U.S. International Broadcasting: Challenges Facing the		 
Broadcasting Board of Governors (29-APR-04, GAO-04-711T).	 
                                                                 
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were a dramatic	 
reminder of the importance of cultivating a better understanding 
of the United States and its policies with overseas audiences.	 
U.S. public diplomacy activities include the efforts of the	 
Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees all nonmilitary  
U.S. international broadcasting by the Voice of America (VOA) and
several other broadcast entities. Such broadcasting helps promote
a better understanding of the United States and serves U.S.	 
interests by providing overseas audiences with accurate and	 
objective news about the United States and the world. GAO has	 
issued three reports over the past 4 years examining the	 
organizational, marketing, resource, and performance reporting	 
challenges faced by the Board. Our recommendations to the Board  
have included the need to address the long-standing issue of	 
overlapping language services (i.e., where two services broadcast
in the same language to the same audience) and to strengthen the 
Board's strategic planning and performance by placing a greater  
emphasis on results. The Board has taken significant steps to	 
respond to these and other recommendations.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-711T					        
    ACCNO:   A09923						        
  TITLE:     U.S. International Broadcasting: Challenges Facing the   
Broadcasting Board of Governors 				 
     DATE:   04/29/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Cost control					 
	     Foreign languages					 
	     Foreign policies					 
	     International relations				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Public diplomacy					 
	     Radio broadcasting 				 
	     Redundancy 					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     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-04-711T

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism,
Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT U.S. INTERNATIONAL

Thursday, April 29, 2004

BROADCASTING

             Challenges Facing the Broadcasting Board of Governors

Statement of Jess T. Ford, Director International Affairs and Trade

GAO-04-711T

Highlights of GAO-04-711T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
International Operations and Terrorism, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were a dramatic reminder of
the importance of cultivating a better understanding of the United States
and its policies with overseas audiences. U.S. public diplomacy activities
include the efforts of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees
all nonmilitary U.S. international broadcasting by the Voice of America
(VOA) and several other broadcast entities. Such broadcasting helps
promote a better understanding of the United States and serves U.S.
interests by providing overseas audiences with accurate and objective news
about the United States and the world.

GAO has issued three reports over the past 4 years examining the
organizational, marketing, resource, and performance reporting challenges
faced by the Board. Our recommendations to the Board have included the
need to address the long-standing issue of overlapping language services
(i.e., where two services broadcast in the same language to the same
audience) and to strengthen the Board's strategic planning and performance
by placing a greater emphasis on results. The Board has taken significant
steps to respond to these and other recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-711T.

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

Thursday, April 29, 2004

U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

Challenges Facing the Broadcasting Board of Governors

The Broadcasting Board of Governors has responded to a disparate
organizational structure and marketing challenges by developing a new
strategic approach to broadcasting which, among other things, emphasizes
reaching large audiences through modern broadcasting techniques.
Organizationally, the existence of five separate broadcast entities has
led to overlapping language services, duplication of program content,
redundant newsgathering and support services, and difficulties
coordinating broadcast efforts. Marketing challenges include outmoded
program formats, poor signal delivery, and low audience awareness in many
markets. Alhurra television broadcasts to the Middle East and Radio Farda
broadcasts to Iran illustrate the Board's efforts to better manage program
content and meet the needs of its target audiences. Although we have not
validated available research data, the Board claims that the application
of its new approach has led to dramatic increases in listening rates in
key Middle East markets.

To streamline its operations, the Board has used its annual language
service review process to address such issues as how resources should be
allocated among language services on the basis of their priority and
impact, what degree of overlap should exist among services, and whether
services should be eliminated because they have fulfilled their broadcast
mission. Since 1999, the Board has identified more than $50 million in
actual or potential savings through this process.

In response to our recommendations on the Board's strategic planning and
performance management efforts, the Board revised its strategic plan to
make reaching large audiences in strategic markets the centerpiece of its
performance reporting system. The Board also added broadcaster credibility
and audience awareness to its array of performance measures and plans to
add a measure of whether VOA is meeting its mandated mission.

