U.S. International Broadcasting: Enhanced Measure of Local Media 
Conditions Would Facililate Decisions to Terminate Language	 
Services (26-FEB-04, GAO-04-374).				 
                                                                 
In its fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress, the 	 
Broadcasting Board of Governors (the Board) proposed the	 
elimination of 17 Central and Eastern European language services 
managed by the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio	 
Liberty (RFE/RL) in order to free resources for higher-priority  
initiatives such as the war on terrorism. GAO was asked to	 
examine (1) how the Board determines which language services	 
should be proposed for reduction or termination and (2) the	 
extent to which local media conditions are considered before a	 
termination proposal is made. In addition, GAO's report provides 
summary analysis and conclusions relating to the media conditions
in three countries impacted by the Board's language service	 
termination decisions.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-374 					        
    ACCNO:   A09353						        
  TITLE:     U.S. International Broadcasting: Enhanced Measure of     
Local Media Conditions Would Facililate Decisions to Terminate	 
Language Services						 
     DATE:   02/26/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Foreign governments				 
	     Foreign languages					 
	     Mass media 					 
	     Radio broadcasting 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Radio frequency allocation 			 
	     Bulgaria						 
	     Croatia						 
	     Romania						 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-374

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

Report to the Chairman, Comittee on

                         Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

February 2004

U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

    Enhanced Measure of Local Media Conditions Would Facilitate Decisions to
                          Terminate Language Services

                                       a

GAO-04-374

Highlights of GAO-04-374, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign
Relations, U.S. Senate

In its fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress, the Broadcasting Board
of Governors (the Board) proposed the elimination of 17 Central and
Eastern European language services managed by the Voice of America and
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) in order to free resources for
higherpriority initiatives such as the war on terrorism. GAO was asked to
examine (1) how the Board determines which language services should be
proposed for reduction or termination and (2) the extent to which local
media conditions are considered before a termination proposal is made. In
addition, GAO's report provides summary analysis and conclusions relating
to the media conditions in three countries impacted by the Board's
language service termination decisions.

GAO recommends that the Board modify its language service review process
to include an assessment of whether the domestic media in target countries
provides accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information to the
national audience.

February 2004

U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

Enhanced Measure of Local Media Conditions Would Facilitate Decisions to
Terminate Language Services

The Board identifies language service reductions and eliminations through
its annual language service review process and follow-up consultations
with the State Department and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The language service review process provides an analytical framework for
making such decisions based on a number of decision criteria. The
principal criteria used by the Board are language priority and language
service impact. Other decision criteria considered by the Board include
whether overlapping language services broadcast to the same target areas.
Final resource allocation decisions and proposals are made after the Board
consults with the State Department on foreign policy considerations and
with OMB on budget-related issues.

The Board's current measure of press freedom does not adequately address
the congressional concern that RFE/RL language service should not be
terminated until a domestic media exists that provides accurate, balanced,
and comprehensive news and information to a national audience. The Board
evaluates local media conditions primarily through an annual survey of
press freedom conducted by the media watch group Freedom House. This press
freedom rating, along with some adjustments made by the Board, constitutes
one of seven factors used to develop a priority list of broadcast
languages. While the Board's press freedom measure addresses the issue of
press freedom, it does not specifically measure whether domestic media
provide news that is accurate, balanced, and comprehensive. GAO's analysis
of relevant data sources and discussions with agency officials indicate
that among the services targeted for elimination, Bulgaria, Croatia, and
Romania stand out as having the most unstable media environments.

Ranking Factors for Prioritizing Broadcast Language Services

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-374.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 512-4128
or [email protected].

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Candidates for Reduction and Possible Termination Are Identified

through Language Service Review Process and External Consultations Board's
Press Freedom Measure Does Not Address Media Responsibility or
Professionalism Media Conditions in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania Raise

Concerns Conclusions Recommendations for Executive Action Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation Scope and Methodology

1 2 3

6

12

14 19 19 19 20

Appendixes

                                  Appendix I:

                    Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV:

Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language Service Review Process

Language Priority Language Service Impact Priority/Impact Matrix

Language Service Budget and Program Data Comments from the Broadcasting
Board of Governors GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact
Staff Acknowledgments

22 22 24 25

27

31

34 34 34

Tables	Table 1: Table 2:

Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6:

Targeted Language Service Eliminations 11
Press Watch Group Excerpts from Calendar Year 2003
Annual Country Reports 16
Language Service Review Evaluation Factors 23
Language Service Impact Factors 25
2002 Priority/Impact Matrix 26
Budget, Staffing, Priority, Impact, and Transmission Hours
Data for Language Services Targeted for Elimination
(fiscal years 2000-2003) 27

                                    Contents

Figures Figure 1: U.S. International Broadcasting Chart 5 Figure 2:
Language Service Review and Resource Reallocation Process 9

Abbreviations

EMU European Multimedia Unit
IBB International Broadcasting Bureau
IREX International Research and Exchanges Board
MSI Media Sustainability Index
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RFA Radio Free Asia
RFE/RL Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
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.

A

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548

February 26, 2004

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar
Chairman
Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In its fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress, the Broadcasting Board
of Governors (the Board) proposed the elimination of 17 Central and
Eastern European language services affecting Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia,
and Slovenia. The language services targeted for termination, which
include 10 Voice of America (VOA) and 7 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
services (RFE/RL), as well as other reductions, are estimated to generate
savings of up to $8.8 million for fiscal year 2004 and recurring annual
savings of about $12.1 million that could be redirected to higher-priority
initiatives.1 With passage of the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, House and Senate conferees adopted the Board's
proposal to terminate service to those Central and Eastern European
nations that have been invited to become new members states of the
European Union or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and
have received a Freedom House press freedom rating equal to that of the
United States. Conferees expressed the expectation that broadcast
services in Romanian and Croatian should continue.2 They also established
an expectation that the Board will continue to monitor press freedom
conditions in the region and around the world and will advise the
Committees on Appropriations regarding any changes to language service
priorities.

You expressed interest in the process the Board used to make language
service elimination decisions and whether the process was applied to the

1Estimated savings include reductions to VOA Armenian and Ukrainian and
modifications to RFE/RL Armenian, Georgian, Serbian, and Ukrainian
language services.

2According to a senior Board official, the agency intends to eliminate
VOA's service to Romania, while retaining RFE/RL's Romanian service to
Moldova and very limited news feeds and service to a reduced number of
affiliates in Romania. The Board intends to eliminate RFE/RL's Croatian
service to the Balkans region while retaining VOA's Croatian service to
Croatia.

17 language services targeted for termination. You also asked if the
Board's review process included an adequate review of local media
conditions, which can enable and support the development of democratic
societies. As agreed with your staff, this report examines (1) how the
Board determines which language services are candidates for reduction or
elimination and (2) the extent to which the Board evaluates local media
conditions in making such decisions. In addition, we provide summary
information on media conditions in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania, which
appear to be particularly underdeveloped.

