. As a news organization, the BBG must maintain its journalistic
independence while also serving U. S. strategic interests as a member of
the public diplomacy apparatus. To fulfill this latter role, the BBG seeks
input

from the Department of State and the larger public diplomacy community in
formulating its broadcast plans and making annual decisions on the
deletion and addition of language services. The Secretary of State serves
as a member of the Board, further strengthening coordination efforts.
Within

the BBG, VOA, Radio/ TV Marti, and WorldNet Television, are organized as
federal entities, while Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty and Radio Free
Asia operate as independent, nonprofit corporations and are funded by
Board grants. Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and

Radio/ TV Marti function as *surrogate* broadcasters where a local free
press does not exist. Congress created the International Broadcasting
Bureau (IBB) 2 in 1994 in an effort to streamline and consolidate certain
broadcast operations.

Figure 1 illustrates the Board*s placement in the U. S. public diplomacy
hierarchy and its current organizational structure.

2 The IBB currently provides transmission services to all U. S. broadcast
operations. It also provides management oversight and support services
such as audience research and marketing to VOA, WorldNet Television, and
Radio/ TV Marti.

Figure 1: U. S. Public Diplomacy Community a Relevant White House Offices
include the National Security Council and the Office of Global
Communications. b While not considered a major public diplomacy player,
USAID activities contribute to U. S. public

relations and media development efforts.

Each U. S. broadcast entity is organized around a collection of language
services that produce program content. In some instances, both VOA and a
surrogate broadcaster run *overlapping* services due to the different
missions pursued by VOA and the surrogates. For example, both VOA and

Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty have their own Russian language service.

The BBG currently has a collection of 97 language services* with a 55
percent overlap between VOA and the surrogates broadcasting in the same
language.

The Mission of U. S. Each broadcast entity has its own legislated mandate.
VOA*s mandate is to International Broadcasting

(1) serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative, accurate,
objective, and comprehensive source of news; (2) represent America, not
any single segment of American society, and therefore present a balanced
and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and
institutions; and (3) present the policies of the United States clearly
and effectively and

also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies. 3 In
contrast, the role of the surrogate broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/ Radio
Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio/ TV Marti) is to temporarily replace
the local media of countries where a free and open press does not exist.
WorldNet Television and Film Service provides production and distribution
support for television broadcasts developed by VOA and the Department of

State. The Board*s public diplomacy mandate also includes helping to
develop independent media and raising journalistic standards where
possible.

The Board*s New Strategic The Board*s new approach to broadcasting
represents an ambitious

Approach attempt to reach larger audiences in key markets. To do this, it
seeks

creative solutions that prioritize the use of limited resources and marry
the mission of U. S. international broadcasting to the needs and wants of
target audiences. The Board*s new strategic plan was issued in December
2002; however, development of its new approach to broadcasting began in
July 2001. The plan was developed to address declining audience share in
key markets such as Russia and historically static performance in key
strategic regions such as the Middle East. For example, the BBG had a 21
percent market share in Russia in the early 1990s that has declined to
about 4 percent of the adult listening audience in recent years. In the
Middle East,

the VOA*s Arabic service has for decades reached less than 2 percent of
potential listeners. 3 VOA also serves as a surrogate broadcaster in
information- deprived countries in Africa

since Congress has not established a separate surrogate entity for this
region.

The Board*s new plan outlines a strategic vision for U. S. international
broadcasting that is designed to move the organization toward a
marketbased approach that will generate the large listening audiences in
priority markets that the Board believes it must reach to effectively meet
its

mission. Early implementation of the plan has focused on markets relevant
to the war on terrorism; 4 however, the Board intends that many elements
of its new approach will be applied to many of its language services over
time. The Board*s vision is to create a flexible, multimedia, research-
driven U. S. international broadcasting system. This system will
incorporate regional

networks and single- country operations to reach large audiences by
programming the distinct content of VOA and the surrogate services through
state- of- the- art formats and distribution channels controlled by the
Board.

Figure 2 provides an overview of the Board*s new strategic plan and shows
the links among the Board*s mission statement, vision statement, broadcast
priorities, strategic goals, and program objectives. Appendix I provides a
complete list of the goals and objectives.

4 One of the Board*s key objectives is to provide support to the war on
terrorism through anti- terrorism broadcasting. The Board views recent
initiatives in the Middle East, such as Radio Sawa, as examples of its new
approach and as a major initiative supporting the war on terrorism.

Figure 2: The Board*s New Strategic Plan

Strategic plans play a critical role in the management of agency
operations. Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes
clear that agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual
performance reports form the basis for a comprehensive and integrated

approach to performance management. 5 In the Board*s case, its performance
management is augmented by an ongoing series of program reviews of
individual language services conducted each year 6 and an annual
comparative review of all language services. Program reviews are in- depth
assessments of performance conducted by a team of management, audience
research experts, technical staff, and language service staff. The
comparative review of language services represents an intensive 4- month
review by the Board designed to evaluate the need for adding or deleting
language services and strategically reallocating funds to the language

services on the basis of priority and impact. This year, the Board asked
eight language services to prepare individual performance plans that
capture key elements of the Board*s new strategic approach to
broadcasting, including the need to identify a target audience and
establish specific audience goals. 7 These performance plans will become
the focus of future program reviews and form the final link in a planned
performance

management system that will integrate the Board*s strategic plan,
performance plan, annual language service review, budget preparation
process, and program reviews into a unified whole. The strategic plan
forms the heart of this system since it should provide the performance
goals and measures that drive the Board*s entire operations.

5 OMB guidance notes that agency strategic plans may include multiyear
strategic goals that are not subject to direct measurement. However, these
goals must be supported by measurable program objectives that provide a
long- term basis for assessing whether an agency*s strategic goals are
being met. Annual progress toward achieving agency program objectives
should be tracked through the performance goals and indicators in an
agency*s

performance plan under the Government Performance and Results Act. See
Circular No. A11, Part 6, Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans,
Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program Performance Reports; Office
of Management and Budget

(Washington, D. C.: June 2002). 6 These two components of the Board*s
performance management system were addressed in detail in our last report
on U. S. international broadcasting. U. S. General Accounting Office, U.
S. International Broadcasting: Strategic Planning and Performance
Management

System Could be Improved, GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 222 (Washington, D. C.: Sept.
27, 2000). 7 These languages fall in the Near East Asia and South Asia
region targeted for evaluation as part of OMB*s new Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) exercise, which is designed to support the budget and
performance integration component of the President*s Management

Agenda. Under the PART process, approximately 20 percent of agency
programs were supposed to be covered during the formulation of the fiscal
year 2004 budget, with other programs to be annually added to the
assessment in future years.

Projects Supporting Consistent with the plan*s theme of *marrying the
mission to the market,*

War on Terrorism the Board has applied its new audience- focused
broadcasting approach to

recent initiatives supporting the war on terrorism. The first project
under Adhere to Board*s New

the new approach, Radio Sawa in the Middle East, was launched in March
Approach

2002 using many of the modern, market- tested broadcasting techniques and
practices prescribed in the plan, in an effort to attract a larger,
younger population. Follow- on program initiatives also adhere to the
Board*s modern approach to broadcasting, though application is tailored to
the specific circumstances of each target market. These initiatives
include the Afghanistan Radio Network (ARN) and the new Radio Farda
service to Iran. Estimated start- up and recurring costs for these three
projects

through fiscal year 2003 total about $116 million. As funds become
available, there are plans to extend application of the Board*s new
approach to other high- priority markets, such as Indonesia. In addition,
the Board hopes to further expand its presence in the Middle East through
the launch of a Middle East Television Network. Future initiatives are
expected to require additional reallocation of funds and possible
supplemental spending by Congress. Application Tailored to

The Board has tailored the use of its modern, audience- focused approach
Market Circumstances

to broadcasting, taking target audiences and market circumstances into
consideration when developing and implementing new program initiatives.
Table 1 provides a brief description of recently implemented projects

supporting the war on terrorism.

Tabl e 1: The Board*s Recently Implemented Initiatives Initiative Launch
date Project description

Radio Sawa March 2002 A modern Arabic- language network that broadcasts
music, news, and information to young people in the Middle East via a
combination of FM, medium wave, short wave, digital audio satellite, and
Internet transmission resources. The network uses four 24hour, seven-
days- a- week regional programming streams. a

ARN August 2002 The network combines the distinct news and information
program content of Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty*s Radio Free
Afghanistan b and VOA*s Dari and Pashtu language services into a closely
coordinated, single programming stream targeting the broad

Afghani population. The network currently broadcasts 24 hours, seven days
a week on FM and the Internet.

