    U.S. Public Diplomacy: Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use
    and Coordination of Research (18-JUL-07, GAO-07-904).

    U.S. strategic communication efforts are supported by media and
    audience research efforts conducted by the State Department
    (State), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),
    Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), Department of Defense
    (DOD), and Open Source Center (OSC). GAO examined (1) how
    research is used to support U.S. strategic communication
    objectives; and (2) how agencies identify end-user needs, assess
    end-user satisfaction, and share available research. GAO examined
    program documents and met with key officials.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-904
        ACCNO:   A72871
      TITLE:     U.S. Public Diplomacy: Actions Needed to Improve
    Strategic Use and Coordination of Research
         DATE:   07/18/2007
      SUBJECT:   Communication systems
    	     Interagency relations
    	     Internal controls
    	     International relations
    	     Public diplomacy
    	     Reporting requirements
    	     Research and development
    	     Strategic planning

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-07-904

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background

              * [3]Government Focuses on Three Types of Research

                   * [4]Audience Polls and Studies
                   * [5]Media Environment Analyses
                   * [6]Media Monitoring Activities

              * [7]Three Categories of Strategic Communication Efforts
              * [8]Actionable Research Is Required for Campaign-Style Approach

         * [9]State Department Faces Challenges in Using Research Strategi

              * [10]Agencies Use Media Monitoring Products to Support Daily Comm
              * [11]DOD and USAID Use Actionable Research to Guide Thematic Comm
              * [12]State Generally Does Not Use Actionable Research or a Campai

                   * [13]Pilot Country Initiative Not Driven by Actionable
                     Research
                   * [14]State's Audience Research Focuses on Broad Public
                     Opinion Po
                   * [15]State Guidance and Training Is Limited

              * [16]The Broadcasting Board of Governors Uses Research to Help It

         * [17]Agencies Lack Systematic Methods to Assess User Satisfaction

              * [18]Agencies Generally Rely on Anecdotal Information about User
              * [19]Some Agencies Have Taken Steps Towards More Systematically A
              * [20]OSC and State Have Taken Steps to Coordinate and Share Infor
              * [21]Efforts to Improve DOD Coordination of Media Monitoring Acti

         * [22]Conclusions
         * [23]Recommendations for Executive Action
         * [24]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

              * [25]United Kingdom Recently Completed Reviews of Its Strategic C
              * [26]Public Diplomacy Board Endorses Significant Changes to Briti

                   * [27]Focus on International Strategic Priorities
                   * [28]Integration and Coordination of Strategic Planning and
                     Evalu
                   * [29]Focus on Behavior Change
                   * [30]Identification of New Public Diplomacy Tools

              * [31]State Department Strategic Communication Efforts Diverge in

                   * [32]Focus on International Strategic Priorities
                   * [33]Integration and Coordination of Strategic Planning and
                     Evalu
                   * [34]Focus on Behavior Change
                   * [35]Identification of New Public Diplomacy Tools

         * [36]GAO Contact
         * [37]Staff Acknowledgments

              * [38]Order by Mail or Phone

    Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Foreign Relations,

    U.S. Senate

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    July 2007

    U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

    Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use and Coordination of Research

    GAO-07-904

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 2
    Background 5
    State Department Faces Challenges in Using Research Strategically 9
    Agencies Lack Systematic Methods to Assess User Satisfaction with Research
    Efforts, and Interagency Coordination Strategies Are Limited 15
    Conclusions 21
    Recommendations for Executive Action 22
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23
    Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 26
    Appendix II Audience Research, Media Environment Analysis, and Media
    Monitoring Activities by Agency 29
    Appendix III Audience Research and Media Monitoring Resources for Select
    Activity Centers 33
    Appendix IV Elements of New British Approach to Government Strategic
    Communications Could Help Inform U.S. 36
    Appendix V Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors 44
    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Defense 45
    Appendix VII Comments from the Department of State 47
    Appendix VIII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 50