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed documentation on language
service reductions and eliminations over the past 4 years and discussed
the Board's decision-making process with individual Board members, senior
Board planners, senior managers and language service chiefs from VOA and
RFE/RL, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and State Department
officials, media experts at the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), and a number of private sector researchers and media development
experts including Freedom House, InterNews, InterMedia, and the
International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX). Our analysis included a
review of the approach the Board uses to assess language service priority
and impact, with a particular focus on its measure of press freedom to see
if local media conditions were adequately assessed.

Results in Brief	The Board makes decisions about which language services
to reduce or eliminate based on the results of its language service review
process and follow-up consultations with the State Department and OMB.
Beginning with its annual language service review, the Board evaluates
each of its language services using an analytical framework that
incorporates as many objective decision criteria as possible to help guide
such decisions. Ranked priority and impact lists are developed using such
measures as U.S. strategic interest in the countries where the service is
broadcast, press freedom, political freedom, geopolitical instability, and
population size. Other decision criteria considered by the Board include
whether overlapping language services exist in the targeted countries and
the potential impact a reduction or elimination could have on the Board's
ability to meet surge capacity requirements in times of crisis.
Lowerpriority or lower-impact services become candidates for cuts or
elimination, usually to fund higher-priority or new initiatives. Final
resource reallocation decisions are made after the Board's proposed
adjustments are coordinated with the State Department and OMB. In the case
of the 17 language services targeted for elimination, the Board used

this analytical framework to determine that these services should be
terminated to free funds for higher-priority initiatives, such as the war
on terrorism.

The Board evaluates local media conditions primarily through a yearly
survey of press freedom conditions that considers a number of factors but
does not adequately measure whether the press is responsible and
professional. Currently, the Board relies mostly on the annual press
freedom survey conducted by a nonprofit group called Freedom House. This
survey examines the extent to which the legal, political, and economic
environment in each country supports press freedom. However, it does not
address whether national media provide accurate, balanced, and
comprehensive news and information, factors that Congress has stipulated
it expects the Board to consider before terminating RFE/RL language
services.

Our analysis indicates that among the services targeted for elimination by
the Board, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania stand out as having the most
unstable media environments. This conclusion is based on published press
freedom data and analyses from various sources; USAID and State Department
media development efforts in these countries; and comments from Board,
VOA, and RFE/RL officials regarding the relative importance of the
broadcast operations targeted for elimination.

This report makes a recommendation to the Chairman of the Broadcasting
Board that the Board enhance its measure of local media conditions, which
would improve its language service review process and facilitate decisions
to terminate language services. The Board generally agreed with our
findings, conclusions, and recommendation. We have reprinted the Board's
comments in appendix III.

Background	The Broadcasting Board of Governors oversees the efforts of all
nonmilitary international broadcasting, which reaches an estimated
audience of more than 100 million people each week in more than 125
markets worldwide. The Board manages the operations of the International
Broadcasting Bureau (IBB),3 VOA, WorldNet Television, the Middle East
Television Network (which consists of Alhurra-the Board's

3IBB provides transmission services for all Board broadcasts and support
services to VOA, WorldNet, and Radio/TV Marti.

new Arabic language television station-and Radio Sawa), Radio Farda,
Radio/TV Marti, RFE/RL, and Radio Free Asia (RFA) with an annual budget of
over half a billion dollars. The latter three organizations function as
"surrogate" broadcasters, designed to temporarily replace the local media
of countries where a free and open press does not exist and to promote
democratic values and institutions by disseminating factual information
and ideas.

Each broadcast entity is organized around a collection of language
services that produces program content. In some countries, more than one
entity broadcasts in the same language. These "overlapping" services are
designed to meet the distinct missions of each broadcast entity. Figure 1
illustrates the Board's current organizational structure.

Figure 1: U.S. International Broadcasting Chart

Given the temporary nature of the surrogate services, Congress has
outlined broad sunset provisions for each service. The U.S. International
CongressBroadcasting Act of 1994, as amended,4 5contains a sense of

4Title III of P.L. 103-236, as amended by P.L. 106-113, Appendix G,
Section 503.

5A "sense of Congress" is not legally binding on an agency as is the case
with legislation signed by the President. Although a sense of Congress has
no force in law, agencies typically monitor such provisions closely since
Congress can change an informal expectation into a statutory provision if
agencies ignore congressional guidance.

statement that RFE/RL should continue to broadcast to the peoples of
Central Europe, Eurasia, and the Persian Gulf until such time as a
particular nation has (1) clearly demonstrated the successful
establishment and consolidation of democratic rule and (2) firmly
established a widely accessible domestic media that provides accurate,
balanced, and comprehensive news and information to the national audience.
When a particular nation meets both of these conditions, RFE/RL should
phase out broadcasting to that nation.

Congress has not stipulated that similar press freedom conditions should
exist prior to the termination of RFA or Radio/TV Marti. However, sunset
provisions or provisions for termination have been established for each of
these entities. In RFA's case, the Broadcasting Act states that the Board
may not make any grants for operating RFA after September 30, 2009.6 In
Radio/TV Marti's case, Congress has stated that broadcast operations
should be terminated when a democratically elected government takes power
in Cuba.7 VOA, charged with clearly presenting and discussing U.S.
policies, has no sunset provision.

Candidates for Reduction and Possible Termination Are Identified through
Language Service Review Process and External Consultations

The Board uses the results of its language service review and external
consultations with the State Department and OMB to identify candidates for
reduction and possible termination. The language service review process
considers a number of factors to help guide such decisions. One key
consideration is the position of a language service within the language
service priority/impact framework developed by the Board. The Board's
language service review process also involves external consultations with
the State Department and OMB to ensure that its tentative resource
reallocation decisions are consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives
and the administration's budget priorities. Language service review has
generally led to a reduction in the size of language services to fund
higherpriority broadcast initiatives. For example, between 1999 and 2002,
the Board reallocated about $19.7 million in program funds from more than
25 language services as a result of this process. Although the Board's
2002 language service review process culminated in a decision to
reallocate $8 million internally to fund priority needs in Iran, through
discussions with OMB, the Board later decided to propose the elimination
of 17 of its lowest

6See 22 U.S.C. 6208(f). 7See 22 U.S.C. 6037(c), 6063(c)(3).

priority language services8 to free resources for priority areas such as
the war on terrorism.9

Language Service Review Triggers Resource Reallocation Decisions

The Broadcasting Act of 1994, passed in the aftermath of the Cold War,
embodies the expectation that the newly created Broadcasting Board of
Governors will take stock of changing political environments and their
impacts on U.S. international broadcasting priorities. The act calls for
the Board "to review, evaluate, and determine, at least annually, after
consultation with the Secretary of State, the addition or deletion of
language services." 10 The Board's annual language service review process
directly responds to this congressional mandate, which it has interpreted
to allow the expansion and reduction of language services as well as
outright additions and deletions.