Radio Farda December 2002 Radio Farda integrates the distinct music, news,
and information content of VOA and Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty into a
single programming stream targeting youth in Iran. It broadcasts 24 hours
a day, seven days a week via medium wave, digital audio satellite, and the
Internet. It also broadcasts 21 hours a day via short wave.

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors. a Radio Sawa*s four programming
streams are directed at Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and the

Persian Gulf countries (i. e., Kuwait, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, etc.)
and reflect regional tastes and interests. b Radio Free Afghanistan was
launched by Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty in December 2001 in an effort
to build a peaceful and democratic Afghanistan. This service was

congressionally authorized.

Radio Sawa The first program under the Board*s new approach, Radio Sawa in
the Middle East, was launched using modern, market- tested broadcasting
techniques and practices, such as the extensive use of music formats, to
improve performance in this priority market and lend support to the war on
terrorism by targeting youth audiences. Although music remains a large
part of the programming on Radio Sawa, the proportion of news and
information to music is steadily increasing, peaking at 5- hours a day
during

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Radio Sawa replaced the poorly performing VOA
Arabic service, which had listening rates at around 2 percent of the
population. The Board has survey research indicating that Radio Sawa is
reaching 51 percent of its target audience and is ranked highest for news
and news trustworthiness in Amman, Jordan. Despite such results, it
remains unclear how many people Radio Sawa is actually reaching throughout
the Middle East because audience research has been performed only in
select markets and has not yet included audiences in key markets like
Saudi Arabia.

Afghanistan Radio Network The Afghanistan Radio Network was launched in
August 2002 to more effectively use and strengthen the impact of BBG
broadcasting resources targeted to Afghanistan, a key market for the war
on terrorism. ARN utilizes broadcasting concepts outlined in the Board*s
new strategic approach, such as tailoring content to the target audience
and integrating programming streams across entities. Unlike Radio Sawa,
ARN is not primarily designed to reach a youth audience but a broader
Afghani audience. Programs are designed to be locally focused and are high
in educational, news, and information content. BBG service to Afghanistan
has in the past yielded some of the Board*s highest listening rates (in
1999 around 80 percent of adult male heads- of- household). Recent BBG
research indicates that the Board is reaching about 45 percent of all male
and female adults in the listening regions of Kabul and Mazar- e- Sharif.

Radio Farda Radio Farda was launched to strengthen the impact of BBG
broadcasting resources targeted to Iran, another key market for the war on
terrorism. Based on audience research and an analysis of specific market
factors in

Iran, the Board tailored the plan*s elements to Radio Farda. Radio Farda
uses modern broadcast techniques to attract a youth target audience.
Although it uses music formats, Radio Farda also strives to provide

substantial news and information. The Board claims that increases in the
volume of e- mail and phone calls from the region indicate that the
service is gaining popularity among the target audience in Iran.

Other New Initiatives The Board is planning other program initiatives in
support of the war on terrorism, and plans indicate that the Board will
selectively apply its new broadcasting approach to these projects. Future
initiatives include enhancements to the VOA Indonesian and Urdu services
and creation of a Middle East Television Network, which represents the
single largest enhancement to the Board*s operations in the coming year.
Still in the planning stages, the Middle East Television Network will be
an 18- to 24- hour- a- day, seven- days- a- week, U. S.- controlled
satellite TV service presenting what the Board sees as American- style
news and information programs in the Arabic language to counter the lack
of depth and balance in the Middle Eastern media. As television is the
most important medium in the region for news and information, the Board
expects to significantly

increase its audience size with this initiative.

Projected Costs of the New Certain elements of the Board*s new plan will
require substantial levels of

Strategy Are Significant investments. Such elements include broadcasting
round- the- clock, using

audience research and music formats extensively, and reaching audiences on
Board- controlled AM and FM frequencies. Other elements do not require as
substantial capital investments, such as identifying target audiences and
redesigning program content to appeal to these audiences. Just as Radio
Sawa, ARN, and Radio Farda incorporate the Board*s new broadcasting
approach to varying degrees, the Board has stated in its strategic plan
that it will apply certain high- cost elements of its new approach on a
case- by- case basis. It cannot afford to broadly apply all elements to
all language services, and some markets do not require such changes for U.
S. international broadcasting to remain competitive. Table 2 provides a
cost summary of recently implemented high- priority projects.

Tabl e 2: Costs of BBG New Initiatives

Dollars in millions

Sawa ARN Farda

One time capital costs (paid in FY 2001 or 2002) $10.5 $19. 6 N/ A

Additional expected capital costs (paid in FY 2003) $21.6 $1. 8 $1. 0

Annual operating expenses (paid in FY 2002) $11.7 $9. 6 N/ A

Projected annual operating expenses (paid in FY 2003) $20.6 $13. 4 $6. 2

Total project costs (through FY 2003) $64.4 $44. 4 $7. 2 $116.0

Source: GAO analysis of BBG data. N/ A = Not applicable.

The estimated price tags for other priority initiatives, such as the
Middle East Television Network and the expansion of the VOA Indonesian
service, are also significant. For example, the Board estimates that it
will cost about $62 million to initiate the Middle East Television Network
and an additional $37 million annually for recurring operational costs.
Expanding VOA Indonesian radio and TV programming is estimated to cost an
additional $3.4 million. Cost estimates for the VOA Urdu service program
expansion are not yet available because the Board has not finalized its
plans for this project.

Some of the Board*s recent priority projects have been funded in part by
reallocation of program funds under the Board*s annual language service
review process. For example, the Board funded Radio Farda by reprogramming
more than $5.6 million in fiscal year 2003 funds and also helped pay for
Radio Sawa by reprogramming approximately $4.1 million in fiscal year 2001
funds from other language services. Effectiveness Is

The Board*s new approach to broadcasting is based on the need to reach
Difficult to Assess

large audiences in priority markets, but its strategic plan does not
include a single goal or related program objective designed to gauge
progress toward Absent Measurable

increasing audience size. In addition, the plan*s seven existing strategic
Program Objectives

goals (for example, to employ modern communication techniques or to
revitalize efforts to tell America*s story) are not supported by
measurable program objectives that would allow the Board and others to
gauge the agency*s progress in implementing its strategic goals. 8 While
the plan lacks a range of measurable program objectives, key effectiveness
measures that could be incorporated in future versions of the Board*s
strategic plan include audience awareness of U. S. broadcast efforts,
audience perceptions of the credibility of U. S. broadcasts, and whether
VOA effectively presents information about the United States and its
policies to target audiences. Efforts to assess the effectiveness of the
Board*s new approach to broadcasting may also be hampered by the lack of
details on how the Board intends to implement each of its program
objectives.

Missing from the plan are specifics on implementation strategies, resource
requirements, and project time frames. 9 The Board has acknowledged that

8 Our observations on these missing elements are mirrored in OMB*s summary
report on this year*s implementation of the Program Assessment Rating
Tool. OMB*s report in the President*s fiscal year 2004 budget request
notes that *the [BBG] program scored poorly in strategic planning,
primarily because the long- term and annual goals are vague and do not
include time frames and measurable targets.*

9 These findings mirror several of the observations we made in GAO/ NSIAD-
00- 222.

its strategic plan needs to be significantly improved, and major changes
are planned for the next iteration. 10 Plan Lacks Focus on

The absence of *audience size* as a strategic goal and related measurable
Audience Size and Other program objectives represents one of the most
significant oversights in the Measurable Program Board*s strategic plan.
The strategic plan references the importance of

Objectives reaching a large audience in priority markets as the key driver
behind the

Board*s new approach to broadcasting and notes that audience size is the
most readily available and accurate impact measure it has. Despite the
central importance of audience size to the Board*s new approach to
broadcasting, the plan is silent on how these data should be incorporated
as a measurable program objective or series of program objectives to gauge
the Board*s effectiveness in this key area. The Board has traditionally
reported audience size in its annual performance plan; however, this
reporting lacks any contextual meaning since it is not tied to a program
objective( s) defining the Board*s multiyear vision for what it would like
to accomplish in this area. In addition, the Board*s practice of reporting
audience size goals and accomplishments at the entity level in its annual
performance plan obscured important performance data at the regional and
language service level.