    Tables

    Table 1: Audience Research 29
    Table 2: Media Environment Analysis 30
    Table 3: Media Monitoring 31
    Table 4: Audience Research Expenditures 33
    Table 5: Audience Research Staffing 34
    Table 6: Media Monitoring Expenditures 34
    Table 7: Media Monitoring Staffing 35

    Figures

    Figure 1: Key Elements of the Campaign-style Approach 8
    Figure 2: Opensource.gov Provides a Mechanism for Sharing of Research
    Information 18
    Figure 3: State's Infocentral.gov Facilitates Sharing of Some Research
    Information 19

    Abbreviations

    BBG Broadcasting Board of Governors
    CENTCOM Central Command
    DOD Department of Defense
    ECA Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau
    EUCOM European Command
    FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office
    GIIT Global Information and Influence Team
    IIP International Information Programs Bureau
    INR Intelligence and Research Bureau
    ISP International Strategic Priorities
    OSC Open Source Center
    PAO Public Affairs Officer
    PDEO Public Diplomacy Evaluation Office
    PSYOP psychological operations
    QDR Quadrennial Defense Review
    R&A research and analysis
    SARA Strategic Audience Research Archive
    SCL Strategic Communications Laboratory
    SSD Strategic Studies Detachment
    State State Department
    USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
    WHA Western Hemisphere Affairs Bureau

    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.

    United States Government Accountability Office
    Washington, DC 20548

    July 18, 2007

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

    Dear Senator Lugar:

    The attitudes of foreign citizens toward the United States have worsened
    in recent years, with negative implications for America's national
    security and economic interests. Communication efforts designed to reverse
    this trend depend, in part, on the availability of in-depth research on
    the foreign audiences the United States is seeking to inform, engage, and
    influence. Led by the Department of State (State), U.S. communication
    efforts encompass a range of disciplines, including public diplomacy,
    public affairs, psychological operations, and U.S. international
    broadcasting. While these communication disciplines vary in terms of their
    target audiences, objectives, and tactics, they share a common need for
    both broad and targeted research to develop and implement communication
    strategies, programs, and campaigns and to assess the impact of such
    government outreach efforts. Government-sponsored research provides
    critical data to policymakers and government communicators on a range of
    topics, including what foreign media are saying about the United States,
    foreign audience attitudes toward the United States, root causes for
    negative views about the United States, how foreign citizens access and
    use information, and what messages will most likely resonate with target
    audiences and lead to desired attitude and behavior changes. The attitudes
    of foreign citizens toward the United States have worsened in recent
    years, with negative implications for America's national security and
    economic interests. Communication efforts designed to reverse this trend
    depend, in part, on the availability of in-depth research on the foreign
    audiences the United States is seeking to inform, engage, and influence.
    Led by the Department of State (State), U.S. communication efforts
    encompass a range of disciplines, including public diplomacy, public
    affairs, psychological operations, and U.S. international broadcasting.
    While these communication disciplines vary in terms of their target
    audiences, objectives, and tactics, they share a common need for both
    broad and targeted research to develop and implement communication
    strategies, programs, and campaigns and to assess the impact of such
    government outreach efforts. Government-sponsored research provides
    critical data to policymakers and government communicators on a range of
    topics, including what foreign media are saying about the United States,
    foreign audience attitudes toward the United States, root causes for
    negative views about the United States, how foreign citizens access and
    use information, and what messages will most likely resonate with target
    audiences and lead to desired attitude and behavior changes.

    We reviewed current research activities of State and other key agencies
    seeking to communicate with foreign audiences. Specifically, we examined
    (1) how U.S. government agencies use research to support their strategic
    communication objectives; and (2) how agencies identify end-user needs,
    assess end-user satisfaction, and coordinate the sharing of available
    research. We also provide information in appendix IV on a new strategic
    communication model adopted by the British government that could help
    broadly inform U.S. operations and related research activities. We
    reviewed current research activities of State and other key agencies
    seeking to communicate with foreign audiences. Specifically, we examined
    (1) how U.S. government agencies use research to support their strategic
    communication objectives; and (2) how agencies identify end-user needs,
    assess end-user satisfaction, and coordinate the sharing of available
    research. We also provide information in appendix IV on a new strategic
    communication model adopted by the British government that could help
    broadly inform U.S. operations and related research activities.