Alhurra's Broadcast Center in Springfield, Virginia

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to provide an overview of the three reports
we have issued over the past 4 years on the operations of the Broadcasting
Board of Governors.1,2,3 These reports have examined a number of
organizational, marketing, resource, and performance management challenges
facing U.S. international broadcasting. Our two most recent reports have
addressed the Board's principal response to these challenges-a new 5-year
strategic approach to international broadcasting known as "Marrying the
Mission to the Market," which emphasizes the need to reach large audiences
by applying modern broadcast techniques and strategically allocating
resources to focus on high-priority broadcast markets. Early
implementation of this strategy has focused on markets relevant to the war
on terrorism, in particular the Middle East and central Asia.

Drawing from our published reports as well as recent testimony on U.S.
public diplomacy,4 I will talk today about (1) organizational and
marketing obstacles and the Board's efforts to overcome them, (2) what the
Board has done to manage its limited resources, and (3) the status of
Board efforts to develop meaningful performance goals and measures. I will
also discuss our recommendations to the Board and the status of its
response to them. As part of our work to prepare for this testimony, we
met with Board staff to obtain updated program data and current
information on the steps the Board has taken to respond to our
recommendations. The reports used for this testimony were based on work
conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.

1U.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).

2U.S. General Accounting Office, 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).

3U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. International Broadcasting: Enhanced
Measure of Local Media Conditions Would Facilitate Decisions to Terminate
Language Services, GAO-04-374 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2004).

4U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department
and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Efforts in the Middle East
but Face Significant Challenges, GAO-04-435T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10,
2004).

Summary 	The Broadcasting Board of Governors faces a number of challenges,
and key among them is how to achieve large audiences in priority markets
while dealing with (1) a disparate organizational structure consisting of
five broadcast entities and a mix of federal and grantee organizations
managed by a part-time Board and (2) a collection of outdated and
noncompetitive language services that have failed to respond to current
market conditions. The disparate structure of U.S. international
broadcasting has led to overlapping language services, duplication of
program content, redundant newsgathering and support services, and
difficulties in coordinating broadcast efforts. Marketing challenges
include the use of outmoded program formats and styles, the general lack
of target audiences within broadcast markets, poor signal delivery in many
areas, and low audience awareness in several major markets. The Board's
new strategic approach addresses these issues by treating broadcast
entities as content providers within a "single system" that the Board
oversees to ensure that broadcast content meets the discrete needs of
individual markets using modern broadcasting techniques. Recent Board
initiatives such as Radio Sawa broadcasts to the Middle East and Radio
Farda broadcasts to Iran illustrate the Board's willingness both to serve
as the content manager for U.S. international broadcasting and to adopt a
market-based approach designed to attract large listening audiences in
high-priority markets in support of U.S. strategic objectives in the war
on terrorism. Although we have not validated available research data, the
Board claims that the application of its new strategic approach has led to
dramatic increases in audience listening rates in markets of key strategic
interest to the United States.

Triggered by a desire to better manage its limited resources, the Board
has used its annual language service review process to identify and
reallocate cost savings to fund higher-priority needs, such as expanded
initiatives in the Middle East and central Asia. The process is used to
address such complex resource issues as how funds should be allocated
among services based on their priority and impact, how many broadcast
services should be carried, what degree of overlap and content duplication
should exist among services, and whether services should be eliminated
because they have fulfilled their broadcast mission. Since 1999, the Board
has identified more than $50 million in actual or potential budget savings
through the language service review process. From 1999 through 2002, the
language service review process resulted in the reallocation of about
$19.7 million from lower-priority or lower-impact language services to
higher-priority

