U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts Lack Certain	 
Communication Elements and Face Persistent Challenges (03-MAY-06,
GAO-06-707T).							 
                                                                 
Public opinion polls have shown continued negative sentiments	 
toward the United States in the Muslim world. Public diplomacy	 
activities--led by the State Department (State)--are designed to 
counter such sentiments by explaining U.S. foreign policy	 
actions, countering misinformation, and advancing mutual	 
understanding between nations. Since 2003, we have issued three  
reports on U.S. public diplomacy efforts that examined (1)	 
changes in public diplomacy resources since September 11, 2001;  
(2) strategic planning and coordination of public diplomacy	 
efforts; and (3) the challenges facing these efforts. We have	 
made several recommendations in the last 3 years to the Secretary
of State to address strategic planning issues, private sector	 
engagement, and staffing challenges related to public diplomacy. 
For example, today's report recommends that the Secretary develop
written guidance detailing how the department intends to	 
implement its public diplomacy goals as they apply to the Muslim 
world. State has consistently concurred with our findings and	 
recommendations for improving public diplomacy, and the 	 
department, in several cases, is taking appropriate actions.	 
However, the department has not established a timetable for many 
of these actions.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-707T					        
    ACCNO:   A53079						        
  TITLE:     U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts Lack     
Certain Communication Elements and Face Persistent Challenges	 
     DATE:   05/03/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Foreign policies					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     International relations				 
	     Private sector					 
	     Public diplomacy					 
	     Public opinion polls				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Labor force					 
	     Knowledge, skills and abilities			 
	     Public/private partnerships			 

******************************************************************
** 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-06-707T

     

     * Summary
     * Background
     * Public Diplomacy Resources Have Shifted to the Muslim World,
     * Strategy, Planning, and Coordination Efforts Are Inadequate
          * Government Lacks an Interagency Public Diplomacy Strategy
          * State Has Established Public Diplomacy Strategic Framework b
          * Posts Lack a Strategic Approach to Public Diplomacy
     * Staffing Challenges and Security Concerns Limit U.S. Public
          * Insufficient Staff and Lack of Staff Time Hinders Public Dip
          * Language Deficiencies Pronounced, Especially in the Muslim W
          * Embassies Must Balance Security and Public Outreach
     * Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
     * GAO's Mission
     * Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
          * Order by Mail or Phone
     * To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * Congressional Relations
     * Public Affairs

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and
Commerce, and Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Wednesday, May 3, 2006

U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

State Department Efforts Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face
Persistent Challenges

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

GAO-06-707T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO's work on U.S. public
diplomacy efforts, particularly in the Muslim world.1 Since the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, foreign public opinion polls have shown
that negative attitudes toward the United States have generally grown
worse in many countries around the world. One particular concern has been
a marked worsening of such attitudes in the Muslim world-an audience of
key strategic interest in the United States' war on terrorism. U.S. public
diplomacy activities-led by the State Department (State)-are designed to
counter such sentiments by explaining U.S. foreign policy actions,
countering misinformation, and advancing mutual understanding among
nations. Today, we are issuing a report on the State's public diplomacy
efforts in the Muslim world.2 This follows our April 2005 report examining
interagency coordination of public diplomacy activities3 and our September
2003 report on State's overall public diplomacy efforts.4 These efforts
include daily news operations, information programs, and various types of
exchange programs.

Mr. Chairman, you asked us to discuss our findings from these reports and,
where possible, to highlight ways of strengthening public diplomacy going
forward. Today, I will talk about (1) changes in U.S. public diplomacy
resources since September 11, 2001; (2) strategic planning and
coordination of public diplomacy efforts; and (3) the challenges facing
these efforts. My comments will focus on State's activities, as State was
the subject of our work. While our most recent report focuses on
activities in the Muslim world, many of our findings apply to public
diplomacy efforts worldwide.

1For the purposes of this testimony, the "Muslim world" refers to the 58
countries and territories identified as "countries with significant Muslim
populations" by the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs. This list includes Muslim-majority countries and members of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference.

2GAO, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts to Engage Muslim
Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Significant
Challenges, GAO-06-535 (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006).

3GAO, U.S. Public Diplomacy: Interagency Coordination Efforts Hampered by
the Lack of a National Communication Strategy, GAO-05-323 (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 4, 2005).

4GAO, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Expands Efforts but Faces
Significant Challenges, GAO-03-951 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 2003).