    To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed agency documentation pertaining
    to the scope and quality of conducted research. We conducted interviews at
    State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the
    Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), and the Department of Defense (DOD)
    and met with senior managers, research directors, and relevant program and
    budget staff. In addition, we met with officials from the Open Source
    Center (OSC), which provides media translation and analysis services to
    the interagency community, and officials from the Central Intelligence
    Agency's Global Information and Influence Team (GIIT), which seeks to
    promote interagency dialogue on research issues of interest to government
    communicators.

    We examined a number of agency-specific communication efforts in
    Washington, D.C., to see how research is used to help develop
    communication strategies and programs and evaluate results. We also
    obtained information from State public affairs officers in Germany,
    Jordan, India, Indonesia, Niger, Peru, the Philippines, and Yemen to
    obtain a perspective on how research supports communication efforts in the
    field. Finally, we convened a group of senior agency managers, research
    directors, and representatives from academia and the private sector to
    broadly discuss key challenges facing government communicators and
    potential solutions to these challenges.

    We conducted fieldwork at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and MacDill Air
    Force Base in Tampa, Florida, where we met with psychological operations
    (PSYOP) research support staff, as well as in London, where we met with a
    range of government and private-sector officials to discuss British
    government communication strategies and related research efforts. We
    conducted our work from May 2006 through May 2007 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Results in Brief

    Agencies use a variety of media monitoring and audience research to
    support daily as well as mid- to long-term communication activities. To
    support daily communication activities designed to explain U.S. actions
    and decisions to foreign audiences, U.S. agencies rely on an array of
    media monitoring products which capture what is being reported about the
    United States overseas. These daily activities include developing speaking
    points, tracking and countering misinformation, and gauging the success of
    outreach efforts. We found no evidence to suggest that agencies suffered
    from a shortage of media monitoring data. Agencies use research to support
    thematic outreach initiatives, which use a central theme or message to
    influence the attitudes or behaviors of target audiences. While DOD and
    USAID use extensive program-specific research to design, implement, and
    evaluate the impact of their thematic communication efforts, State
    generally does not. For example, 18 posts participating in a State-led
    pilot country initiative recently developed country-level strategic plans
    focusing on the broad goal of countering extremism. We reviewed most of
    these plans and found that they were not supported by the type of
    program-specific research inherent in the "campaign-style" approach to
    thematic communication utilized by both DOD and USAID, which stipulates
    that communication efforts should follow a logical and predictable series
    of steps. In June 2007, the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy
    Policy Coordinating Committee^1 released a U.S. National Strategy for
    Public Diplomacy and Communication to guide and inform U.S. communication
    efforts led by State. The strategy describes a communication process model
    that is similar to the campaign-style approach in terms of outlining key
    steps in the communication process. Formal recognition of this model is a
    positive development and opens the possibility that State communication
    staff will begin to adopt a more rigorous approach toward their thematic
    communication efforts. However, the model remains a suggested tool and
    does not describe how and to what extent research should be used to
    support each step in the communication process.