We also found that the plan*s existing strategic goals are not supported
by measurable program objectives. The strategic plan has 17 program
objectives, 11 any of which can be used to illustrate the lack of
performance goals and expectations. For example, under the goal of
employing modern communication techniques and technologies, one objective
is to accelerate multimedia development and infuse more television and
Internet into the mix. The Board*s plan only makes broad assertions about
the need to *do more with TV where market realities demand and resources
permit* and that the Board *will ensure that all entities have world-
class Internet presences.* 10 We recently reported that a *program logic
model* can help information dissemination

agencies systematically identify their program activities, inputs,
outputs, outcomes, and program impact. By specifying what is expected at
each step, a logic model can help agencies define the most appropriate set
of program goals and measures. As such, the model could be used by the
Board as a tool to help prepare its next iteration of the strategic plan.
See U. S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Strategies for
Assessing How Information Dissemination Contributes to Agency Goals, GAO-
02- 923 (Washington, D. C.:

Sept. 30, 2002). 11 See appendix I for a list of the Board*s strategic
goals and program objectives.

Under the goal of progressively building out the U. S. international
broadcasting system, the Board lists the successful launch of Radio Sawa
as a program objective. Again, the plan makes broad statements about the
need to attract and build a significant audience in the Middle East and
present news that is objective, comprehensive, fresh, and relevant.
However, it does not provide details on expected performance levels.
Specifically, the plan does not establish short- or long- range target
audience figures for the Gaza strip, West Bank, and 17 countries in the
Middle East and Africa to which Radio Sawa will eventually broadcast. A
Range of Effectiveness

Our survey of senior program managers across all broadcast entities and
Measures Could Be

discussions with other program staff and outside parties, suggested a
Incorporated in the Board*s

number of other effectiveness measures the Board could incorporate when
developing measurable program objectives designed to support the plan*s
Plan strategic goals. 12 These measures include audience awareness;
broadcast entity credibility; and a measure of VOA*s ability to
communicate a balanced and comprehensive projection of American thought,
institutions, and policies so that audiences receive, understand, and
retain this

information. Audience Awareness The strategic plan does not include a
measure of audience awareness to answer a second key question of
effectiveness: whether target audiences

are even aware of U. S. international broadcasting programming available
in their area. Board officials have stated that such measures would help
the Board understand a key factor in audience share rates and what could
be done to address audience share deficiencies. The Board could develop
this measure since it already collects information on language service
awareness levels in its audience research and in national surveys for
internal use.

Broadcaster Credibility The strategic plan does not include a measure of
broadcaster credibility, which can identify whether target audiences
believe what they hear. Reaching a large listening or viewing audience is
of little use if audiences largely discount the news and information
portions of broadcasts. Our 12 These measures represent a starting point,
since each strategic goal in the plan needs to be supported by measurable
program objectives. Once strategic goals are lined up with measurable
program objectives, a related set of performance goals and indicators
should be included in the Board*s performance plan to track annual
progress toward implementing the plan*s program objectives.

survey of senior program managers and discussions with BBG staff and
outside groups all point to the possibility that U. S. broadcasters (VOA
in particular) suffer from a credibility problem with foreign audiences,
who may view VOA and other broadcasters as biased sources of information.
InterMedia, the Board*s audience research contractor, told the Board that
it is working on a credibility index for another customer that could be
adapted to meet the Board*s needs which, when segmented by language
service, would reveal whether there are significant perception problems
among key target audiences. However, to develop this measure, the Board
would need to add several questions to its national survey instruments.

Measure of VOA Mission Finally, the strategic plan does not include a
measure of whether target

Effectiveness audiences hear, understand, and retain information broadcast
by VOA on American thought, institutions, and policies. The unique value-
added

component of VOA*s broadcasting mission is its focus on issues and
information concerning the United States, our system of government, and
the rationale behind U. S. policy decisions. Tracking and reporting these
data are important to determining whether VOA is accomplishing its
mission. InterMedia officials noted that developing a measure of this sort
is feasible and requires developing appropriate quantitative and
qualitative questions to include in the Board*s ongoing research
activities.

Plan Lacks Specifics on We found that each of the plan*s program
objectives lacked a detailed Implementation Strategies,

description of implementation strategies, resource needs, and project time
Resource Needs, and

frames. Typically, each program objective consists of an overview of the
Project Time Frames

problem followed by a general assertion that operations must be improved.
For example, the *action plan* for the accelerated use of television and
the Internet is limited to the following statements:

 *Appropriate Television * VOA has seen significant audience impact in
several key markets through television broadcasts* the Balkans, Iran, and
Indonesia. We can and will do more with TV where market realities demand
this and where resources permit. The first step is to cement the
establishment of VOA- TV from the former Worldnet.

 Higher Quality Web Presence * We have seen spotty progress towards the
goal of having all language services create high quality newsoriented
websites. Some are outstanding. The content of others is thin and visually
uninteresting. Bottom line: We will ensure that all entities have world-
class Internet presences.*

This level of planning begs key questions such as:  What is the overall
strategy for implementing the enhanced use of

television and the Internet? Who will be responsible for implementing the
component parts of the strategy? How much will it cost? How long will it
take to implement?

 How will the Board manage workforce planning issues such as
transitioning staff from radio- based skills to the skill set required to
significantly augment the Board*s multimedia operations?

 How will the long- planned merger of VOA Television and WorldNet impact
the Board*s strategic approach to television?

 How will the Middle East Television Network factor into the Board*s
plans and what are the resource, staffing, and training implications of
this proposed network?

Answers to such questions will provide the Board, BBG managers, OMB, and
the Congress with specific information needed to manage ongoing program
implementation and assess progress against meaningful short- and long-
term criteria. This level of planning also will reveal any potential gaps
or inconsistencies in planned implementation steps across the Board*s many
program objectives.

Board Plans to Address The key strategic challenge the Board faces is how
to achieve large

Many Challenges, but audiences in priority markets while dealing with (1)
a collection of

outdated and noncompetitive language services, (2) a disparate Scope of
Operations

organizational structure consisting of seven separate broadcast entities
and May Limit Its Impact

a mix of federal agency and grantee organizations that are managed by a
part- time Board of Governors, and (3) the resource challenge of
broadcasting in 97 language services to more than 125 broadcast markets
worldwide. The plan does address the challenge of revamping its current
broadcast operations by identifying a number of solutions to the
competitive challenges the Board faces. It also provides a new
organizational model for U. S. international broadcasting that stresses
the need to view the broadcast efforts of the separate entities as part of
a *single system* under the Board*s direct control and authority. The
Board has stated that it cannot sustain all its current broadcast
operations and

have the desired impact in high priority markets at the same time. Despite
a clear articulation of U. S. international broadcasting*s resource
challenges,

the Board and Congress have not been able to substantially reduce the
total number of language services or a reported 55 percent overlap in VOA
and surrogate language services.

Board Has Identified The Board*s strategic plan does an adequate job of
identifying the market

Solutions to Market challenges for U. S. international broadcasters and
potential solutions to

Challenges these challenges. The task of reaching a significant audience
today is a far

different proposition than reaching an audience a decade ago. Priority
markets have multiplied and media environments have advanced virtually
everywhere with an explosion of local radio and television outlets that
compete aggressively for audience share. Broadcast and computer
technologies have made quantum leaps, with satellite television and the
Internet becoming preferred information modes for millions. The Board has
concluded that because many people can now pick and choose their
information sources, U. S. international broadcast operations must be
improved to remain competitive in a new media environment.

The Board*s strategic plan includes a frank assessment of the market
challenges that must be addressed to make U. S. international broadcasting
more competitive. These challenges include:

 Branding and positioning. Language services lack a distinctive
contemporary identity and a unique reason for listeners or viewers to tune
in.

 Target audiences. Few language services have identified their target
audience* a key first step in developing a broadcast strategy.

 Formats and programs. Many language services have outmoded formats and
programs with an antiquated, even Cold War, sound and style.

 Delivery and placement. Three- quarters of transmitted hours have poor
or fair signal quality, and affiliate broadcaster strategies have stressed
quantity over quality.