The Board's language review process begins with an assessment of its
language priorities and the impact of its language services. Over the past
several years, the Board has developed a complex system for assigning
priority and impact ratings to broadcast languages and services,
respectively.11 The Board has attempted to create an analytical framework
that incorporates as many objective decision criteria as possible to help
guide reallocation decisions. Seven component indexes are constructed to
determine the Board's language priorities: U.S. interests, population
size, political/civil freedom, press freedom, economic freedom,
geopolitical instability, and human development. These components are
weighted on a scale of up to 10 points. U.S. strategic interests and
population size may be given a score of up to 10 points each;
political/civil freedom and press freedom up to 7 points each; and
economic freedom, geopolitical instability, and human development up to 5
points each. The Board

8The Greek and Thai language services were removed from the list of
lowest-ranked services due to practical concerns that terminating services
might result in the withdrawal of transmission rights in each of these
countries.

9Board officials noted that these terminations proposals were generally
preceded by several years of program cuts as media conditions in the
region stabilized. As shown in appendix II, most VOA and RFE/RL services
targeted for elimination have had their budgets reduced since 2000.

10See 22 U.S.C. 6204(a)(4).

11Each of the Board's 65 broadcast languages receives a priority score. An
impact score is assigned to most of the Board's 97 language services where
data is available.

considers additional factors to arrive at an impact score for each
language service, including audience size, program quality, transmission
effectiveness, number and quality of broadcast affiliates, and production
and transmission costs. Appendix I provides a detailed description of each
evaluation factor, information on data sources, and a discussion of the
methodology used to weight and assign priority and impact scores.

The position of a language service within the Board's language service
priority/impact matrix serves as a focal point for subsequent discussions
on language service enhancements and offsetting reductions or eliminations
that are used to pay for these enhancements. The Board views lowerpriority
languages or lower-impact services as potential candidates for elimination
or reductions. In addition to language service priority and impact scores,
the Board considers a number of additional criteria in making tentative
resource reallocation decisions. These factors include broadcast service
overlap, significant mismatches between current funding levels and
language priorities, the potential impact that a program reduction or
elimination could have on the Board's ability to meet surge broadcast
requirements in a crisis situation, and whether the same level of impact
can be achieved at a lower cost.

Figure 2 illustrates key components of the process including external
consultations with the State Department and OMB.

Figure 2: Language Service Review and Resource Reallocation Process

External groups have evaluated the Board's language service review
process, and improvements have been made to the system. For example, the
Board periodically submits its process to external review and validation
by international broadcasting experts from academia and the field. In
addition, the Board adopted a prior GAO recommendation that it institute a
standardized approach to conducting program quality assessments as part of
its language service impact rating process.12 Board officials told us that
other improvements are planned, including linking the language service
review process more closely to the budget process, incorporating
stakeholder input earlier in the decision-making process, and further
refining the language priority index to include a more detailed assessment
of local economic conditions and corruption.

Millions of Dollars Reallocated, but Few Terminations Proposed Prior to
2002

The resource reallocation process followed by the Board has generally led
to a reduction in the size of language services to fund higher-priority
broadcast initiatives and services. Since initiating the language service
review process in 1999, the Board has completed three rounds of language
service reviews, the most recent ending in 2002.13 From 1999 to 2002, the
Board has reduced the scope of operations of more than 25 language
services and reallocated about $19.7 million in funds, with the majority
redirected toward central Asia and the Middle East. For example, the Board
created and fully funded its $8 million Radio Farda service to Iran during
its 2002 language service review and partially funded the Radio Sawa
service to the Middle East in its 2001 review. In total, the Board has
eliminated three language services since the language service review
process was initiated.14

12The issue of program quality measurement and language service review is
discussed in greater detail in 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). The Board's strategic planning and performance management system is
discussed in detail in U.S. International Broadcasting: New Strategic
Approach Focuses on Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program
Objectives, GAO-03-772 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003).

13The Board is in the process of finalizing its 2003 language service
review recommendations and findings.

14VOA Portuguese to Brazil was eliminated as a direct result of language
service review. VOA's Arabic service (with the exception of a minimally
staffed Web site) and RFE/RL's Persian service were reconstituted as Radio
Sawa and Radio Farda, respectively.

Decision to Terminate Services Follows 2002 Review

While the Board's 2002 language service review process culminated in a
decision to reallocate $8 million, Board officials told us that through
discussions with OMB the Board decided that its lower-priority services
should be considered for elimination in order to free additional resources
for other higher-priority initiatives. While the primary basis for
selecting services for termination was language priority, Board officials
noted that they did consider the other decision criteria incorporated in
the language service review process. For example, the Board recommended
that VOA's Croatian service continue broadcasting while eliminating an
"overlapping" service offered by RFE/RL. In the case of Romania, the Board
proposed the elimination of both VOA and RFE/RL's service to Romania but
decided to retain a Romanian language broadcast service to Moldova.

As shown in table 1, a total of 10 VOA and 7 RFE/RL language services-
affecting 11 countries-have been targeted for elimination. Appendix II
provides detailed information on the budget, staffing, priority, impact,
and transmission hour trends for the 17 services targeted for termination.

                Table 1: Targeted Language Service Eliminations

                   Language Voice of America  Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 
                  Bulgarian         Eliminate                       Eliminate 
                   Croatian            Retain                       Eliminate 
                      Czech         Eliminate                      No service 
                   Estonian         Eliminate                       Eliminate 
                  Hungarian         Eliminate                      No service 
                    Latvian         Eliminate                       Eliminate 
                 Lithuanian         Eliminate                       Eliminate 
                     Polish         Eliminate                      No service 
                   Romanian         Eliminate                      Eliminatea 
                     Slovak         Eliminate                       Eliminate 
                    Slovene         Eliminate                      No service 

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

aRadio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Romanian language service to Moldova
will be retained, along with very limited news feeds and service to a
reduced number of affiliates in Romania.

Board's Press Freedom Measure Does Not Address Media Responsibility or
Professionalism

The Board's measure of press freedom evaluates a number of factors but
does not measure whether the press acts responsibly and professionally.
The Board's press freedom measure index relies heavily on Freedom House's
press freedom index, which focuses on free speech issues, the plurality of
news sources, whether media are economically independent from the
government, and whether supporting institutions and laws function in the
professional interest of the press. The Freedom House index is used and
respected by media groups around the world. However, it does not assess
whether domestic media provide accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news
and information.