As part of our reviews of public diplomacy, we met with officials from the
Departments of State and Defense (DOD), U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), and Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). We
traveled to Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom and
met with a broad cross-section of U.S. embassy officials, British Council
and embassy staff, and local focus groups. We also convened roundtables of
experts on public relations, international opinion research, and the
Muslim world. The reports used for this testimony were conducted in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

                                    Summary

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, State has expanded its
public diplomacy efforts globally, focusing particularly on countries in
the Muslim world considered to be of strategic importance in the war on
terrorism. Since 2001, State has increased its public diplomacy resources,
particularly in regions with significant Muslim populations. From 2004 to
2006, funding in two regions with significant Muslim populations-the Near
East and South Asia-increased 25 and 39 percent, respectively. However,
public diplomacy staffing levels have remained largely the same during
that period.

Since 2003, we have reported that the government lacked an interagency
public diplomacy strategy to guide the activities of disparate agencies,
and it continues to lack this strategy. We also noted that State did not
have a strategy to integrate its diverse public diplomacy activities and
that efforts to effectively engage the private sector had met with mixed
success. State has begun to address these shortcomings. In 2005, State
developed a strategic framework to focus its public diplomacy efforts and
related tactics to achieve its goals, including marginalizing extremists
and promoting understanding of shared values. However, the department has
not issued guidance to its posts abroad on how to implement these
strategies and tactics. In addition, our report released today reveals
that posts' public diplomacy efforts generally lack important strategic
communication elements found in the private sector, which we and others
have suggested adopting as a means to better communicate with target
audiences. These elements include having core messages, segmented target
audiences, in-depth research and analysis to monitor and evaluate results,
and an integrated communication plan to bring all these elements together.
State officials indicated that the department has begun an effort to
develop communication plans for 15 pilot posts, but it remains to be seen
whether these communication plans will contain all of these strategic
elements.

State faces multiple challenges in implementing its public diplomacy
programs, especially at the field level. These challenges include concerns
related to staff numbers, time available for public diplomacy activities,
staff language capabilities, and the need to balance security with public
outreach. According to State data, roughly 15 percent of its public
diplomacy positions overseas were vacant in 2005. Several embassy
officials indicated that insufficient numbers of staff and lack of staff
time for public diplomacy activities hinder outreach efforts. We also
identified this problem in our 2003 report, where a survey of Public
Affairs officers in the field showed that more than 50 percent said that
the number of public diplomacy officers was inadequate and more than 40
percent said the amount of time available for public diplomacy activities
was insufficient. The Secretary of State recently announced plans to
reposition some staff, including plans to shift 28 public diplomacy
officers from posts in Europe and Washington, D.C., to China, India, and
Latin America, as well as to the Muslim world. Additionally, our report
notes that 30 percent of officers in language-designated public diplomacy
positions in the Muslim world have not attained the level of language
proficiency required for their positions, hampering their ability to
engage with foreign publics. In addition to these staffing challenges,
security concerns limit public diplomacy activities, especially in the
Muslim world. Security, along with budgetary concerns, has forced
embassies to close publicly accessible facilities and curtail certain
public outreach efforts, sending the unintended message that the United
States is unapproachable. The department has attempted to compensate for
the lack of public presence through a variety of means, including the use
of small-scale external facilities, and expanded embassy speaker programs.

We have made several recommendations since 2003 to the Secretary of State
to address strategic planning issues, private sector engagement, and
staffing challenges related to public diplomacy. For example, in 2003, we
recommended that the Secretary develop a strategy that integrates private
sector techniques into its public diplomacy efforts and that the Secretary
strengthen efforts to train Foreign Service officers in foreign languages
and public diplomacy. Today's report recommends that the Secretary develop
written guidance detailing how the department intends to implement its
public diplomacy goals as they apply to the Muslim world and strengthen
existing systems of sharing best practices to more systematically transfer
knowledge among embassies around the world. The primary purpose of these
proposed actions is to help officers in the field strategically plan and
implement public diplomacy programs in line with the Under Secretary's
articulated goals. State has consistently concurred with our findings and
recommendations for improving public diplomacy and indicated that the
department, in several cases, is taking appropriate actions, such as
developing a broad public diplomacy strategy and strengthening strategic
planning at the post level. However, the department has not established a
timetable for many of these actions, including the issuance of an
interagency public diplomacy strategy and the creation of the Office of
Private Sector Outreach.