    Agencies conducting research do not have systematic processes in place to
    assess whether they are meeting their users' needs,^2 and efforts to
    coordinate and share collected information are limited. Agencies generally
    assess user satisfaction through ad hoc methods and based on anecdotal
    information, such as conversations with individual users and irregular
    feedback submitted via e-mail. As a result, these agencies have no
    assurance that their work meets the needs of most of their users. Agencies
    rely on several mechanisms to exchange information gathered through their
    research activities. For example, the OSC shares media monitoring products
    from multiple agencies on its Web site and provides liaisons to other
    agencies to promote the sharing and exchange of information and monitoring
    techniques. In addition, State aggregates its audience polling data on a
    central Web site available to the interagency community. Despite these
    mechanisms, agency officials expressed general concern about the limited
    sharing of information and coordination across agencies. Government
    efforts to share and coordinate research data are hampered by the lack of
    interagency protocols for sharing information, a forum to periodically
    bring key research staff together to discuss common concerns across all
    topics of interest, and a clearinghouse for collected information. DOD
    officials and a new DOD strategic communication plan specifically
    highlighted the need for evaluating and improving DOD's coordination of
    media monitoring activities, both within the department and with other
    U.S. agencies. Major improvements are planned in both these areas.

    ^1The Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy Coordinating
    Committee was formed in 2006 to help focus and coordinate U.S. public
    diplomacy efforts.

    ^2Users of research products include senior-level managers, policymakers,
    country-level staff, and other individual analysts.

    To help ensure that State's outreach initiatives are informed by targeted
    research, we recommend that the Secretary of State adopt a research-based
    "campaign-style" approach to implement thematic communication and provide
    guidance on using "actionable" research to inform these efforts. To
    improve the extent to which the government's research efforts meet users'
    needs, we recommend that State, BBG, DOD, and the OSC implement systematic
    strategies to assess user needs and satisfaction. To facilitate the
    coordination and sharing of collected information within the U.S.
    government, we recommend that the Secretary of State, with other members
    of the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy Coordinating
    Committee, develop protocols for sharing audience research information,
    establish a research staff forum, and create a clearinghouse of U.S.
    government-sponsored research. We also recommend that the Secretary of
    Defense ensure that planned improvements to DOD's internal and external
    media monitoring coordination efforts are implemented.

    In commenting on a draft of this report, State, DOD, and the BBG generally
    agreed with our findings and recommendations. State noted certain
    practical concerns associated with wholesale adoption of the
    campaign-style approach to thematic communication. The BBG endorsed the
    need to establish a clearinghouse of U.S. government-sponsored research
    but added that the Board reserves the right to withhold selected research
    information meant for internal use only. USAID had no comments. Agency
    comments are reprinted in appendixes V through VII.

    Background

    Prior reports by GAO^3 and the Defense Science Board^4 have noted the
    importance of actionable research to guide and inform U.S. government
    strategic communication efforts directed at foreign audiences. Actionable
    research is research that supports specific information campaigns and
    provides the basis for selecting a defined target audience, developing
    customized messages, designing tailored information dissemination
    strategies, and assessing whether agency communication objectives have
    been achieved.^5 In contrast, more generic research efforts, such as broad
    national attitude polls, can provide a useful context for U.S.
    communication activities, although such research does not provide a
    meaningful basis for developing and implementing targeted information
    campaigns designed to achieve specific communication objectives.

    Government Focuses on Three Types of Research

    Actionable and generic research is generated through (1) audience polls,
    studies, and focus groups; (2) media environment analyses to understand
    media outlets, industry leaders, and preferences in a given country; and
    (3) daily monitoring of media outlets around the world to determine what
    is being said about the United States. Detailed program descriptions and
    resource commitment data for each of these categories is provided in
    appendixes II and III.

      Audience Polls and Studies

    State and BBG are the primary producers of audience research among U.S.
    government agencies, but other agencies also conduct their own audience
    research activities. State conducts and contracts for broad public opinion
    polling and focus groups in over 50 countries each year through its Office
    of Research,^6 which has an annual research budget of approximately $3
    million.^7 BBG, with a research budget of about $10 million per year, has
    a contract with a private sector company to conduct audience surveys,
    focus groups, in-depth interviews, and listener and monitor panels to
    support its broadcasting activities throughout the world.^8 Additionally,
    while USAID does not have a central research office that conducts audience
    research, staff at some missions contract for polling and focus groups to
    support specific, targeted public awareness campaigns. Finally, DOD's 4th
    Psychological Operations Group Strategic Studies Detachment at Fort Bragg,
    North Carolina, and the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element at
    MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, conduct target audience analyses
    to inform DOD's psychological operations (PSYOP) efforts; moreover, some
    of the combatant commands have recently initiated their own polling and
    focus group efforts.