 Marketing and promotion. Audience awareness levels are low across the
world and audiences often do not know where to tune in or what to expect
once they do.

 Technology. The Board is not maximizing the use of multimedia to reach
audiences, stimulate real- time interaction, and cross- promote broadcast
products.

These challenges are addressed by a number of proposed solutions in the
form of strategic goals and program objectives listed in the plan. With
regards to the marketing challenges, 12 of the 17 program objectives are
designed to directly or indirectly overcome these challenges. For example,

the Board*s strategic goal of employing modern communication techniques
and technologies is supported by the following program objectives: 
accelerate multimedia development and infuse more television and

Internet into the mix;  adopt modern radio principles and practices
including the matching of

program formats to target audiences;  control the distribution channels
that audiences use;  go local in content and presence;  tailor content
to audiences; and  drive innovation and performance with research. Full
implementation of these and other solutions to market challenges in high
priority markets will depend on available resources, which in turn will be
driven in part by the Board*s effectiveness in addressing its

organizational and resource challenges. Plan Proposes a *Single The plan
identifies a number of internal challenges or obstacles which, if System*
for Broadcasting

not addressed and corrected, will hamper the Board*s ability to
effectively and Increased Leadership

implement its new strategic approach to broadcasting. First, the Board for
the Board

believes that it needs to do more to consolidate and rationalize its
organizational structure to better leverage existing resources and
generate greater program impact in priority markets. As the strategic plan
notes, *the diversity of the BBG* diverse organizations with different
missions, different frameworks, and different constituencies* makes it a
challenge to bring all the separate parts together in a more effective
whole.* Second,

the Board believes that it must clarify the respective roles and
responsibilities of the Board, the IBB, and the broadcast entities to
ensure

that a rational management process is in place and that internal
communications flow in a logical manner. 13 The Board*s response to these
internal challenges is largely contained in

the two program objectives listed under the strategic goal of designing a
broadcast architecture for the 21st century. The first program objective
is to create a unified broadcasting system by treating the component parts
of

U. S. international broadcasting as a single system. This is an important
distinction since it places the Board in the position of actively managing
resources across broadcast entities to achieve common broadcast goals. A
good example of this strategy in action is Radio Farda, which draws on the
unique content of VOA*s Persian service and Radio Free Europe/ Radio
Liberty*s Persian service to create a new broadcast product for the
Iranian

market. Board officials acknowledge that the new single system approach
will take years to implement throughout the BBG and require hands- on
management by the entire Board to ensure that resources are adequately
managed across entities. Also, the Board*s experience with implementing
Radio Sawa suggests that it can be difficult to make disparate broadcast

entities work toward a common purpose. For example, Board members and
senior planners said they encountered significant difficulties attempting
to work with VOA officials to launch Radio Sawa and there are now plans to
constitute Radio Sawa as a separate grantee organization. While this move
is understandable under the circumstances, it also contributes to the
further *balkanization* of U. S. international

broadcasting. The second program objective consists of realigning the
BBG*s organizational structure. This objective highlights the need to
reinforce the Board*s role as CEO and to reaffirm the IBB*s role as
central provider of transmission and local placement services. The plan
notes that by law the

Board is the head of the agency with a host of nondelegable
responsibilities including taking the lead role in shaping the BBG*s
overall strategic direction, setting expectations and standards, and
creating the context for

13 The Board*s concerns over organizational and management issues mirror
the results of a retreat of senior BBG managers held in July 2001, which
served as a springboard for the development of the Board*s strategic plan.
The retreat represented a *no holds barred* look at current activities and
future operations. One retreat exercise focused on identifying the key
*restrainers* blocking the Board from moving toward a future vision for U.
S. international broadcasting as articulated by the group. A tabulation of
votes revealed that

senior managers believed that a *flawed BBG organizational structure* and
*very poor internal communications* were the two top restrainers the Board
faces.

innovation and change. As it consolidates its role as the collective CEO
for U. S. international broadcasting, the Board will seek to create better
and stronger linkages among entities, uniting them in a common purpose and
program. At the same time, the Board plans to assume the role of helping
the broadcasting organizations develop radio formats to package and better
present the broadcasters* content. According to the plan, this becomes a
major responsibility, as professional formatting is vital to the BBG*s
competitiveness and effectiveness.

Plan Does Not Discuss We found significant support among BBG staff and
outside experts we Several Organizational

interviewed and surveyed for a select number of solutions not included in
Options the Board*s plan. However, these are complex issues that deserve
detailed review and careful weighing of the pros and cons. Implementing
these solutions is largely beyond the Board*s control. However, the Board
can play a key role in identifying and endorsing creative solutions for
Congress to consider if the Board*s planned solutions to organizational
and leadership challenges falter and are ineffective. A list of these
options is offered for informational purposes and as a reference point for
the Board, OMB, and Congress in pursuing solutions to acknowledged
operating

challenges. (See app. II for relevant survey responses we received from
senior program managers.) Table 3 summarizes the Board*s planned action
compared with these potential alternatives.

Tabl e 3: Planned Actions and Additional Options Planned action Potential
alternatives *Single system* approach to broadcasting Consider whether U.
S. international broadcasting should be consolidated into a single

entity to streamline and rationalize operations. (See survey question 20.
1.) Reinforce the Board*s role as CEO Consider whether a full- time CEO or
Chief Operating Officer (COO) for international

broadcasting is needed to manage day- to- day operations that may put too
great a stress on a part- time Board. In either case, it is presumed that
the Board would have direct hire and fire authority over such a position.
a, b (See survey question 20. 2.) Reinforce the IBB*s central support role
Consider an alternative to the current support services arrangement giving
VOA,

Radio/ TV Marti, and WorldNet the same flexibility as grantees to manage
their nontransmission support services. Grantee organizations (Radio Free
Europe/ Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia) directly control most
nontransmission support services such as affiliate relations, marketing,
and computer services. In contrast,

nontransmission support services for VOA, Radio/ TV Marti, and WorldNet
were largely consolidated within the IBB as part of the 1994 International
Broadcasting Act.

(See survey question 4. 3.) No parallel action Consider whether VOA, the
IBB, and Radio/ TV Marti should be reconstituted as

grantees to place them on the same footing as the surrogate broadcasters,
who enjoy more liberal workforce rules and fewer restrictions. It has been
argued that the flexible environment grantees have is more conducive to a
fast- paced business such as broadcasting. (See survey questions 20. 8 and
20.9.) Source: GAO analysis.

a Certain Board members and senior BBG planners view this option as
problematic given the perception that attracting talented individuals to
serve on the Board is dependent, in part, on the Board having a central
and unambiguous role in managing the operations of U. S. international
broadcasting. b The utility of appointing federal agency COOs was recently
explored at a roundtable of senior private

and public sector executives sponsored by GAO. See U. S. General
Accounting Office, Highlights of a GAO Roundtable: The Chief Operating
Officer Concept: A Potential Strategy to Address Federal Governance
Challenges, GAO- 03- 192SP (Washington, D. C.: Oct. 4, 2002).

Plan Does Not Directly The Board has concluded that if U. S. international
broadcasting is to Address the Board*s Scope

become a vital component of U. S. foreign policy, it must focus on a clear
of Operations

set of broadcast priorities. Trying to do too much at the same time
fractures this focus, extends the span of control beyond management
capabilities, and siphons off precious resources. The Board has determined
that current efforts to support its broadcast languages are
*unsustainable* with current resources given its desire to increase impact
in high priority markets. Currently, the Board broadcasts in 66 languages,
through 97 language

services (resulting from a 55 percent overlap between VOA and surrogate
language services) to more than 125 markets worldwide. The plan notes, *it
is a daunting challenge to obtain the impact the Board desires across all
its language services given what is essential to spend in high priority
services.*

Despite this recognition, the plan fails to answer such questions as, when
is it appropriate to broadcast VOA and surrogate programming in the same
language, and what level of duplication in roles and target audiences
should be allowed between VOA and surrogate broadcasters. These types of
questions have been raised before. For example, in our September 1996
review of options for addressing possible budget reductions at the U. S.
Information Agency, we concluded that any substantial reduction in

funding for U. S. international broadcasting would require major changes
in the number of language services and broadcast hours. 14 Our report
noted that the BBG planned to extensively review its language services to
determine their continued need and effectiveness. Our September 2000
report on U. S. international broadcasting noted that the Board concluded
it

was essential to revisit the issue of broadcast overlap between VOA and
the surrogate services in light of evolving foreign policy, geopolitical,
and budget realities in the new century. 15 Finally, the Board considered
the issue of role and target audience duplication among VOA and surrogate
broadcasts in a July 2000 language service analysis, which sought to
identify where broadcast services shared similar roles (that is, to supply
international/ regional news, local news, information on American policies
and perspectives, etc.) and the same target audiences (that is, elites,
mass, youth, women, and diaspora). This analysis confirmed that surrogate
broadcasters, consistent with their mission, carry substantially more
local content than VOA. Likewise, the analysis confirmed that VOA alone
provides news and information on what the Board labeled the *American
political perspective.* However, the Board*s analysis also revealed that a
significant degree of overlap existed in other content areas (such as
*political/ democracy building*) and in target audiences between VOA and
the surrogates.