                                   Background

The overall goal of U.S. public diplomacy is to understand, inform,
engage, and influence the attitudes and behavior of foreign audiences in
ways that support U.S. strategic interests. The State Department leads
these efforts, which are guided by the Under Secretary for Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs and include academic and professional
exchanges, English language teaching, information programs, and news
management. The department's regional and functional bureaus also contain
public diplomacy offices, which report to the relevant assistant
secretary. The Under Secretary has direct authority over the three public
diplomacy bureaus but does not have line authority over public diplomacy
operations in other regional or functional bureaus.5 In overseas missions,
Foreign Service public diplomacy officers (including Public Affairs,
Cultural Affairs, Information, Information Resources, and Regional English
Language officers) operate under the authority of the chief of mission and
report to their regional bureau managers in Washington, D.C.

In fiscal year 2005, State dedicated $597 million to public diplomacy and
public affairs. According to the department's performance plan, its
investment in public diplomacy continues to increase, particularly for
efforts targeting audiences in the Middle East. Exchange programs received
$356 million, the majority of fiscal year 2005 funding and a 12.4 percent
increase over fiscal year 2004. State's information programs received
roughly $68 million in fiscal year 2005 to fund programs such as the U.S.
speakers program, mission Web sites, and American Corners, which are
centers that provide information about the United States, hosted in local
institutions and staffed by local employees. The remaining public
diplomacy funds went to State's regional bureaus to pay the salaries of
locally engaged staff overseas, among other purposes.

5State has begun to appoint "dual-hatted" Deputy Assistant Secretaries for
Public Diplomacy in each of the six regional bureaus. These individuals
report directly to both their Regional Assistant Secretary and to the
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

Public Diplomacy Resources Have Shifted to the Muslim World, but Staffing
                            Numbers Have Leveled Off

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, State has expanded its
public diplomacy efforts globally, focusing particularly on countries in
the Muslim world considered to be of strategic importance in the war on
terrorism. Between 2004 and 2006, total spending on overseas public
diplomacy will increase 21 percent, from $519 million to an estimated $629
million. Much of this increase has gone to regions with significant Muslim
populations, including South Asia (39 percent), East Asia and the Pacific
(28 percent), and the Near East (25 percent). These increases continue the
trend we reported in 2003, when we found that the largest relative
increases in overseas public diplomacy resources went to regions with
large Muslim populations. However, the Bureau of European and Eurasian
Affairs continues to receive the largest overall share of overseas public
diplomacy resources-roughly 36 percent of the total for all six regional
bureaus.

In 2003, we noted that authorized officer positions overseas had
significantly expanded, with the most notable increases occurring in
State's Near East (27-percent increase) and South Asia (15-percent
increase) bureaus. However, current data show that staff numbers have
stayed largely the same over the past 3 years, with increases of 3 percent
or less. In January 2006, Secretary Rice announced plans to reposition
officers as part of her transformational diplomacy initiative. State
officials said that the department will initially reposition approximately
75 Foreign Service officers this year from posts in Europe and Washington,
D.C., to India, China, and Latin America, as well as to the Muslim world.
According to these officials, 28 of the positions to be relocated are
public diplomacy positions.

          Strategy, Planning, and Coordination Efforts Are Inadequate

Since 2003, we have reported on the lack of strategic elements to guide
U.S. public diplomacy efforts. Despite several attempts, the United States
still lacks an interagency public diplomacy strategy. While State has
recently developed a strategic framework for its public diplomacy efforts,
it has not issued guidance on how this framework is to be implemented in
the field. In addition, posts generally lack a strategic approach to
public diplomacy.

Government Lacks an Interagency Public Diplomacy Strategy

In 2003, we reported that the United States lacked a governmentwide,
interagency public diplomacy strategy, defining the messages and means for
communication efforts abroad. We reported that the administration had made
a number of aborted attempts to develop a strategy, but to date no public
diplomacy strategy has been developed. The lack of such a strategy
complicates the task of conveying consistent messages, which increases the
risk of making damaging communication mistakes. State officials said that
the lack of such a strategy diminishes the efficiency and effectiveness of
governmentwide public diplomacy efforts, while several reports concluded
that a strategy is needed to synchronize agencies' target audience
assessments, messages, and capabilities.

On April 8, 2006, the President established a new Policy Coordination
Committee on Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communications. This
committee, to be led by the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and
Public Affairs,6 is intended to coordinate interagency activities to
ensure that:

           o  all agencies work together to disseminate the President's
           themes and messages;
           o  all public diplomacy and strategic communications resources,
           programs, and activities are effectively coordinated to support
           those messages; and
           o  every agency gives public diplomacy and strategic
           communications the same level of priority that the President does.