    ^3GAO, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts to Engage Muslim
    Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Significant
    Challenges, [39]GAO-06-535 (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006) and U.S. Public
    Diplomacy: State Department Expands Efforts but Faces Significant
    Challenges, [40]GAO-03-951 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 2003).

    ^4Defense Science Board, Report of the Defense Science Board on Strategic
    Communication (Washington, D.C.: September 2004).

    ^5Without such actionable research, agency communication efforts represent
    little more than educated guesses of what is likely to influence foreign
    cultures where target audiences have views of the United States that are
    potentially informed by a complex mix of psychological, historical,
    political, cultural, religious, and other factors.

    ^6State's Office of Research is located in the Bureau of Intelligence and
    Research but receives funding from the Under Secretary for Public
    Diplomacy and Public Affairs and serves members of the intelligence
    community and public diplomacy staff.

      Media Environment Analyses

    State, BBG, and OSC all conduct media environment analyses. All three
    agencies have conducted specific studies of media environments around the
    world, both at the country and regional levels. For example, State
    recently commissioned studies of the media in seven European countries
    that examined the overall media environments, assessed television and
    radio usage, profiled key television channels and radio stations, and
    identified influential programs. Additionally, BBG and State both maintain
    electronic archives of country-level media environment information.

      Media Monitoring Activities

    Several U.S. agencies monitor foreign media outlets, including print and
    broadcast media and the Internet. OSC conducts the bulk of U.S. government
    media monitoring activities, although DOD, State, USAID, and BBG all
    conduct media monitoring as well. OSC analysts both in the United States
    and in overseas bureaus provide a variety of media monitoring products,
    including translations, as well as summaries and analysis of media
    coverage. Additionally, multiple entities within DOD, including the
    combatant commands, conduct and contract for media monitoring. For
    instance, in 2006, DOD's Strategic Command awarded a contract for media
    monitoring focused on the Global War on Terror, which is worth up to $67.8
    million over multiple years. Within State, two offices conduct media
    monitoring in Washington, D.C., the Media Reaction Division of State's
    Office of Research, which focuses on editorial commentaries in print
    media; and the Rapid Response Unit, which monitors foreign media to inform
    U.S. responses to significant stories and issues overseas. Some State and
    USAID field staff also conduct media monitoring, often focused on topics
    of particular importance in their specific embassies or countries.
    Finally, one of BBG's grantees conducts some media monitoring in the
    countries in which it broadcasts.

    ^7State also recently requested an additional $2 million to begin
    conducting further, more targeted opinion polling to inform its efforts to
    reach target audiences and develop effective messages in a limited number
    of countries.

    ^8BBG's contractor, InterMedia, conducts audience research in support of
    the International Broadcasting Bureau, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,
    and Radio Free Asia. These offices each also maintain a small research
    staff of their own.

    Three Categories of Strategic Communication Efforts

    Agency research efforts support three categories of communication as
    defined by Joseph Nye--one of America's leading academics on strategic
    communication efforts used to advance U.S. business and national security
    interests. Nye divides U.S. strategic communication efforts into daily
    communications, outreach initiatives related to specific themes, and
    long-term relationship building efforts in support of broader U.S.
    strategic communication objectives.^9 Daily communications involve
    explaining U.S. foreign and domestic policy decisions to the media, as
    well as preparing for public response to crises and countering
    misinformation. Thematic outreach initiatives focus on communicating
    simple themes, such as the shared values of the United States and the
    Muslim world. According to Nye, these themes can be developed using a
    campaign-style approach, with linked events and various communications
    planned over a period of time. The third category, building long-term
    relationships with key individuals over many years, generally consists of
    programs such as exchanges, scholarships, training, and conferences. These
    programs typically do not include a detailed audience research component
    beyond pre- and post-survey evaluations to gauge whether the attitudes and
    opinions of participants changed as a result of participation in the
    program. Examples of such programs include State's Fulbright Academic
    Exchange Program and International Visitor Leadership Program.