Board's Press Freedom Measure Relies Heavily on Freedom House Data

The Board largely depends on Freedom House's annual press freedom index of
local media conditions to help to prioritize services during language
service review. To arrive at a numerical evaluation of the overall level
of press freedom for a particular country, Freedom House examines three
broad categories-the legal environment, political influences, and economic
pressures. Over the years, the Board has made selected enhancements to its
press freedom measure to account for several factors that Freedom House's
index does not consider. It reviews reports issued by the Committee to
Protect Journalists and by Reporters Without Borders to account for cases
involving the killing, injury, or imprisonment of journalists. It also
reviews narrative country reports from Freedom House's annual press
freedom survey to account for the relative unavailability of broadcast
news in a particular country. If necessary, the Board makes adjustments to
a country's press freedom score if these additional reports show negative
trends in any of these areas. Finally, the Board also uses its
geopolitical instability index, another measure for assigning language
priorities, to account for trends in press freedom over time.

Measure Does Not Assess Provision of Accurate, Balanced, Comprehensive
News

While the Freedom House press freedom index is used and respected by media
groups around the world, neither it nor the Board's press freedom index
incorporates an assessment of whether domestic media provide accurate,
balanced, and comprehensive news and information. This is a significant
omission in the Board's index, given the sense of Congress that RFE/RL's
broadcast operations should not be terminated until a country's domestic
media provides this level of coverage to the national audience. Board
officials acknowledged that their existing press freedom measure could be
updated to include information on media responsibility and professional
quality. However, they noted that practical obstacles would

need to be addressed, such as how to define such terms as "accurate" and
"balanced" and whether such information can reasonably be developed to
cover the Board's worldwide operations.

We found that the Media Sustainability Index (MSI), developed by IREX, is
intended to provide a more in-depth measure of local media conditions than
the Board's. The MSI was developed at USAID's request to supplement the
press freedom measures issued by groups such as Freedom House and
Reporters Without Borders and help guide its media development program
decisions.15 The MSI examines 38 separate media indicators grouped under
five broad assessment categories: free speech, professional journalism,
plurality of news sources, business management, and supporting
institutions. Several indicators tracked in the MSI correlate closely with
the Board's broadcasting mission and the sense of Congress statement
regarding the termination of RFE/RL services. For example, under the
professional journalism category, the MSI considers whether reporting is
fair, objective, and well sourced. It also considers whether journalists
follow recognized and accepted ethical standards and whether entertainment
programming has eclipsed news and information programming. None of these
measures of press responsibility and professional quality is covered by
the Freedom House index.16

15IREX designed a more comprehensive measure of whether a sustainable
media- characterized by all of the factors that shape a modern independent
media-existed in target areas to gauge a country's progress in media
development.

16Freedom House's press freedom index primarily overlaps with the free
speech component of the MSI, with only limited coverage in the other four
categories.

The MSI covers 20 markets in Europe and Eurasia and, according to USAID,
its preparation costs approximately $70,000 each year.17 The Board
currently has broadcast operations in all of the countries covered by the
MSI. While this set represents only a fraction of the Board's broadcast
operations, use of the MSI could provide a starting point for collecting
information on a few of the countries impacted by the Board's language
service termination decisions.18 In addition, the MSI could provide
potential insights for the Board in developing its own methodology for
evaluating the responsibility of domestic media outlets and whether
journalists meet accepted professional standards of quality.19 Despite the
potential use of the MSI to help evaluate and guide the Board's media
measurement efforts, we did not independently validate the accuracy of
this measure or assess the cost/benefit implications of applying this
measurement approach to the Board's operations.

Media Conditions in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania Raise Concerns

The Board's 2002 priority ranking of languages indicates that Bulgarian,
Croatian, and Romanian stand apart from the other languages targeted for
termination by a significant point gap. This gap was largely attributed to
comparatively worse press freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom
scores in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania, and elevated U.S. strategic
interest scores that suggest particular caution should be exercised with
regard to terminating broadcast services in these three languages. Our
review of available data outside of the Board's ranking confirms that
media conditions are less stable in these countries compared to the other
countries affected by the Board's language service termination decisions.
We base this conclusion on (1) published press freedom data and analyses
from various sources; (2) USAID and State Department media development
funding efforts; and (3) comments from the Board, VOA, and RFE/RL

17IREX is currently discussing the potential of private funding to expand
the scope of the MSI.

18Three of the 20 markets covered by the MSI are also on the list of
countries affected by the Board's proposed language service
terminations-Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania.

19Freedom House's Nations in Transit studies, which assess the level of
progress toward democratization and rule of law in 27 Central European,
Eastern European, and former Soviet Union countries, provide an additional
framework for assessing local media. Since 2000, the study has annually
evaluated 10 contributing factors for independent media, including the
legal framework and present state of press freedom, harassment of
journalists, editorial independence, the emergence of a financially viable
private press, and Internet access for private citizens.

regarding the relative importance of the broadcast operations targeted for
elimination.

Borderline Press Conditions Recent press freedom ratings, various studies
and reports, and comments in Bulgaria, Croatia, and from agency officials
suggest that media conditions are not fully stable in Romania Suggested by
Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania.

Various Data Sources

Press Freedom Ratings	Freedom House rated press conditions as only "partly
free" in Croatia and Romania. Bulgaria was rated as "free;" however, it
was assigned a score of 30-just one point short of the cut point for
labeling a country's press situation as "partly free." The other services
targeted for elimination fell comfortably above this cut point, with
"free" scores ranging from 17 to 23. The latest press freedom ranking from
the group Reporters Without Borders showed that Bulgaria, Croatia, and
Romania ranked below the other countries affected by the Board's language
service termination decisions. Bulgaria tied for 34th place, Romania tied
for 59th place, and Croatia tied for 69th place out of a total of 166
countries.

IREX's Media Sustainability Index shows that local media in Bulgaria,
Croatia, and Romania have not yet achieved sustainability in any of the
five categories the index tracks-free speech, professional journalism,
plurality of news sources, business management, and supporting
institutions. While this index was developed to meet USAID's specific
program needs, these media sustainability ratings provide additional
context for evaluating the Board's termination proposals.

Studies and Reports	A review of the annual country reports prepared by
Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to Protect
Journalists reveals a pattern of ongoing problems with the press in
Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania. Table 2 provides sample excerpts from
these reports.

Table 2: Press Watch Group Excerpts from Calendar Year 2003 Annual Country
Reports

Country Freedom House Reporters Without Borders Committee to Protect Journalists

Bulgaria "Although the press "New press laws are  "Regulation of the state 
            remains lively and  having trouble                  media remains 
            diverse, press      being accepted and  politicized....           
            freedom declined        controversy     Politically motivated     
            for a                                   libel                     
            second year as a    continues about the lawsuits and violent      
            result of continued appointments        attacks continued         
             government efforts of heads of public  to discourage reporters   
             to influence state       media."       from covering             
                            and                     
                                                    sensitive issues, such as 
              private media."                             corruption."        