14 See U. S. General Accounting Office, U. S. Information Agency: Options
for Addressing Possible Budget Reductions, GAO/ NSIAD- 96- 179
(Washington, D. C.: Sept. 23, 1996). 15 See GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 222.

Reducing the Number of Our survey of senior program managers revealed that
the majority

Language Services and supported significantly reducing the total number of
language services and

the overlap in services between VOA and the surrogate broadcasters. 16
Broadcast Overlap Has Eighteen of 24 respondents said that too many
language services are Broad Support

offered, and when asked how many countries should have more than one U. S.
international broadcaster providing service in the same language, 23 of 28
respondents said this should occur in only a few countries or no countries
at all. Finally, when we asked respondents what impact a

significant reduction in language services (for the purpose of
reprogramming funds to higher priority services) would have, 18 of 28
respondents said that this would have a generally positive to highly
positive impact.

The BBG*s annual language service review process addresses the need to
delete or add languages. The process prioritizes individual language
services based on such factors as U. S. strategic interests, political
freedom, and press freedom data. Such assessments have been used in an
attempt to shift the focus of U. S. international broadcasting away from
central and eastern Europe to allow greater emphasis on Russia and
Eurasia; central and South Asia; China and east Asia; Africa; and selected
countries in our hemisphere such as Colombia, Cuba, and Haiti. This system
has been used to re- deploy resources within the BBG. For example, the
Board has reallocated more than $9 million through the elimination or
reduction of language services since its first language service review in
January 2000. In total, the Board has eliminated 3 language services 17
and reduced the

16 We did not ask program managers for their views on the duplication of
roles and target audiences among broadcast entities since this issue
surfaced after our survey was released. 17 VOA Portuguese to Brazil was
eliminated as a direct result of language service review. VOA Arabic and
Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty*s Persian service were eventually
eliminated as the result of decisions made during language service review
and were replaced by Radio Sawa and Radio Farda, respectively.

scope- of- operations of another 25 services since January 2000. 18 In
terms of the total number of language services, the Board had 91 language
services when it concluded its first language service review and 97
language services at the conclusion of this year*s review. Congress has
contributed to this situation by authorizing additional language services
over the years. However, the Board, through its required annual language
service review and strategic plan, is responsible for analyzing,
recommending, and implementing a more efficient and economical scope of
operations for U. S.

international broadcasting. Conclusions The Broadcasting Board of
Governors* strategic plan embodies, defines,

and guides the Board*s new approach to U. S. international broadcasting,
which aims to dramatically increase the size of listening and viewing
audiences in markets of U. S. strategic interest while focusing on the war
on terrorism. Early initiatives such as Radio Sawa, Radio Free
Afghanistan,

and Radio Farda represent the first wave of projects incorporating, to
varying degrees, the market- driven techniques on which the Board*s new
approach to broadcasting are based. Effective implementation of the
Board*s new approach to broadcasting rests, in part, on a rigorous plan
that reflects the Board*s best strategic thinking on a host of critical
issues. However, the Board*s plan lacks measurable program objectives,
detailed implementation strategies, resource needs, and project time
frames. We identified a number of key areas that could provide a starting
point for

developing multiyear program objectives that focus on the Board*s actual
effectiveness. These measures include audience size by language service,
audience awareness, broadcaster credibility, and whether VOA effectively
presents information about U. S. thought, institutions, and policies to
target audiences. Implementation of these and other program objectives
could be tracked through a related set of performance goals and indicators
in the Board*s annual performance plan. The Board has identified a number
of

18 Cutting language services can be challenging due to congressional
concerns that the proposed elimination or reduction of language services
is not supported by a clear rationale. For example, at OMB*s direction,
the Board*s fiscal year 2004 budget request was reduced by $8.8 million to
reflect the proposed elimination of broadcasts in nine foreign languages
assessed as low priority/ low impact services in connection with the
Board*s 2001/ 2002 language service review. However, Senator Lugar,
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has expressed the view
that the U. S. should not withdraw broadcasting services in certain
countries until there is assurance of a free and fair press in those
countries. In this regard, that Committee has approved S. 925 which
contains a provision that would prohibit

the BBG from eliminating the foreign language broadcasts proposed for
elimination in the BBG*s fiscal year 2004 budget request.

market and internal challenges and proposed solutions to address them. If
the Board falters in its efforts to correct some significant
organizational challenges, a number of alternative solutions do exist.
Finally, the Board needs to evaluate how many language services it can
effectively carry and what level of overlap and duplication in VOA and
surrogate broadcast services is appropriate. Resolving these key questions
will have significant resource implications for the Board and its ability
to reach large audiences in markets of priority interest to the United
States.

Recommendations for To improve overall management of U. S. international
broadcast operations

Executive Action and maximize their impact on U. S. public diplomacy
efforts, we

recommend that the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors: 
revise the BBG*s 5- year strategic plan to include measurable program
objectives, implementation strategies, resource requirements, and

project time frames;  include audience size, audience awareness,
broadcaster credibility, and

VOA mission effectiveness as measurable program objectives in the
strategic plan;

 revise the BBG*s annual performance plan to include performance goals
and indicators that track the Board*s progress in implementing the
multiyear program objectives established in the Board*s revised strategic
plan; and

 revise the Board*s strategic plan to include a clear vision of the
Board*s intended scope- of- operations and the appropriate level of
overlap and duplication between VOA and surrogate language services.

Agency Comments and The Broadcasting Board of Governors provided written
comments on a

Our Evaluation draft of this report. The Board stated that overall our
report is fair and

accurate and it largely concurred with our report recommendations. The
Board noted that it intends to create a new strategic goal (that is,
maximizing impact in priority areas) and recast the plan*s seven existing
strategic goals as operational goals that would support the Board*s single
strategic goal. These operational goals would be descriptive in nature and

generally not measured directly. However, the Board intends to develop
measurable multiyear program objectives and related performance

indicators under its new strategic goal that will be tracked on an annual
basis through the BBG*s performance plan. The Board*s response notes that
possible performance indicators include audience reach, share, awareness,
credibility, programming quality, mission, added- value, and delivery.
Finally, the Board noted that it is currently undertaking an in- depth

assessment of the utility and practicality of integrating overlapping
language services and expects to include this assessment in its fiscal
year 2005 budget submission. We believe these planned actions are
significant and if fully implemented should materially improve the Board's
performance management process and provide OMB and Congress with more
meaningful data on the actual impact of Board activities.

The comments provided by the Board are reprinted in appendix IV. The Board
also provided technical comments which we have incorporated in the report
as appropriate.

Scope and To obtain comparative information on all our objectives, we
conducted

Methodology fieldwork in the United Kingdom and Germany. We met with
foreign

ministry officials in London and Berlin to discuss their approaches to
public diplomacy. We also met with broadcasting officials from the British
Broadcasting Corporation in London and Deutsche Welle officials in Cologne
and Berlin to discuss their respective approaches to international
broadcasting.

To examine the status of the BBG*s new strategic approach, we conducted
interviews with Board members and senior managers from the broadcast
entities including Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty officials in Prague.
We also reviewed the Board*s new 5- year strategic plan titled *Marrying
the Mission to the Market* as well as other agency documentation,
including

entity mission statements and budget requests. To identify how the Board
plans to measure the effectiveness of its new strategic approach, we
reviewed current performance management documentation, such as language
service and program review documents, audience research summaries, and
annual performance plans and reports. We also met with Board officials and
with several private sector audience research firms to discuss a range of
performance management and measurement issues.