           According to department officials, one of the committee's tasks
           will be to issue a formal interagency public diplomacy strategy.
           It is not clear when this strategy will be developed.

           In 2005, the Under Secretary established a strategic framework for
           U.S. public diplomacy efforts, which includes three priority
           goals: (1) support the President's Freedom Agenda with a positive
           image of hope; (2) isolate and marginalize extremists; and (3)
           promote understanding regarding shared values and common interests
           between Americans and peoples of different countries, cultures,
           and faiths. The Under Secretary noted that she intends to achieve
           these goals using five tactics-engagement, exchanges, education,
           empowerment, and evaluation-and by using various public diplomacy
           programs and other means. This framework partially responds to our
           2003 recommendation that the department develop and disseminate a
           strategy to integrate all State's public diplomacy efforts and
           direct them toward achieving common objectives. However, the
           department has not yet developed written guidance that provides
           details on how the Under Secretary's new strategic framework
           should be implemented in the field.

           In 2005, we noted that State's efforts to engage the private
           sector in pursuit of common public diplomacy objectives had met
           with mixed success and recommended that the Secretary develop a
           strategy to guide these efforts. State is currently establishing
           an office of private sector outreach and is partnering with
           individuals and the private sector on various projects. The Under
           Secretary plans to institutionalize this function within the
           department surrounding key public diplomacy objectives, but it is
           unclear when this office will be established and whether it will
           develop a comprehensive strategy to engage the private sector.

           GAO and others have suggested that State adopt a strategic
           approach to public diplomacy by modeling and adapting private
           sector communication practices to suit its purposes (see fig. 1).
           However, based on our review of mission performance plans7 and on
           fieldwork in Nigeria, Pakistan, and Egypt, we found that the
           posts' public diplomacy programming generally lacked these
           important elements of strategic communications planning. In
           particular, posts lacked a clear theme or message and did not
           identify specific target audiences. According to a senior embassy
           official in Pakistan, the United States has too many competing
           messages, and the post needs to do a better job of defining and
           clarifying its message. Posts also failed to develop detailed
           strategies and tactics to direct available public diplomacy
           programs and tools toward clear, measurable objectives in the most
           efficient manner possible. Finally, posts lack detailed,
           country-level communication plans to coordinate their various
           activities.

           Figure 1: Key Elements of a Typical Public Relations Strategy

           Recently, State has begun to help posts improve their strategic
           communications planning. For example, the department has issued
           guidance on preparing fiscal year 2008 mission performance plans
           that calls for more strategic thinking and planning than was
           required in the past, including identification of specific target
           audiences, key themes and messages, detailed strategies and
           tactics, and measurable performance outcomes that can clearly
           demonstrate the ultimate impact of U.S. public diplomacy efforts.
           If fully implemented, this guidance should begin to address the
           shortcomings we found in mission performance plans; however, it
           will not be implemented for another 2 years, raising significant
           concerns about what the department intends to do now to address
           strategic planning shortfalls. Moreover, it is unclear whether
           this guidance will include all the strategic elements from private
           sector communication practices.

           In addition to this guidance, the department is currently
           developing a sample country-level communication plan and has asked
           15 pilot posts to develop specific plans for their host countries.
           These plans are intended to better focus U.S. efforts to counter
           ideological support for terrorism, according to State. Part of
           this process will include the development of a key influencers
           analysis to help identify target audiences in each country. State
           officials said that they expect to have plans for these countries
           by fall or winter 2006.

           Public diplomacy efforts in the field face several other
           challenges, many of which are heightened in the Muslim world.
           Officials at posts we visited said they lacked sufficient staff
           and time to conduct public diplomacy tasks, and we found that many
           public diplomacy positions are filled by officers without the
           requisite language skills. Furthermore, public diplomacy officers
           struggle to balance security with public access and outreach to
           local populations.

           While several recent reports on public diplomacy have recommended
           an increase in spending on U.S. public diplomacy programs, several
           embassy officials stated that, with current staffing levels, they
           do not have the capacity to effectively utilize increased funds.
           According to State data, the department had established 834 public
           diplomacy positions overseas in 2005, but 124, or roughly 15
           percent, were vacant. Compounding this challenge is the loss of
           public diplomacy officers to temporary duty in Iraq, which,
           according to one State official, has drawn down field officers
           even further. Staffing shortages may also limit the amount of
           training public diplomacy officers receive. According to the U.S.
           Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, "the need to fill a post
           quickly often prevents public diplomacy officers from receiving
           their full training."8