Croatia "While the government "Since the Tudjman era "Although Croatia has 
               has substantially (1991-99)              been invited to       
               expanded the       ended, great strides    join the European   
            boundaries of press        have been           Union in 2004,     
           freedom in recent     made in press freedom,  powerful far-right   
           years, the events of  especially              opposition, bitter   
           2002 demonstrated     legally, but several        rivalries in the 
           mixed progress."      provisions in the           ruling reformist 
                                                                   coalition, 
                                   law about insults,    and a judiciary in   
                                      defamation,          need of reform     
                                 access to information, continue to frustrate 
                                          and            the country's lively 
                                  protection of state      and influential    
                                      and military             press."        
                                  secrets continue to   
                                        restrict        
                                     journalists."      

Romania	"Press freedom declined slightly in 2002 as a result of new
legislation on access to information and continued political influence
over state media."

"New laws curbing freedom to inform the public and to be informed were
passed in 2002. Pressure from the authorities increased, reducing the
chances of expressing political opposition or criticism that might give a
`bad image' of the country at a time when Romania is negotiating to join
NATO and the European Union."

"Government officials, wary of any media coverage that could potentially
threaten the country's efforts to join NATO and the European Union, used
threats and intimidation to promote docile reporting-resulting in
increased self-censorship in 2002."

Sources: Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to
Protect Journalists.

A review of Freedom House's Nations in Transit 2003 study illustrated a
worsening (comparing 2002 to 2003 data) in the scores for independent
media development in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania. Freedom House noted
that questionable court decisions against journalists, newspapers,
magazines, and publishers continue to have a chilling effect on reporting
in Croatia and that unprofessional, false, and inflammatory reporting is
occurring. It also reported that in Bulgaria, electronic media are not
still fully free of state influence and interference and that the
government has tried to use its power to grant broadcast licenses as a
lure to influence the electronic media. Freedom House also noted that
Romania's legislative framework for independent media, partly inherited
from the Communist period, fails to meet European standards.

In a recent GAO report on NATO enlargement, we found many of the same
trends for the media in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania.20 For example, we
found that constitutional guarantees for civil liberties may be limited in
practice in Bulgaria, including the guarantees of freedom of the media,
and that the effectiveness of efforts to address these issues was
questioned. We also noted that the 2001 International Helsinki Federation
for Human Rights21 reported assaults against journalists in Bulgaria and
continuing undue governmental influence over the media, especially the
electronic media. In Romania, we found that legal provisions raised
concerns about possible limits to freedom of expression and the media. For
example, while the constitution provides for freedom of expression and the
media, it prohibits "defamation of the country" and "offense to
authority." In addition, we noted that Human Rights Watch22 reported in
2002 that authorities in Romania used these kinds of constitutional curbs
on free expression to interfere with journalists' work.

USAID and State Department Media Development Programs Still Active in
Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania

Ongoing media development efforts by USAID and the State Department
suggest that local media conditions are still considered unstable in
Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania.23 USAID officials said they continue to
fund media development projects in Bulgaria and Croatia. Similarly, State
Department officials noted that its media development efforts continue in
each of these countries. According to State Department country experts,
Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania represent marginal candidates for
elimination compared with the other countries affected by the Board's
language service termination decisions. State Department officials noted
that Croatia has not yet been invited to join NATO or the European Union.
Bulgaria and Romania are being considered for membership in the

20See U.S. General Accounting Office, NATO Enlargement: Report Is
Responsive to Senate Requirements, but Additional Information Could Be
Useful, GAO-03-255 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2002).

21The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights is a
self-governing group of nongovernmental, not-for-profit organizations that
works to protect human rights throughout Europe, North America, and the
central Asian republics formed from the territories of the former Soviet
Union.

22Human Rights Watch is an international nongovernmental organization that
monitors the protection of civil liberties and human rights around the
world.

23Media development efforts are part of U.S. assistance to Eastern Europe,
the Baltic states, and the Caucasus region, which signify U.S. commitment
to support the transition of former Communist nations to democracies.

European Union in 2007, while the other affected countries have been
invited to join the European Union in 2004. State officials noted that
both NATO and European Union admission processes consider the status of
press freedom and civil society as part of their evaluation criteria.

Agency Officials Question Selected Eliminations

While senior Board officials generally concurred on the need to cut
language services to fund higher-priority broadcast needs, several
officials questioned the advisability of eliminating the Bulgarian,
Croatian, or Romanian services at this time. For example, the Board
Chairman told us he had "second thoughts" about the proposal to eliminate
the Bulgarian service on the basis of a recent report by the Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press on Bulgarian public opinion regarding
freedom and democracy issues.24 The Chairman was concerned about public
apathy regarding basic democratic rights and principles and questioned
whether now is the best time to discontinue U.S. broadcast efforts. In
another case, a senior Board planner noted that the Board did have
concerns about the proposal to eliminate services to Bulgaria and Romania,
given the status of press freedom and civil society development in these
countries.

Senior VOA managers were not opposed to the elimination of the targeted
VOA language services (that is, the Estonian service and the nine services
consolidated in VOA's European Multimedia Unit, or EMU).25 This attitude
appeared to reflect recognition that these services largely represented a
Cold War legacy and that they are streaming only about 15 minutes a day of
content to EMU's Web site. RFE/RL managers were more insistent about the
need to continue their broadcast operations, which are better staffed and
more robust than VOA's. However, RFE/RL managers conceded that a priority
order existed with regard to the need to retain language services, with
the Baltic services rated as lowest priority; the Slovak service in the
middle; and the Bulgarian, Croatian, and Romanian services representing
the highest-priority need. Program officials also pointed out that the
Croatian service is an integral part of a multilanguage South Slavic
service that reaches audiences dispersed across the region including in
such countries as Serbia.

24The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Views of a
Changing World (Washington, D.C.: June 2003).

25EMU consolidates the Bulgarian, Czech, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian,
Polish, Romanian, Slovak, and Slovene services.

Conclusions	Language service reduction and elimination decisions are made
on the basis of the Board's language service review process and follow-up
consultations with the State Department and OMB. The Board has strived to
create an analytical framework that incorporates as many objective
decision criteria as possible to help guide such decisions.
Lowerpriority/lower-impact services are candidates for cuts or elimination
generally to fund higher-priority services and other enhancements. The
Board used its language priority data and other evaluation factors to
propose the elimination of 17 VOA and RFE/RL language services in order to
reallocate funds to other needs. A closer look at the Board's press
freedom measure revealed that it did not fully take into account whether a
country's domestic media provides accurate, balanced, and comprehensive
news and information to the national audience before RFE/RL services are
terminated. An improved press freedom measure could both influence the
relative priority ranking of all language services and help provide a
specific basis for determining whether local press freedom conditions
conform to a sense of Congress provision regarding when RFE/RL language
services should be terminated. Such information is currently developed by
IREX for some of the Board's broadcast countries.