To obtain information on various challenges the Board faces in executing
its new strategy, and to identify program options for overcoming key

challenges, we administered a survey to 34 senior program managers across
the 5 broadcast entities in existence at the time our survey was
implemented. We also conducted interviews with Board members and the
Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the Department
of State.

We conducted our work from May 2002 through April 2003 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested members of
Congress, the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the
Secretary of State. We will also make copies available to other parties
upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at http:// www. gao. gov. If you or your staff have any
questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512- 4128. Other
GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.

Jess T. Ford Director, International Affairs and Trade

Appendi xes Challenges Facing U. S. International

Appendi x I

Broadcasting The Board*s strategic plan provides both a candid assessment
of the challenges facing U. S. international broadcasting and a series of
proposed solutions to address these challenges in the form of strategic
goals and related program objectives. Table 4 is an overview of each
challenge described in the Board*s strategic plan. Table 5 is a list of
the proposed solutions the Board identified.

Tabl e 4: Board- Identified Challenges Challenge Description from
strategic plan Marketing

Branding and positioning Many BBG broadcasters lack a distinctive
contemporary identity. Target audiences Identifying a target audience is
essential to a broadcasting strategy* yet only a few BBG

language services have set targets. Formats and programs The formats and
programs of too many BBG language services are outmoded. Delivery and
placement Broadcasts are frequently hampered by poor audibility.
Placement, where available, is

sometimes hindered by poor partner station choices with poor broadcast
times. Marketing and promotion Audience awareness of BBG programs is
generally low across the world. Technology The BBG must use multimedia to
its advantage. While radio is the backbone, TV is usually

dominant and there has been substantial growth in Internet use in many
markets.

Internal Consolidate and rationalize the overall The diversity of the BBG*
organizations with different missions, different frameworks, and
enterprise different constituencies* makes it hard to bring all the
separate parts together into a more

effective whole. Fifty- five percent of VOA*s language services overlap
with the surrogates, presenting a chronic resource allocation challenge
for the Board. Roles and responsibilities Since its inception, the Board
has worked to sort out the respective roles and responsibilities of

the BBG, the IBB, and the broadcasters. Resource allocation Appropriate
performance measures are needed to establish a direct link between
performance

and budget. Language service review has made great strides in this area
for the broadcast language services; however, the Board now needs to
broaden this exercise to encompass support elements as well.

New requirements to ensure market The Board will need substantial new
budget outlays to fund a variety of requirements including competitiveness
the strengthening of multimedia programming, conducting research, carrying
out marketing and promotion efforts, and securing language- qualified
staff.

Journalistically independent, yet a The BBG must work with other federal
agencies to ensure the level of diplomatic and other types government
agency of support needed to function effectively.

Source: BBG strategic plan.

Tabl e 5: Proposed Solutions Strategic Goals and Objectives Goal I *
Design a broadcasting architecture for the future.

 Create a worldwide U. S. international broadcasting system.  Realign
the BBG organizational structure.

Goal II * Expand the U. S. international broadcasting system through
regional networks and single- country priority initiatives.

 Launch the Middle East Radio Network and make it a success.  Harmonize
Radio Free Afghanistan and VOA into the Afghanistan Radio Network. 
Pioneer anti- terrorism broadcasting.  Reach the two continental giants:
Russia and China.

Goal III * Employ modern communication techniques and technologies.

 Accelerate multimedia development and infuse more television and
Internet into the mix.  Adopt modern radio principles and practices such
as matching program formats to target audiences.  Control the
distribution channels that audiences use.  Go local in content and
presence.  Tailor content to the audience.  Drive innovation and
performance with research.

Goal IV * Preserve our most precious commodity* credibility* and ensure
overall programming excellence.

 Maintain the firewall. a  Update and enforce journalism standards. 
Perform periodic program reviews of all language services.

Goal V * Revitalize *Telling America*s Story* to the world.

 Be a model of a free press and democracy in action.  Concentrate on
those aspects of America that research indicates are of interest to target
audiences.  Present targeted editorials that are relevant to local and
regional concerns.  Use formats, presentation techniques, and on- air
presence that will appeal to audiences.  Maximize interactive use of the
Internet as a ready reference source for presidential speeches and other
vital documents.

Goal VI * Shore up surge capacity.

 Upgrade existing shortwave transmitter and support systems to ensure
backbone of U. S. surge capability.  Develop a rapid- response
capability* low power, portable AM and FM.

Goal VII * Ensure broad federal support.

 No associated program objective. Source: BBG strategic plan.

a The term "firewall" refers to the Board's independent status in
separating and protecting the professional independence and integrity of
U. S. international broadcast elements from the policymaking institutions
in the U. S. government's foreign affairs community.

Appendi x II

Survey Development To determine senior managers* views of current
operations, obtain information on the challenges associated with U. S.
international broadcasting, and obtain information on the expected impacts
of the BBG*s new *Marrying the Mission to the Market* initiative, we
conducted a survey of these managers. Our survey questionnaire was
administered from January 15 to March 11, 2003, to the directors, program-
related managers, and regional language chiefs at the five BBG
broadcasting entities in

existence at the time our survey was implemented. The questionnaire was
developed between September 2002 and January 2003 by social science survey
specialists and other individuals who were knowledgeable about
international broadcasting issues. In late October, we obtained an
external expert review of the questionnaire from InterMedia, a private
consulting group that conducts research into international broadcasting
issues. We also obtained a series of comments and feedback from key Board
planners and staff in November and December 2002.

We pretested the questionnaire in December 2002 with four senior managers
of BBG broadcasting entities to ensure that the questionnaire was clear,
unambiguous, and unbiased. Initially, we had considered surveying a
broader section of managers of BBG broadcasting entities, such as language
service chiefs and managers of support services.

However, after conducting the pretests, we concluded that our questions
were appropriate only for directors, program- related managers, and
regional language chiefs. In addition, we decided that it would be
inappropriate to survey members of the Board of Governors because many of
the questions asked about decisions and strategies for which they were

directly responsible. We developed our study population of top managers,
program- related managers, and regional language chiefs based on
information that the BBG provided and input from BBG management. In those
instances where managers had taken office during or after the time period
to be evaluated in our survey (Oct. 1, 2001, through Sept. 30, 2002), we
also surveyed their predecessors. In all, we sent the survey to the 34
individuals we identified as our study population and received 30
responses, resulting in an 88 percent response rate. All data from the
completed surveys were doublekeyed and verified during data entry.

The results of our closed- ended questions to our survey are provided in
appendix III.

Survey of Program Managers of U. S.

Appendi x III

International Broadcasting Entities United States General Accounting
Office Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International Broadcasting
Entities

The United States General Accounting Office Finally, the questionnaire
asks about current

( GAO) , an agency of Congress, has been asked operations, recent changes
in programming, and

by the Chairman of the House International program options.

Relations Committee to study the activities of the Broadcasting Board of
Governors ( BBG) .

We believe that you can make an important This request was prompted by the
terrorist

contribution to our study of U. S. international attacks of September 11,
2001 and the question

broadcasting, and ask that you respond to this of what can be done to
improve our image and

questionnaire so that we may provide the most audience understanding of U.
S. foreign policy. complete information to Congress. The As part of this
work, we are surveying entity questionnaire should take between 30 to 45
heads, senior program managers, and regional

minutes to complete, depending upon the length language chiefs in the
International Broadcasting

of your answers to the open- ended questions. Bureau, Voice of America (
VOA) , Worldnet Television, Radio/ TV Marti, Radio Free

The information you provide may be attributed Europe/ Radio Liberty ( RFE/
RL) , and Radio

to the types of officials we are surveying in your Free Asia ( RFA) .

organization. GAO will not otherwise disclose individually identifiable
data from this survey This questionnaire asks you to assess various unless
compelled by law or requested by a program elements during fiscal year
2002 for the

member of Congress. language services for which you were responsible. It
also asks you to consider

Please complete this questionnaire as soon as whether any external factors
impeded the ability

possible and fax it to Melissa Pickworth at ( 202) of your language
services to achieve their

512- 2550 or e- mail it to her at mission, and rank any factors that
contributed to

pickworthm@ gao. gov. If you have any or impeded that mission.
Furthermore, the

questions about the questionnaire, please contact questionnaire asks for
your reaction to the

Melissa Pickworth at ( 202) 512- 3158. BBG s new strategic planning
initiative Marrying the Mission to the Market that was introduced in
November and December 2002.