broadcast needs, including Radio Farda and Radio Sawa. In response to our
recommendation, the Board updated its review process to include a specific
analysis of overlapping language services.5 In its 2003 review, the Board
identified $12.4 million in fiscal year 2004 and 2005 transmission cost
and language service overlap reductions that could be reallocated to
higher-priority needs, such as expanding Urdu language broadcasts to
Pakistan and Persian language television to Iran. Finally, the Board has
used its language service review process as a vehicle for identifying
which language services should be eliminated. For example, based on its
review process, the Board's fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress
recommended the elimination of 17 Central and Eastern European language
services managed by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty (RFE/RL), saving a projected $20.9 million for fiscal years 2004
and 2005. While the Board is to be commended for making a difficult
decision in this case, our February 2004 report did note that the language
service review process lacks an adequate measure of whether domestic media
provide accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information to
national audiences-a condition that Congress expects to be met before
RFE/RL language services are terminated.6

In response to our recommendations on the Board's strategic planning and
performance management efforts, the Board revised its strategic plan to
make the goal of reaching large audiences in strategic markets the
centerpiece of its performance reporting system. Also in response to our
recommendations, the Board added broadcaster credibility and audience
awareness to its array of performance measures and plans to add a measure
of whether VOA is meeting its mission. These steps will help the Board
answer questions about the effectiveness of initiatives such as Radio Sawa
and Alhurra (the two entities comprising the Middle East Television
Network) in reaching mass audiences and elites in the Middle East, whether
foreign publics perceive U.S. broadcast services as being

5Overlap exists when a VOA and a surrogate service, such as RFE/RL,
broadcast in the same language to the same target audience. Some degree of
overlap is appropriate given the varying missions of U.S. broadcast
entities. However, in its new strategic plan, the Board identified a 40
percent overlap in its language services as excessive.

6With 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 member states of the European Union or the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and have received a Freedom House (a
nonprofit group reporting on economic, political, and press freedom issues
around the world) rating equal to that of the United States. Conferees
expressed the expectation that broadcast services would continue in
Romanian and Croatian.

independent of American foreign policy, and whether VOA is effectively
promoting the image of the United States and educating foreign audiences
about U.S. practices and policies.

                                   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), VOA, the Middle East Television Network
(Alhurra and Radio Sawa), RFE/RL, and Radio Free Asia (RFA). In addition
to serving as a reliable source of news and information, VOA is
responsible for presenting U.S. policies through a variety of means,
including officially labeled government editorials. Radio/TV Marti,
RFE/RL, and RFA were created by Congress to function as "surrogate"
broadcasters, designed to temporarily replace the local media of countries
where a free and open press does not exist. Created by the Bush
administration and the Board, the Middle East Television Network draws its
mission from the core purpose of U.S. international broadcasting, which is
to promote and sustain freedom by broadcasting accurate and objective news
and information about the United States and the world to audiences
overseas.7

In addition to the stand-alone entities that make up U.S. international
broadcasting, Congress and the Board have created other broadcast
organizations to meet specific program objectives. Congress created Radio
Free Iraq, Radio Free Iran, and Radio Free Afghanistan and incorporated
these services into RFE/RL's operations. Under its new strategic approach
to broadcasting, the Board and the Bush administration created Radio Sawa,
the Afghanistan Radio Network (ARN), Radio Farda, and Alhurra to replace
poorly performing services, more effectively combine existing services,
and create new broadcast entities where needed. Figure 1 illustrates the
Board's current organizational structure.

7The U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994 states that U.S.
international broadcasting efforts should, among other things, be
consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States;
provide a balanced and comprehensive projection of U.S. thought and
institutions; and provide accurate and objective news and information
about developments in significant regions of the world.

Figure 1: Organizational Structure of U.S. International Broadcasting

VOA, RFE/RL, and RFA are 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.
Currently, 42 of the Board's 74 language services (or 57 percent) target
the same audiences in the same languages. While some degree of overlap is
to be expected given the varying missions of the broadcast entities, the
Board has concluded that this level of overlap requires ongoing analysis
and scrutiny.