           In addition, public diplomacy officers at post are burdened with
           administrative tasks and thus have less time to conduct public
           diplomacy outreach activities than previously. One senior State
           official said that administrative duties, such as budget,
           personnel, and internal reporting, compete with officers' public
           diplomacy responsibilities. Another official in Egypt told us that
           there was rarely enough time to strategize, plan, or evaluate her
           programs. These statements echo comments we heard during overseas
           fieldwork and in a survey for our 2003 report. Surveyed officers
           told us that, while they manage to attend functions within their
           host country capitals, it was particularly difficult to find time
           to travel outside the capitals to interact with other communities.
           This challenge is compounded at posts with short tours of duty,
           which include many in the Muslim world. According to data provided
           by State, the average tour length at posts in the Muslim world is
           about 22 percent shorter than tour lengths elsewhere. Noting the
           prevalence of one-year tours in the Muslim world, a senior
           official at State told us that Public Affairs officers who have
           shorter tours tend to produce less effective work than officers
           with longer tours.

           To address these challenges, we recommended in 2003 that the
           Secretary of State designate more administrative positions to
           overseas public affairs sections to reduce the administrative
           burden. Officials at State said that the Management bureau is
           currently considering options for reducing the administrative
           burden on posts, including the development of centralized
           administrative capabilities offshore. State is also repositioning
           several public diplomacy officers as part of its transformational
           diplomacy initiative; however, this represents a shift of existing
           public diplomacy officers and does not increase the overall number
           of officers in the department.

           In 2005, 24 percent of language-designated public diplomacy
           positions were filled by officers without the requisite language
           proficiency, similar to our findings in 2003. At posts in the
           Muslim world, this shortfall is even greater, with 30 percent of
           public diplomacy positions filled by officers without sufficient
           language skills. This figure is primarily composed of languages
           that are considered difficult to master, such as Arabic and
           Persian, but also includes languages considered easier to learn,
           such as French.

           Security concerns have limited embassy outreach efforts and public
           access, forcing public diplomacy officers to strike a balance
           between safety and mission. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of
           September 11, 2001, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell stated,
           "Safety is one of our top priorities... but it can't be at the
           expense of the mission." While posts around the world have faced
           increased threats, security concerns are particularly acute in
           countries with significant Muslim populations, where the threat
           level for terrorism is rated as "critical" or "high" in 80 percent
           of posts (see fig. 2).

           Figure 2: Terrorist Threat Ratings for Posts in the Muslim and
           non-Muslim Worlds, October 2005

           Security and budgetary concerns have led to the closure of
           publicly accessible facilities around the world, such as American
           Centers and Libraries. In Pakistan, for example, all of the
           American Centers have closed for security reasons; the last
           facility, in Islamabad, closed in February 2005. These same
           concerns have prevented the establishment of a U.S. presence
           elsewhere. As a result, embassies have had to find other venues
           for public diplomacy programs, and some activities have been moved
           onto embassy compounds, where precautions designed to improve
           security have had the ancillary effect of sending the message that
           the United States is unapproachable and distrustful, according to
           State officials. Concrete barriers and armed escorts contribute to
           this perception, as do requirements restricting visitors' use of
           cell phones and pagers within the embassy. According to one
           official in Pakistan, visitors to the embassy's reference library
           have fallen to as few as one per day because many visitors feel
           humiliated by the embassy's rigorous security procedures.

           Other public diplomacy programs have had to limit their publicity
           to reduce the risk of becoming a target. A recent joint
           USAID-State report concluded that "security concerns often require
           a `low profile' approach during events, programs or other
           situations, which, in happier times, would have been able to
           generate considerable good will for the United States."9 This
           constraint is particularly acute in Pakistan, where the embassy
           has had to reduce certain speaker and exchange programs.

           State has responded to security concerns and the loss of publicly
           accessible facilities through a variety of initiatives, including
           American Corners, which are centers that provide information about
           the United States, hosted in local institutions and staffed by
           local employees. According to State data, there are currently
           approximately 300 American Corners throughout the world, including
           more than 90 in the Muslim world, with another 75 planned (more
           than 40 of which will be in the Muslim world). However, two of the
           posts we visited in October 2005 were having difficulty finding
           hosts for American Corners, as local institutions fear becoming
           terrorist targets.

           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 questions regarding this testimony, please contact Jess T.
           Ford at (202) 512-4128 or [email protected] . Individuals making key
           contributions to this statement include Diana Glod, Assistant
           Director; Michael ten Kate; Robert Ball; and Joe Carney.