Recommendations for 	To improve the language service review process and
facilitate future termination decisions, we recommend that the Chairman of
the

Executive Action	Broadcasting Board of Governors modify the current
process to include an assessment of whether domestic media provide
accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information to national
audiences.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

The Broadcasting Board of Governors provided written comments on a draft
of this report. The Board concurred with our report recommendation26 but
noted concerns with our report title, our use of the term "expectation of
Congress" to describe the criteria supporting the need to develop an
improved measure of domestic media conditions, and the lack of current
information regarding congressional action taken on the 17 language
services targeted for elimination. In response to these comments,

26We removed a second report recommendation that the Board review its
proposed language terminations in light of the information discussed in
our report. As noted in the Board's comments, final funding action taken
by Congress regarding the proposed terminations overtook this
recommendation.

we revised the title to better focus on our primary concern, that is that
the Board develop an enhanced measure of local media conditions. We
replaced the term "expectation of Congress" with "congressional concern"
and "sense of Congress" throughout the report and added a footnote to
explain the latter term. Finally, we updated our report to incorporate the
latest action taken by Congress with regard to the 17 language services
targeted for elimination. Other technical changes obtained in discussion
with the Board were incorporated in our report where appropriate. The
comments provided by the Board are reprinted in appendix III.

Scope and Methodology

To examine how the Board uses its language service review process to
determine which language services are candidates for elimination, we
interviewed senior Board planners and reviewed available documentation and
analyses prepared for each of the Board's four language service reviews
held since 1999. We conducted a general review of the methodology used by
the Board to develop language service priority and impact rankings. While
we did not validate this process, we analyzed its data outputs,
interviewed Board officials and outside experts, and considered reviews
and critiques of the methodology-including a 2000 review by three
independent sources.

To determine the extent to which local media conditions are evaluated
during the language service review process, we examined the methodology
and data sources used by the Board to assess and rate press freedom
conditions on a country-by-country basis. We discussed the Board's
methodology and data sources with senior Board planners and with officials
from VOA, RFE/RL, USAID, the State Department, and private sector entities
(InterMedia, Freedom House, and IREX). In addition, we compared the
Board's press freedom measure to IREX's Media Sustainability Index.
However, we did not validate the accuracy of this index or assess the
cost/benefit implications of applying IREX's approach to assessing local
media conditions to the Board's operations.

To obtain country-specific information on media and civil society
conditions on each of the countries affected by the Board's targeted
language cuts, we collected pertinent rating data and reports from Freedom
House, Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to Protect
Journalists. We also interviewed each of the VOA and RFE/RL language
service chiefs in charge of the 17 services targeted for elimination and
reviewed written program information provided by these individuals.
Finally, we discussed local media and civil society conditions with agency

managers, USAID media development experts, State Department country
experts, and private sector entities.

We conducted our work from July 2003 through December 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of
Congress. We are also sending copies of this report to the Chairman of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors and to the Secretary of State. We will
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 IV.

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford
Director, International Affairs and Trade

Appendix I

Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language Service Review Process

The Broadcasting Board of Governor's (the Board) language service review
process incorporates a range of evaluation criteria to evaluate the
priority and impact of its language services. These evaluation criteria
provide the analytical basis for Board decisions regarding language
service enhancements, reductions, and eliminations.

Language Priority 	Table 3 provides details on the seven component
measures used to determine language priority: U.S. interests, population
size, political/civil freedom, press freedom, economic freedom,
geopolitical instability, and human development. Board officials have
indicated that they believe that the combination of these indexes reflects
both the short- and long-term foreign policy objectives of the United
States, as well as the mission of U.S. international broadcasting.
Information for the indexes is gathered for the countries impacted by the
Board's language broadcasts from many public sources, including Freedom
House, the Wall Street Journal, the Heritage Foundation, and the United
Nations Development Program. U.S. strategic interests and geopolitical
instability are scored in-house using information gathered from the State
Department.

To develop priority scores for individual broadcast languages, the Board
first determines the various countries targeted by that language. For each
index, the Board then compiles information for the country (or set of
countries) targeted by that broadcast language.1 The component indexes are
added together to form a summary score for each language, and all 65 of
the Board's languages are then ranked against each other. The maximum
summary score that can be assigned to any language is 49, and the minimum
score is 7.

Board officials told us that after they assign priority scores to
individual languages, a Language Service Review Committee, broadcasting
entity management, and the full Board review the resulting Language
Priorities Index List2 for accuracy and reach agreement on the relative
rankings of

1If more than one target country applies to a language, indexes may be
weighted by estimates of the number of language-speaking adults in each
country. Because of the complexities involved with assigning weights, in
most cases multiple-country languages reflect the values for the
worst-case country.

2The Language Priorities Index List is classified: it is shared only with
the Board, Board staff, and broadcasting entity heads and their immediate
staffs.

                                   Appendix I
                  Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language
                             Service Review Process

broadcast languages. Board officials then divide the list into two
segments, indicating which languages have higher or lower priority.3

              Table 3: Language Service Review Evaluation Factors

Factor Scale Description

U.S. interests 1-10	The Board's language priority index takes into account
U.S Department of State commentary on U.S. interests. The U.S. interests
index is scaled according to the methodology introduced in the publication
America's National Interests.

Data sources: Scored by the Board based on The Commission on America's
National Interests

(Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard

University; the RAND Corporation; and the Nixon Center) America's National
Interests: A Report from

the Commission on America's National Interests, 2000

(http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/monographs/nationalinterests.htm);
Central Intelligence

Agency's (CIA) annual World Factbook
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook); State

Department and U.S. Agency for International Development briefings and
strategic plans; and

National Defense University's annual Strategic Assessment

(http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Strategic%20Assessments/pubs_SAs.htm).

Population size 1-10	The Board's population index is the estimated adult
population that (1) is the intended audience (speaks the broadcast
language) and (2) has the ability to listen to the broadcasts. The lowest
intended audience is approximately 800,000 (Tibetan), and the largest is
725 million (Mandarin).

Data sources: Population Reference Bureau's annual World Population Data
Sheet (http://www.prb.org); International Broadcasting Bureau Office of
Research; CIA's annual World Factbook; Ethnologue: Languages of the World
(http://www.ethnologue.com/web.asp).

Political/civil 1-7 Freedom House's freedom index is used as the sole      
                       basis for the score. This index assesses two           
                                 broad categories: political rights and civil 
       freedom                   liberties. Political rights enable people to 
                                                           participate freely 
                           in the political process. Civil rights include the 
                               freedom to develop opinions, institutions, and 
                                                                     personal 
                           autonomy without interference from the state.      
                         Data source: Freedom House's annual Freedom in the   
                                            World survey                      
                         (http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/index.htm).    