The Board's budget for fiscal year 2003 was approximately $552 million,
with nearly half of its resources used to cover transmission, technical
support, Board and IBB management staff salaries, and other support costs.
Among the broadcast entities, funds are roughly equally divided among VOA
and the four other U.S. broadcasting entities. Figure 2 provides a
breakout of the Board's fiscal year 2003 budget.

Figure 2: Broadcasting Board of Governors Funding, Fiscal Year 2003

Our reviews of U.S. international broadcasting reveal that the Board faces
the challenges of operating a mix of broadcast entities with varying
missions and structures in an environment that provides significant
marketing obstacles. As we reported in July 2003, the Board has adopted a
new approach to broadcasting that is designed to overcome several of these
challenges. The Board's key organizational challenge is the disparate mix
of broadcast entities it is tasked with managing.8 To address this
problem, the Board has adopted a "single system" approach to broadcasting
whereby broadcast entities are viewed as content providers and the Board
assumes a central role in tailoring this content to meet the demands of
individual markets. The Board also faces marketing challenges that include
the lack of a unique reason for listeners to tune in, the general lack of
target audiences within broadcast markets, and poor-to-fair signal quality
for many of the broadcast services. Recent initiatives such as Radio Sawa
and Alhurra have addressed these deficiencies, and the Board has

8Our July 2003 report discusses additional organizational issues,
including the potential need for a Chief Executive Officer or Chief
Operating Officer to handle day-to-day operations for the Board and
whether VOA and Radio/TV Marti should be reconstituted as grantees to put
them on the same footing as other U.S. broadcast entities.

  Disparate Structure and an Outmoded Broadcast Approach Hamper Efforts to Reach
  Large Audiences in Strategic Markets

required that all broadcast services, to the extent feasible, address
these issues as well.

Disparate Structure of Broadcast Operations Remains an Ongoing Challenge

The Board's major organizational challenge is the need to further
consolidate and streamline its operations to better leverage existing
resources and generate greater program impact in priority markets.
According to the Board's strategic plan, "the diversity of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors-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." As noted in our 2003 report, senior program managers and outside
experts with whom we spoke supported considering the option of
consolidating U.S. international broadcasting efforts into a single
entity.

The Board intends to create a unified broadcasting system by treating the
component parts of U.S. international broadcasting as a single system.
Under this approach, VOA and other U.S. broadcast entities are viewed as
content providers, and the Board's role is to bring this content together
to form new services or entities as needed. The single-system approach to
managing the Board's diversity requires that the Board actively manage
resources across broadcast entities to achieve common broadcast goals. A
good example of this strategy in action is Radio Farda, which combined VOA
and RFE/RL broadcast content to produce a new broadcast product for the
Iranian market. In the case of Radio Sawa, the Board replaced VOA's poorly
performing Arabic service with a new broadcast entity. 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 told us they encountered some
difficulties attempting to work with officials to launch Radio Sawa within
VOA's structure and were later forced to constitute Radio Sawa as a
separate grantee organization. While this move was needed to achieve the
Board's strategic objectives, it contributed to the further fragmentation
of U.S. international broadcasting.

New Initiatives Address The Board's strategic plan comments openly on the
marketing challenges

Marketing Challenges 	facing U.S. international broadcasters, specifically
that many language services lack a unique reason for listeners or viewers
to tune in; few language services have identified their target audiences-a
key first step in developing a broadcast strategy; many language services
have outmoded formats and programs with an antiquated, even Cold War,
sound and style; and three-quarters of transmitted hours have poor or fair
signal quality.

Consistent with its "Marrying the Mission to the Market" philosophy, the
Board has sought to address these deficiencies in key markets with new
initiatives in Afghanistan, Iran, and the Middle East that support the war
on terrorism. The first project under the new approach, Radio Sawa
(recently added to the new Middle East Television Network), was launched
in March 2002 using many of the modern, market-tested broadcasting
techniques and practices prescribed in its strategic plan, including
identifying a target audience, researching the best way to attract the
target audience, and delivering programming to the Middle East in a
contemporary and appealing format. The Board's other recent initiatives
also have adhered to this new approach by being tailored to the specific
circumstances of each target market. These initiatives include the
Afghanistan Radio Network, Radio Farda service to Iran, and the Alhurra
satellite service to the Middle East. Table 1 describes the Board's recent
projects that support the war on terrorism.