           The Government Accountability 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 GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday,
           GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on
           its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
           products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe
           to Updates."

           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. Government Accountability 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

           Contact:

           Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
           [email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
           (202) 512-7470

           Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400
           U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
           Washington, D.C. 20548

           Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
           512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548

State Has Established Public Diplomacy Strategic Framework but Lacks
Implementing Guidance

6The Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and
Global Outreach will serve as the committee's executive secretary. This
position, whose responsibilities include U.S. public diplomacy efforts,
was created in March 2005 when the President reorganized the National
Security Council.

Posts Lack a Strategic Approach to Public Diplomacy

7Mission performance plans serve as top-level statements of agency program
goals and objectives, resource requirements, strategies and tactics, and
performance indicators.

Staffing Challenges and Security Concerns Limit U.S. Public Diplomacy Activities

Insufficient Staff and Lack of Staff Time Hinders Public Diplomacy Activities

8U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, 2005 Report (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 7, 2005).

Language Deficiencies Pronounced, Especially in the Muslim World

Embassies Must Balance Security and Public Outreach

                       Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

(320430)

9USAID, Operating in High Threat Environments (Washington, D.C.: June
2005).

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

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Congressional Relations

Public Affairs

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-707T.

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].

Highlights of GAO-06-707T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on Science,
the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives

May 3, 2006

U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

State Department Efforts Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face
Persistent Challenges

Public opinion polls have shown continued negative sentiments toward the
United States in the Muslim world. Public diplomacy activities-led by the
State Department (State)-are designed to counter such sentiments by
explaining U.S. foreign policy actions, countering misinformation, and
advancing mutual understanding between nations. Since 2003, we have issued
three reports on U.S. public diplomacy efforts that examined (1) changes
in public diplomacy resources since September 11, 2001; (2) strategic
planning and coordination of public diplomacy efforts; and (3) the
challenges facing these efforts.

What GAO Recommends

We have made several recommendations in the last 3 years to the Secretary
of State to address strategic planning issues, private sector engagement,
and staffing challenges related to public diplomacy. For example, today's
report recommends that the Secretary develop written guidance detailing
how the department intends to implement its public diplomacy goals as they
apply to the Muslim world. State has consistently concurred with our
findings and recommendations for improving public diplomacy, and the
department, in several cases, is taking appropriate actions. However, the
department has not established a timetable for many of these actions.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, State has expanded its
public diplomacy efforts globally, focusing particularly on countries in
the Muslim world considered to be of strategic importance in the war on
terrorism. Since 2001, State has increased its public diplomacy resources,
particularly in regions with significant Muslim populations. That funding
trend has continued more recently, with increases of 25 percent for the
Near East and 39 percent for South Asia from 2004 to 2006, though public
diplomacy staffing levels have remained largely the same during that
period. The Secretary of State recently announced plans to reposition some
staff to better reflect the department's strategic priorities, including
plans to shift 28 public diplomacy officers from posts in Europe and
Washington, D.C., to China, India, and Latin America, as well as to the
Muslim world.

In 2003 and again in 2005, we reported that the government lacked an
interagency communication strategy to guide governmentwide public
diplomacy activities, and it continues to lack this strategy. We also
noted that State did not have a strategy to integrate its diverse public
diplomacy activities and that efforts to effectively engage the private
sector had met with mixed success. In 2005, State developed a strategic
framework to focus its public diplomacy efforts and related tactics to
achieve its goals, including marginalizing extremists and promoting
understanding of shared values. However, the department has not issued
guidance to its posts abroad on how to implement these strategies and
tactics. In addition, posts' public diplomacy efforts generally lack
important strategic communication elements found in the private sector,
which GAO and others have suggested adopting as a means to better
communicate with target audiences. These elements include having core
messages, segmented target audiences, in-depth research and analysis to
monitor and evaluate results, and an integrated communication plan to
bring all these elements together. State officials indicate that the
department has begun to develop communication plans for 15 pilot posts,
but it remains to be seen whether these communication plans will contain
all of these strategic elements.

Posts throughout the world, and particularly in the Muslim world, face
several challenges in implementing their public diplomacy programs,
including concerns related to staff numbers and language capabilities and
the need to balance security with public outreach. For example, we found
that 24 percent of language-designated public diplomacy positions
worldwide were filled by officers without the requisite language skills.
Furthermore, security concerns have limited embassy outreach efforts and
public access. State has begun to address many of these challenges, but it
is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of many of these efforts.
*** End of document. ***