Press freedom 1-7	Freedom House's press freedom index is used as the base
score. This index takes into account free speech issues, plurality of news
sources, whether local media are economically independent from the
government, and whether supporting institutions and laws function in the
professional interest of the press. The index is modified for (1)
killing/injury/imprisonment of journalists during the survey year (0.5
points may be added) and/or (2) relative unavailability of broadcast news
(0.5 points may be added).

Data sources: Scored by the Board based on Freedom House's annual Press
Freedom in the World survey
(http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/pressurvey.htm); Committee to
Protect Journalists' annual Attacks on the Press report (Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press).

3A Board staff member indicated that there are no explicit criteria used
for determining where the cut point between higher versus lower priority
is made. Rather, this determination is based on staff judgment and
individual country circumstances.

                                   Appendix I
                  Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language
                             Service Review Process

(Continued From Previous Page)

                            Factor Scale Description

Economic freedom 1-5	The Heritage Foundation's economic freedom index is
used as the base score. This index is an annual survey of the world's
economies that evaluates countries on various economic indicators and
ranks countries against each other. Indicators include such things as
trade policy, foreign investment, regulation, and black markets.

Data source: Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal's annual
Index of Economic Freedom
(http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index).

Geopolitical 1-5 The Board's instability index has three purposes: (1) to  
                    capture short- and long-term trends in                    
instability       freedom to augment the freedom indexes: (2) to encompass 
                                        events since the freedom surveys were 
                      conducted; and (3) to highlight regional, internal, and 
                            diplomatic conflicts that may be growing large or 
                           violent and may require surge broadcasting.        
                    Data sources: Scored by the Board based on Transparency   
                    International's annual Corruption                         
                    Perception Index (http://www.transparency.org); CIA's     
                    annual World Factbook; National Defense                   
                    University's annual Strategic Assessment; Freedom House's 
                                        annual Freedom in the World and Press 
                    Freedom in the World surveys; Heritage Foundation and the 
                    Wall Street Journal's annual Index of                     
                       Economic Freedom; Committee to Protect Journalists'    
                               annual Attacks on the Press report.            

      Human    1-5 The human development index provides information about the 
                   actual living standards of intended                        
development     audiences in target countries. The index is a combination  
                   of (1) life expectancy rate; (2) gross                     
                      domestic product per capita; (3) literacy rate; and (4) 
                              combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross 
                              school enrollment rate. The index contributes a 
                        humanitarian element to the language priorities index 
                          as well as more evidence about the probability that 
                            residents can regularly receive and understand or 
                         develop an interest in news and current events       
                                          information.                        
                   Data source: United Nations' annual Human Development      
                   Report (http://www.undp.org/hdr2003).                      

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Language Service Impact

Table 4 provides a brief overview of the Board's measures of language
service impact considered during language service review. To determine the
relative impact of language services, Board officials obtain information
on average weekly audience size and elite audience reach from InterMedia,
the Board's research contractor, and the International Broadcasting
Bureau's Office of Audience Research. The Language Service Review
Committee also holds regional meetings with the broadcasting entities to
discuss additional language service impact considerations such as program
quality, in-country awareness, local media access and use, and cost per
listener. Board officials assign the language services into higher-versus
lower-impact categories. Services obtaining greater than or equal to 5
percent average weekly audience and/or 15 percent "elite" (i.e.,
government and other influential decision makers) audience reach are
considered higher impact.

                                   Appendix I
                  Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language
                             Service Review Process

                    Table 4: Language Service Impact Factors

Factor Description

Average weekly The percentage of the adult population listening at least
once a audience week.

Elite audience	The percentage of the adult "elite" population listening at
least once a week.

Cost per listener Budget divided by average weekly audience.

Budget	Budget includes direct production and transmission costs but not
overhead or TV satellite costs.

Program quality	Numerical score derived from ratings given in program
review. Program quality addresses such issues as whether program content
is fair and balanced, and a number of presentation issues including
program pacing, use of musical bridges, and the appeal of the announcer's
voice. Scores can range from poor to excellent.

Signal quality	IBB monitoring stations score services for short-wave and
crossborder medium-wave signal quality. Scores can range from no signal to
excellent.

In-country Percentage of the adult population that can recognize the
station awareness name.

Original weekly Number of original weekly programming hours produced each
hours week.

Affiliates	A count of both TV and radio affiliates classified by impact as
well as contractual quality. High impact occurs with national or major
regional coverage in prime time on the best media. High contractual
quality occurs when there is full control of the leased transmitter or
frequency.

Media access and Percentages of the adult population that own various
media, can use access it, or use it on a daily basis.

                    Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Priority/Impact Matrix 	To assist the Board in conducting its review of
requested enhancements and reductions, a matrix is developed using the
Board's higher/lower priority and higher/lower impact determinations. All
language services are assigned to one of the four categories shown in
table 5.4 Language services rated as lower impact or lower priority may
become potential targets for elimination or budget reductions.

4Some language services are excluded from the matrix if data are
insufficient to judge impact.

Appendix I
Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language
Service Review Process

Table 5: 2002 Priority/Impact Matrix

Higher priority/higher impact Higher priority/lower impact (14 language
services in 2002) (27 language services in 2002)

Lower priority/higher impact Lower priority/lower impact (24 language
services in 2002) (17 language services in 2002)

                    Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Appendix II

                    Language Service Budget and Program Data

Table 6 provides a brief overview of the budget, staffing, priority,
impact, and transmission hour trends for each language affected by the
Board's fiscal year 2004 budget reduction proposal. In general, the
budget, staff size, and transmission hours for Voice of America (VOA)
language services in question have been declining, with the exception of
two services that have increased budgets since fiscal year 2000-VOA
Estonian and VOA Croatian. Most VOA services faced significant cuts in
fiscal year 2001 or 2002, as they were incorporated into a VOA European
Multimedia Unit (EMU) designed to achieve cost efficiencies. Most of the
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) services in question have not
faced the same level of cuts in staff size as VOA. Three of RFE/RL's
language services have increased in staff size since fiscal year
2000--RFE/RL Estonian, RFE/RL Croatian, and RFE/RL Lithuanian.