1

Section 1: Assessment of Program Elements in Fiscal Year 2002 ( October 1,
2001, through September 30, 2002)

Mission of All U. S. International Broadcasting Language Services

To promote and sustain freedom and democracy by broadcasting accurate and
objective news and information about the United States and the world to
audiences overseas.

Q. 1) During fiscal year 2002, how effective or ineffective were the
following factors, which we are calling distribution factors, in terms of
how they helped your language services achieve their mission? ( Please
check one box in each row. )

Very Generally As

Generally Very Not

No basis to effective

effective effective as

ineffective ineffective

applicable judge / ineffective

Don t know

Distribution Factors

1) Number of hours of

6 14 5 4 1

transmission. 2) Transmission strength

13 6 6 2 3

and quality. 3) Use of affiliates. 2 7 5 4 2 8 2

4) Monitoring of affiliate

3 2 7 7 8 2

rebroadcasting. 5) Coordination with IBB

4 8 2 4 5 7 Affiliates and Marketing office. 6) Use of shortwave radio. 9
8 6 6 1

7) Use of AM/ FM radio. 5 10 3 1 1 10 8) Use of television. 2 9 6 1 8 3

9) Use of the Internet. 5 14 6 2 1 1

10) Use of e- mail. 3 16 3 2 1 2 1

11) Use of new/ emerging

2 4 3 1 3 14 2

technology ( e. g. , digital SW or Web- enabled cell phones) . 12) Use of
audience and

4 11 6 5 3 market research to help identify audiences and media/ format
preferences.

Comments, if any. ( Please provide highlights of what worked well, areas
needing improvement, and suggestions on how operations can be improved . )

2

Q. 2) During fiscal year 2002, what impact did the following strategic
planning elements have on your language services ability to achieve their
mission? ( Please check one box in each row. )

Highly Generally No impact Generally

Highly Not No basis to positive

positive negative

negative applicable

judge / impact

impact impact

impact Don t know

Strategic Planning

1) BBG strategic

3 5 9 5 1 7

planning. 2) BBG/ IBB technology 11 10 2 1 6

planning. 3) BBG/ IBB workforce

14 4 3 1 8

planning. Comments, if any. ( Please provide highlights of what worked
well, areas needing improvement, and

suggestions on how operations can be improved. )

Q. 3) During fiscal year 2002, how effective or ineffective were the
following performance management system elements in terms of how they
helped your language services to achieve their mission?

( Please check one box in each row. )

Very Generally As

Generally Very Not

No basis to effective

effective effective as

ineffective ineffective

applicable judge / ineffective

Don t know

Performance Management System

1) BBG s Annual

7 6 4 6 4 3

Comparative Language Service Review process. 2) Your entity s annual

6 10 3 4 6 1

program reviews of individual language service. 3) Quantity of research
for

3 10 8 3 1 4 1

your entity s annual program reviews. 4) Quality of research for

3 9 6 6 1 4 1

your entity s annual program reviews. 5) Timeliness of research 3 8 7 3 3
4 2

support for your entity s annual program reviews . Comments, if any. (
Please provide highlights of what worked well, areas needing improvement,
and

suggestions on how operations can be improved. )

3

Q. 4) During fiscal year 2002, did the following organizational structures
have a positive or negative impact on your language services ability to
achieve their mission? ? ( Please check one box in each row. )

Highly Generally No impact Generally

Highly Not No basis to positive

positive negative

negative applicable

judge / impact

impact impact

impact Don t know

Organizational Structures

1) Management oversight by 2 8 8 7 3 2

the board of governors. 2) Use of multiple broadcast

3 5 2 4 3 11 2

entities ( VOA and surrogates model) . 3) Organizational placement

1 7 4 9 5 1 3

of the IBB and its support services role. 4) New regional network

2 3 6 3 2 9 5

approach ( combining VOA and surrogate program streams on one frequency) .
5) Intra- agency 1 11 9 4 3 2

coordination/ guidance/ leader - ship ( the board, entity directors and
senior

managers, and the IBB) . 6) Firewall to protect

7 8 6 7 2

journalistic independence. 7) VOA and Radio/ TV

2 4 4 6 3 7 4

Marti s status as federal entities. 8) RFE/ RL and RFA s status

7 2 4 3 10 4

as grantees. Comments, if any. ( Please provide highlights of what worked
well, areas needing improvement, and suggestions on how operations can be
improved. )

4

Q. 5) During fiscal year 2002, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with
the allocation of resources and organizational capacities with regards to
your language services? ( Please check one box in each row. )

Very Generally As satisfied as

Generally Very No basis to satisfied

satisfied dissatisfied

dissatisfied dissatisfied

judge / Don t know

Allocation of Resources and Organizational Capacities

1) Program funding

2 4 8 12 4 levels. 2) Staffing levels. 7 8 8 7 3) Level of staff skills

1 11 12 4 and knowledge.

4) Level of staff 1 13 10 4 2 training. 5) Condition of 4 8 9 4 5
technology and equipment. 6) Ability to compete in 9 6 3 3 9 terms of
content with broadcasting competitors such as the BBC. 7) Ability to
compete in 2 3 2 8 13 2

terms of signal delivery with broadcasting competitors such as the BBC. 8)
Ability for crisis

3 10 4 8 3 2

response and surge capability. 9) Managerial flexibility:

4 8 5 4 8 1

ability to re- deploy resources. Comments, if any. ( Please provide
highlights of what worked well, areas needing improvement, and

suggestions on how operations can be improved. )

5

Section 2: Assessment of External Conditions in Fiscal Year 2002

Q. 6) To what extent, if any, do you believe the following external
conditions ( 1) were present in the countries to which your language
services broadcast, and ( 2) - if present - impeded the ability of your
language services to achieve their mission in fiscal year 2002? ( Please
check two boxes in each row unless your answer to question 6A below is No
extent. If

your answer to any of the items in 6A is No extent, please continue to the
next row. . )

6A) Extent to which external conditions were 6B) Extent to which external
conditions present in countries to which your language

impeded the ability of your language services services broadcasts

to achieve their mission No extent

Moderate Great

No No

Moderate Great

No basis

( Continue

extent extent

basis to extent

extent extent

to judge

to the next

judge

item)

1) A perception of U. S. international

1 17 11 6 11 6 1

broadcasting as a propaganda tool of the United States. 2) Impact of U. S.
foreign policy on

13 13 2 1 14 4 3

foreign perceptions. 3) A generally negative image of the

3 19 6 1 15 3 2

United States. 4) Fear of listening because of 8 14 7 4 9 4 2

repressive regimes. 5) The jamming of U. S.

10 7 7 5 3 4 6 3

international broadcasts by foreign governments. 6) Potential audience s
lack of 7 15 6 1 2 15 4 1

technology ( no SW radios, satellite dishes, etc. ) .

Comments, if any. 6

Section 3: Assessment of External Conditions in Fiscal Year 2002

Q. 7) Think back over the main categories of factors and elements you were
asked to address in questions 1 through 6 of this survey. The following
table summarizes the categories and issues within the categories:

A) Distribution

Number of hours of transmission, transmission strength and quality, use of
affiliates, use of technology, use of audience and marketing research.

B) Strategic Planning

BBG and IBB strategic, technology, and workforce planning.

C) Performance Management

Language Service Review process, entity annual program reviews, and
research for annual program reviews.

D) Organizational Structure

Management oversight by the Board of Governors, use of multiple broadcast
entities, organizational placement of the IBB, new regional network
approach, intra- agency coordination/ guidance/ leadership, firewall
issues, status of some entities.

E) Resource Issues and Organizational Capacities

Current program funding and staff levels, staff skills, knowledge and
training, technology and equipment, ability to compete and respond to
crises, managerial flexibility. F) External Conditions

Perceived credibility of U. S. international broadcasting, image of the
United States, lack of free media and civil liberties, jamming of U. S.
broadcasts, potential audience s lack of technology to hear broadcasts.