Table 1: The Board's Recent Initiatives that Support the War on Terrorism

Radio Sawa March 2002 A modern Arabic-language network that broadcasts
music, news, and (recently added to the Middle East information to a
target audience of 15- to 29-year olds in the Middle East via a Television
Network) combination of FM, medium wave, short wave, digital audio
satellite, and

Internet transmission resources. Separate streams are targeted to Iraq,
Jordan and the West Bank, the Persian Gulf, Egypt, and Morocco. All five
streams have a differentiated music program; however, the news is similar
on the four non-Iraq streams. Board officials say that Radio Sawa
broadcasts between 10 to 15 minutes of news each hour.

Radio Farda December 2002 	Radio Farda combines the efforts of VOA and
RFE/RL into a single service managed by RFE/RL. Radio Farda targets its
broadcasts to the under-30 youth in Iran. It broadcasts a combination of
popular Persian and Western music and a total of 8 hours of news and
information content daily, focusing on regional coverage and developments
relating to Iran. News updates are given at least twice an hour, with
longer news programming in the morning and evening. It broadcasts 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week via medium wave, digital audio satellite, and the
Internet, as well as 21 hours a day via short wave.

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Although we have not validated available research data, the Board claims
that implementation of these marketing improvements has led to dramatic
increases in audience listening rates. For example, based on surveys
conducted by ACNielsen, the Board maintains that Radio Sawa is now the

9

number one international broadcaster in six countries in the Middle East,
reaching an average weekly audience of about 38 percent of the general
population and about 49 percent of its 15-to 29-year-old target audience
across all six countries. These levels far exceed the 1 to 2 percent
audience reach of the VOA Arabic service, which Radio Sawa replaced. In
addition, the Board's main research contractor-Intermedia-has indicated
that as of March 2004, Radio Farda is the leading international
broadcaster in Iran-achieving an average weekly listenership of 15
percent, which is 10 percent more than the combined weekly audiences for
VOA and RFE/RL's prior services to Iran. Board officials have told us that
preliminary audience reach data for the Board's satellite channel Alhurra
will be available by June of this year. While the audience numbers on
Radios Sawa and Farda appear to be very positive, as we reported in July
2003, U.S. broadcasters suffer from a credibility problem. To address this
issue, we recommended that the Board adopt measures of broadcaster
credibility, which the Board has recently implemented.

In addition to these new initiatives, the Board has tasked all language
services with adopting the tenets of its new approach, such as identifying
a target audience and improving signal quality, to the maximum extent
possible within existing budget constraints. They hope that these
improvements will lead to significant audience boosts for a number of
higher- and lower-priority services that suffer from very low listening
rates. For example, data from the Board's 2003 language review show that
more than one-quarter of all language services had listening rates of
fewer than 2 percent at that time.

9Countries surveyed include Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab
Emirates, Kuwait, and Morocco. Research for Egypt, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait
was conducted in July and August 2003. Research for Jordan and Morocco was
conducted in February 2004. The six countries covered by the survey
represent only a portion of Radio Sawa's target broadcast area-21
Muslim-majority countries in North Africa, the Near East, and the Persian
Gulf. Notably absent from the Board's performance statistics are data on
major target countries such as Sudan (about 21 million adults), Algeria
(abut 21 million adults), and Saudi Arabia (about 14 million adults).