Table 6: Budget, Staffing, Priority, Impact, and Transmission Hours Data
for Language Services Targeted for Elimination (fiscal years 2000-2003)

Dollars in thousands

Broadcast 2000 2001 2002 2003a language VOA RFE/RL VOAb RFE/RL VOAc RFE/RL
VOA RFE/RL Bulgarian

    Budget level    $542 $1,791  $537 $1,289  $365 $1,125      $278    $1,164 
Staffing level      6   9        3   9        3      8         3 
    Total weekly     3.5   45    1.25 32.32   1.25 32.32       1.25     35.15 
        hours                                                       
    Impact rating  Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower        Not       Not 
                                                          available available 
      Language     Lower Lower  Lower Lower  Lower Lower        Not       Not 
      priority                                                      
                                                          available available 

                                  Appendix II
                    Language Service Budget and Program Data

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

                              Dollars in thousands

Broadcast 2000 2001 2002 2003a language VOA RFE/RL VOAb RFE/RL VOAc RFE/RL
VOA RFE/RL Croatiand Czeche Estonian

    Budget level     721 2,327   724   3,574   814  3,878       902     4,172 
Staffing level      7   29        8     33     8  30           8 
    Total weekly      14   75    10.5  107.92 10.5  92.67      10.5 
       hours                                                        
Impact rating  Lower  Higher Lower  Higher Lower Lower       Not       Not 
                                                          available available 
      Language                                Lower Lower       Not       Not 
      priority    Higher Higher Higher Higher                       
                                                          available available 

Budget level    747    530     408     600  273   630        288 
     Staffing        9     0       3        0     3   0           3 
       level                                                        
Total weekly     12    70     1.25      91 1.75   91        1.75 
       hours                                                        
Impact rating Lower    Not    Lower Higher Lower Lower       Not       Not 
                       available                          available available 
     Language    Lower   Lower   Lower Lower  Lower Lower       Not       Not 
     priority                                                       
                                                          available available 

Budget level    291  833    315      739  340    823         362 
     Staffing        4   6         4      6      4      7         4 
      level                                                         
Total weekly   3.75   9     3.75   15.75  3.75   9.92       3.75      9.92 
      hours                                                         
      Impact                                                    Not       Not 
      rating    Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher           
                                                          available available 
     Language   Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower        Not       Not 
     priority                                                       
                                                          available available 
    Hungarianf                                                      
Budget level   1103   0     554        0  287        0       294         0 
     Staffing       11   0         3      0      3      0         3         0 
      level                                                         
Total weekly      9   0     1.25       0  1.83       0      1.83         0 
      hours                                                         
      Impact    Lower         Lower         Lower               Not       Not 
      rating            N/A             N/A         N/A             
                                                          available available 
     Language   Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower        Not       Not 
     priority                                                       
      rating                                              available available 

                                  Appendix II
                    Language Service Budget and Program Data

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

                              Dollars in thousands

Broadcast 2000 2001 2002 2003a language VOA RFE/RL VOAb RFE/RL VOAc RFE/RL
VOA RFE/RL Latvian Lithuanian Polishg

Budget level    395  992    182      819  186    807         190 
     Staffing        5   7         2      7      2      7         2 
      level                                                         
Total weekly      5   14    0.80    7.58  0.83   8.42       2.08      8.42 
      hours                                                         
      Impact                                                    Not       Not 
      rating    Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher           
                                                          available available 
     Language   Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower        Not       Not 
     priority                                                       
                                                          available available 

Budget level    466  841    267      811  165    884         169 
     Staffing        6   7         2      7      2      7         2 
      level                                                         
Total weekly      5   16    0.80   19.25  0.83  17.55       0.83     18.07 
      hours                                                         
      Impact                                                    Not       Not 
      rating    Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher           
                                                          available available 
     Language   Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower        Not       Not 
     priority                                                       
                                                          available available 

    Budget level   1560   0     565       0  303        0       308 
Staffing level    18   0      3        0      3      0         3 
    Total weekly     15   0    1.25       0  1.75       0      1.75         0 
       hours                                                        
Impact rating  Lower  N/A   Lower    N/A Higher  N/A         Not       Not 
                                                          available available 
      Language    Lower Lower  Lower Lower  Lower  Lower        Not       Not 
      priority                                                      
                                                          available available 
     Romanianh                                                      
    Budget level    624 2,209   572   1,574  260   1,680        163     1,646 
Staffing level     7   10     3       10      3   11           3        11 
    Total weekly    3.5   42   1.25   27.30  1.25  27.30       1.25     21.55 
       hours                                                        
Impact rating  Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower  Higher       Not       Not 
                                                          available available 
      Language    Lower Lower  Lower Lower  Lower  Lower        Not       Not 
      priority                                                      
                                                          available available 

                                  Appendix II
                    Language Service Budget and Program Data

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

                              Dollars in thousands

Broadcast 2000 2001 2002 2003a language VOA RFE/RL VOAb RFE/RL VOAc RFE/RL
VOA RFE/RL Slovak Slovenei

    Budget level     514 1,307   513  1,002   342   813         281 
Staffing level      6   8      3        8     3      7         3 
    Total weekly       7   28   1.25  24.03  1.83  11.75       1.83     14.55 
        hours                                                       
    Impact rating  Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher       Not       Not 
                                                          available available 
      Language     Lower Lower  Lower Lower  Lower Lower        Not       Not 
      priority                                                      
                                                          available available 

Budget level        228   0    174       0  168    0         180 
     Staffing            3   0     2        0     2   0           2 
       level                                                        
Total weekly       3.75   0    0.80      0 0.85    0        0.83 
       hours                                                        
Impact rating       Not  N/A  Higher   N/A High   N/A        Not       Not 
                 available                                available available 
     Language      Lower   Lower Lower  Lower Lower Lower       Not       Not 
     priority                                                       
                                                          available available 

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

aBudget, staffing, and transmission data for fiscal year 2003 are agency
estimates.

bIn fiscal year 2001, VOA's Czech, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish,
and Slovene services were merged into the EMU.

cIn fiscal year 2002, VOA's Slovak, Bulgarian, and Romanian services were
added into the EMU.

dRFE/RL's Croatian service serves the entire Balkan region as part of a
regional initiative called the South Slavic Service. RFE/RL budget,
staffing, and transmission data figures are for the entire South Slavic
Service. Priority and impact ratings are for the entire South Slavic
Service, with the exception of 2002, where they are for the Croatian
segment only.

eRFE/RL's Czech language service was privatized in 1994 at the discretion
of RFE/RL management. However, RFE/RL continued to provide financial
support to the private Czech station through 2002.

fRFE/RL decided to end its Hungarian service in 1993.

gRFE/RL ended its Polish service broadcasting at the end of 1997.

hRFE/RL's Romanian language service serves the countries of Romania and
Moldova. RFE/RL budget, staffing, impact, and transmission figures are for
the entire service.

iRFE/RL has never had a Slovenian language service.

Appendix III

Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors

Appendix III
Comments from the Broadcasting Board of
Governors

Appendix III
Comments from the Broadcasting Board of
Governors

Appendix IV

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

                     GAO Contact Diana Glod, (202) 512-8945

Staff 	In addition to the person named above, Michael ten Kate, Melissa
Pickworth, and Janey Cohen made key contributions to this report. Martin

Acknowledgments De Alteriis and Ernie Jackson provided technical
assistance.

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of

GAO's Mission 	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.

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 full-

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
older 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 email 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: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Public Affairs 	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                               Presorted Standard
                              Postage & Fees Paid
                                      GAO
                                Permit No. GI00

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***