7a) During fiscal year 2002, what factor made the greatest contribution to
your broadcasting entity s ability to meet its mission? ( Please enter the
letter corresponding to the factor from the list above. ) A 13

E 6 C 5 B 1 Comments, if any.

7b) During fiscal year 2002, what factor represented the greatest
impediment to your broadcasting entity s ability to meet its mission? (
Please enter the letter corresponding to the factor from the list above. )
E 13

D 5 A 4 F 4 B 2

Comments, if any. 7

6

Q. 10) In your opinion, what impact will the BBG s new strategic planning
initiative, Marrying the Mission to the Market, likely have on the
following aspects of U. . S. international broadcasting?

( Please check one box in each row. )

Highly Generally No

Generally Highly No basis

Don t positive

positive Impact

negative negative

to judge know/ no impact

impact impact

impact opinion

1) Distribution 3 9 7 2 4 3

Number of hours of transmission, transmission strength and quality, use of
affiliates, use of technology, use of audience and marketing

research.

2) Strategic Planning 3 6 4 5 3 6 1

BBG and IBB strategic, technology, and workforce planning.

3) Performance Management 2 9 7 2 2 4 1

Language Service Review process, entity annual program reviews, and
research for annual program reviews.

4) Organizational Structure 2 3 8 4 4 4 2

Management oversight by the Board of Governors, use of multiple broadcast
entities,

organizational placement of the IBB, new regional network approach, intra-
agency coordination/ guidance/ leader-

ship, firewall issues, status of some entities.

5) Resource Issues and 2 4 4 8 4 3 2

Organizational Capacities

Current program funding and staff levels, staff skills, knowledge and
training, technology and equipment, ability to compete and respond to
crises, managerial flexibility.

6) External Factors 1 5 7 6 4 2 3

Perceived credibility of U. S. international broadcasting, image of the
United States, lack of free media and civil liberties, jamming of U. S.

broadcasts, potential audience s lack of technology to hear broadcasts.

Comments, if any. 9

Q. 11) Overall, do you think that the BBG s new strategic planning
initiative, Marrying the Mission to the Market, will likely have a
positive or a negative impact on U. . S. international broadcasting s
ability to achieve its mission?

1

Q. 14) In the post- Cold War era, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (
BBG) has made shifts in resources. Do you believe that the BBG: ( Check
all that apply. )

1

Q. 18) In your opinion, do VOA editorials have a positive or a negative
impact in promoting U. S. foreign policy interests?

1

Section 6: Program Options

Q. 20) In your opinion, what impact would the following program options (
identified by various contacts in our review) likely have on the ability
of U. S. international broadcasting to achieve its mission? ( Please check
one box in each row. )

Highly Generally No impact Generally

Highly No basis to positive

positive negative

negative judge/ impact impact

impact impact

no opinion 1) Consolidate VOA, the IBB, and the

6 5 2 6 7 4

surrogates into one broadcasting entity headed by the Board of Governors.
2) Appoint a single individual as CEO

8 5 4 7 5 1

for U. S. international broadcasting, and give that individual direct
reporting responsibilities to the board. 3) Significantly reduce the
overall

9 9 4 6 2

number of language services in order to reprogram funds to higher priority
services. 4) Use language service audience goals

8 10 2 2 5 3

tailored to local circumstances ( e. g. , 5 percent audience share in one
market versus a 10 percent share in another market) . 5) Set language
service audience goals

11 13 2 1 3 by target audience ( e. g. , mass versus elites, under 30
versus over 30, men versus women, etc. ) . 6) Eliminate VOA editorials. 10
6 7 2 4

7) Revamp/ re- invent VOA editorials. 3 10 9 5

8) Defederalize VOA ( e. g. , give VOA

11 7 6 1 4

grantee status) . 9) Defederalize IBB ( e. g. , give IBB

9 5 3 7 1 4

grantee status) . 10) Establish closer strategic

2 4 4 8 8 3

coordination between the BBG and the State Dept. 11) Establish closer
strategic

2 6 4 7 7 3

coordination between the BBG and the White House. 12) Establish closer
cooperation with

6 11 9 1 2

other international broadcasters. 13) Establish a national strategic

4 10 3 5 5 2

communications plan that provides guidance to all agencies involved in
public diplomacy.

Comments, if any. 13

( Please check one box. )

Melissa Pickworth Room 4440

441 G St. NW

Section 7: Background Questions

Q. 21) Which organization do you work for? 1

Comments from the Broadcasting Board of

Appendi x IV Governors

Appendi x V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact Diana Glod (202) 512-
8945. Acknowledgments In addition to the person named above, Michael ten
Kate, Melissa

Pickworth, and Janey Cohen made key contributions to this report. Martin
De Alteriis and Ernie Jackson also provided technical assistance.

(320159)

GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public
funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity,
and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext GAO Reports and

files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax:
(202) 512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E-
mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs

Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Consistent with its new plan to dramatically increase the size of U. S.
international broadcasting listening and viewing audiences in markets of
U. S. strategic interest, the Broadcasting Board of Governors has launched
several new projects, including Radio Sawa in the Middle East, Radio Farda
in Iran, and the Afghanistan Radio Network. These projects adhere to the
Board*s core strategy of identifying a target audience and tailoring each
broadcast product to market circumstances and audience needs.

The Board*s plan lacks measurable program objectives designed to gauge the
success of its new approach to broadcasting, detailed implementation
strategies, resource needs, and project time frames. A number of key
effectiveness measures could provide a starting point for developing
measurable program objectives and related performance goals and indicators
under the Board*s annual performance plan. These measures include audience
size in specific markets, audience awareness, broadcaster credibility, and
whether the Voice of America (VOA) effectively presents information about
U. S. thought, institutions, and policies to target audiences.

The Board has identified a number of market and internal challenges such
as technological innovation and better coordination of its seven separate
broadcast entities that must be addressed to make U. S. international

broadcasting more competitive. It has also developed a number of solutions
to address these challenges. However, the Board has not addressed how many
language services it can carry effectively (with the number rising nearly
20 percent over the past 10 years) and what level of overlap and

duplication in VOA and surrogate broadcast services would be appropriate
under its new approach to broadcasting. Resolving these questions will
have significant resource implications for the Board and its ability to
reach larger audiences in high- priority markets. Language Service Overlap
as of April 2003

Prompted by a desire to reverse declining audience trends and to support
the war on terrorism, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the
agency responsible for U. S. international broadcasting, began developing
its new strategic approach to international broadcasting in July 2001.
This approach emphasizes the need to reach mass audiences by applying
modern broadcast techniques and

strategically allocating resources to focus on high- priority markets. GAO
was asked to examine (1)

whether recent program initiatives have adhered to the Board's new
strategic approach to broadcasting, (2) how the approach*s effectiveness
will be assessed, and (3) what critical challenges the Board faces in
executing its strategy and how these challenges will be addressed.

GAO makes recommendations to the BBG on (1) revising its strategic plan to
include measurable program objectives,

implementation strategies, resource requirements, and project time frames;
(2) including audience size and other key effectiveness

measures as program objectives in the strategic plan; (3) revising its
annual performance plan to track the Board*s revised strategic plan; and
(4) revising the strategic plan to include a clear vision of the Board*s
intended scope of operations. The Board stated that it largely concurred
with our report recommendations.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 772 To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 512- 4128 or fordj@ gao. gov.
Highlights of GAO- 03- 772, a report to the Committee on International
Relations,

House of Representatives July 2003

U. S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING New Strategic Approach Focuses on
Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program Objectives

Page i GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 1 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting United States General
Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

Page 1 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

A

Page 2 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 3 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 4 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 5 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 6 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 7 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 8 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 9 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 10 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 11 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 12 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 13 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 14 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 15 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 16 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 17 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 18 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 19 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 20 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 21 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 22 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 23 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 24 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 25 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 26 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 27 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 28 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 29 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 30 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix I

Appendix I Challenges Facing U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 31 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 32 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix II

Page 33 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 34 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 35 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 36 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 37 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 38 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 39 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 40 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 41 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 42 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 43 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 44 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 45 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III Survey of Program Managers of U. S. International
Broadcasting Entities

Page 46 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 47 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix IV

Appendix IV Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors Page 48 GAO-
03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix IV Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors Page 49 GAO-
03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Page 50 GAO- 03- 772 U. S. International Broadcasting

Appendix V

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***