  Language Service Review Used to Reallocate Millions to Higher-Priority
  Broadcast Needs

The Board manages its limited resources through its annual language
service review process, which is used to address such issues as how
resources should be allocated among services based on their priority and
impact, how many broadcast services should be carried, what degree of
overlap and content duplication10 should exist among services, and whether
services should be eliminated because they have fulfilled their broadcast
mission. This process responds to the congressional mandate that the Board
periodically review the need to add and delete language services. The
Board has interpreted this mandate to include the expansion and reduction
of language services. Since 1999, the Board has identified more than $50
million in actual or potential savings through the language service review
process by moving resources from lower-to higher-priority services, by
eliminating language services, and by reducing language service overlap
and transmission costs.

Review Process Used to Address Complex Resource Issues

As noted in our July 2003 report, the Board's strategic plan concludes
that if U.S. international broadcasting is to become a vital component of
U.S. foreign policy, it must focus on a clear set of broadcast priorities.
The plan notes that 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. As discussed in our report, the Board
determined that current efforts to support its broadcast languages are
"unsustainable" with current resources, given its desire to increase
impact in high-priority markets. Our survey of senior program managers
revealed that a majority supported significantly reducing the total number
of language services and the overlap in services between VOA and the
surrogate broadcasters. We found that 18 of 24 respondents said that too
many language services are offered. 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.

The Board's annual language service review process serves as the Board's
principal tool for managing these complex resource questions. This process
has evolved into an intensive program and budget review that

10Content duplication occurs when VOA and another U.S. broadcast entity
provide the same type of information to the same audience. Board analysis
shows that VOA carries more information about America than the surrogates
and surrogates carry more local news than VOA. However, there are areas of
overlap in content because each broadcast entity carries news about
America, as well as international, regional, and local events.

culminates with ranked priority and impact listings for each of the
Board's 74 language services. These ranked lists become the basis for
proposed language service reductions or eliminations and provide the Board
with an analytical basis for making such determinations using measures of
U.S. strategic interests, audience size, press freedom, and a host of
other factors. Since the first language service review process began in
1999 and up through 2002, the Board has reduced the scope of operations of
over 25 language services based on their priority and impact rankings and
reallocated about $19.7 million to help fund higher-priority broadcast
needs such as Radio Sawa and Radio Farda.

As discussed in our February 2004 report, a clear example of the language
service review process in action was the Board's recent proposal to
eliminate 17 Central and Eastern European language services which served
to reduce the overall number of language services and eliminate several
overlapping services where the Board believed each broadcast entity's
mission had been completed. This decision resulted in nonrecurring budget
savings of about $8.8 million for fiscal year 2004 and recurring annual
savings of about $12.1 million. Our only criticism of this decision was
that the Board's language service review process did not include a measure
of press freedom that gauges whether the press acts responsibly and
professionally.11 This is a significant omission in the Board's current
measure, given the congressional concern that RFE/RL's broadcast
operations not be terminated until a country's domestic media meet this
condition.12 Board officials acknowledged that their existing press
freedom measure could be updated to include information on media
responsibility and professional quality, and work is under way to develop
a more comprehensive measure for the Board's 2004 language service review.

11The Board's current 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.

12See Title III of P.L. 103-236, as amended by P.L. 106-113, Appendix G,
Section 503.

Review of Overlapping Language Services Implemented

  Strategic Planning and Performance Management System Revised to Place a
  Greater Focus on Results

In our September 2000 report, we cited the Board's concerns about
overlapping language services and its plans to address this issue in
subsequent iterations of the language service review process. In our July
2003 report we again raised the issue of language service overlap and
content duplication between VOA and the surrogates. We also noted that
while the Board's strategic plan identified overlap as a challenge, it
failed to answer questions about when it is appropriate to broadcast VOA
and surrogate programming in the same language.

The Board has responded to our observations and recommendations by
incorporating a review of overlapping services in its language service
review process for 2003. The Board developed several approaches to dealing
with overlap. For example, services can be "merged" by having one service
subsume another (as was the case with Radio Farda). A second approach is
to run alternating services, as is the case with the Afghanistan Radio
Network, which runs VOA and RFE/RL programming on a single broadcast
stream. Another approach is to simply terminate one or both overlapping
services. All of the Board's overlapping services were assessed with these
different approaches in mind. As a result of this analysis, the Board
identified an estimated $4.9 million in fiscal year 2004 and 2005 savings
from overlap services that could be redirected to higherpriority
broadcasting needs, such as expanded Persian language television for Iran
and expanded Urdu language radio for Pakistan.13

Mr. Chairman, the Board has revised its strategic planning and performance
management system to respond to the recommendations in our July 2003
report aimed at improving the measurement of its results. In that report,
we recommended that the Board's new strategic plan include a goal designed
to gauge progress toward reaching significant audiences in markets of
strategic interest to the United States. Our report also recommended that
the Board establish key performance indicators relating to the perceived
credibility of U.S. broadcasters, whether audiences are aware of U.S.
broadcast offerings in their area, and whether

13The Board also identified an estimated $7.5 million in fiscal year 2004
and 2005 savings from transmission reductions during its 2003 language
service review.

VOA is achieving its mission of effectively explaining U.S. policies and
practices to overseas audiences.14

Reaching Large Audiences in Key Markets

In response to our recommendation for a goal that would measure progress
in reaching large audiences in markets of strategic interest to the United
States, the Board replaced the seven strategic goals in its plan with a
single goal focused on this core objective.15 The goal is supported by a
number of performance indicators (at the entity and language service
level) that are designed to measure the reach of U.S. international
broadcasting efforts and whether programming is delivered in the most
effective manner possible. Weekly listening rates at the entity level and
target audience numbers by language service provide key measures of the
Board's reach. Other program effectiveness measures include program
quality, the number of broadcast affiliates, signal strength, Internet
usage, and cost per listener.

                            Broadcaster Credibility

In response to our recommendation for a measure of broadcaster credibility
to identify whether target audiences believe what they hear, the Board
added such a measure to its performance management system. Reaching a
large listening or viewing audience is of little use if audiences largely
discount the news and information portions of broadcasts. Our survey of
senior program managers and discussions with Board staff and outside
groups all suggest 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 us that it was
working on a credibility index for another customer that could be adapted
to meet the Board's needs and, when segmented by language service, would
reveal whether there are significant perception problems among

14This Board's strategic planning and performance management system
includes its 5-year strategic plan, Results Act reporting (annual
performance plans and reports), the Office of Management and Budget's new
Program Assessment Rating Tool, the annual language service review
process, and annual program reviews of individual language services.

15We also reported that efforts to assess the effectiveness of the Board's
new approach to broadcasting may be hampered by the lack of details on how
the Board intends to implement each of its program objectives. Our
September 2000 and July 2003 reports both noted that the Board's
performance plans lacked specifics on implementation strategies, resource
requirements, and project time frames. The Board acknowledged these
deficiencies and said that major changes are slated for future planning
efforts.

key target audiences. However, to develop a similar measure, Intermedia
told us that the Board would need to add several questions to its national
survey instruments.

                               Audience Awareness

In response to our finding that the Board lacked a measure of audience
awareness, the Board has added such a measure to its performance
management system. We determined this measure would help the Board answer
a 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 this measure would help the Board
understand a key factor in audience share rates and what could be done to
address audience share deficiencies. We found that the Board could develop
this measure because it already collects information on language service
awareness levels in its audience research and in national surveys for
internal use.

VOA Mission Effectiveness

  Contacts and Acknowledgments

Finally, in response to our finding that the Board lacked a measure of
whether target audiences hear, understand, and retain information
broadcast by VOA on American thought, institutions, and policies, Board
officials we spoke with told us that they are currently developing this
measure for inclusion in the Board's performance management system. 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 in determining whether VOA is
accomplishing its mission. Officials from the Board's research firm 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 survey activities.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have
at this time.

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call Jess Ford or
Diana Glod at (202) 512-4128. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony included Janey Cohen, Melissa Pickworth, Addison Ricks, and
Michael ten Kate.

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.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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.

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 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 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: 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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***