    Actionable Research Is Required for Campaign-Style Approach

    In our 2003 report,^10 after consulting with representatives of some of
    America's largest public relations firms, we described the elements of a
    typical public relations strategy, which we refer to as the
    "campaign-style" approach (see fig. 1). The campaign-style approach has
    been identified by the private sector and government agencies as a leading
    practice for carrying out thematic communication initiatives. One
    overarching tenet of this approach is that each step in the communications
    process must be supported by actionable research. Using this approach,
    program planners define their program objectives and develop initial core
    messages based on these objectives. Next, they identify target audiences,
    refine the messages, and develop detailed strategies and tactics to reach
    these audiences. They then develop and implement a detailed communication
    plan that incorporates the program's objectives, messages, and target
    audiences. The final step is to monitor progress and adjust strategies and
    tactics accordingly. As shown in Figure 1, each step in the process is
    supported by actionable research.

    ^9Joseph S. Nye, Jr., BBS Public Affairs, Soft Power: The Means to Success
    in World Politics, (2004), 107.

    ^10 [41]GAO-03-951 .

    Figure 1: Key Elements of the Campaign-style Approach

    Within this approach, agency research needs vary, depending on whether
    their communication efforts are designed to broadly inform target
    audiences or specifically influence attitudes and behaviors, the latter of
    which requires more in-depth, actionable research. USAID and BBG
    communication efforts are primarily intended to inform foreign audiences.
    USAID's communication mission, based on the Foreign Assistance Act of
    1961, is to inform host country audiences about U.S. development
    assistance, and BBG aims to promote and sustain freedom and democracy by
    broadcasting accurate and objective news and information about the United
    States and the world to audiences overseas. To influence attitudes toward
    the United States, State pursues three strategic communication objectives
    that include (1) offering foreign publics a vision of hope and opportunity
    rooted in the most basic values of the United States, (2) isolating and
    marginalizing extremists, and (3) promoting understanding regarding shared
    values and common interests between Americans and peoples of different
    countries, cultures, and faiths.^11 DOD aims to advance national interests
    and objectives by not only informing key audiences and influencing their
    attitudes but also by changing behavior, such as encouraging civilians to
    report terrorist activities.

    State Department Faces Challenges in Using Research Strategically

    For daily communications, agencies rely on an extensive array of
    government-sponsored media monitoring research to develop a broad
    understanding of key issues, prepare briefing points, track and counter
    misinformation, and gauge outreach. For their thematic outreach
    initiatives, DOD and USAID use actionable research to support a
    campaign-style approach to communications--which we have broadly endorsed
    based on input from public relations experts. In contrast, we found State
    does not generally use such research in its thematic outreach initiatives,
    and it has not adopted a campaign-style communication approach that would
    require the use of such research. In addition, State officials have noted
    the lack of actionable, in-depth research available to them, and public
    diplomacy staff receive little training on how to identify and use such
    research. A June 2007 interagency communication strategy developed under
    the guidance of State's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public
    Affairs opens the possibility that State communication staff may begin to
    adopt a more systematic approach toward their thematic communication
    efforts. The new strategy describes a communication process model similar
    to the campaign-style approach, with the major exception that it does not
    describe how and to what extent research should be used to support each
    step in the communication process.

    ^11These objectives were adopted by the Under Secretary of State for
    Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in 2005.

    Agencies Use Media Monitoring Products to Support Daily Communications

    U.S. government officials have access to a large selection of research
    from media monitoring products produced by three major suppliers--DOD,
    OSC, and State. While end-user satisfaction with the scope and quality of
    available media monitoring data remains uncertain, we found no immediate
    evidence to suggest that agencies lacked such data.^12 Some examples of
    these products include weekly media summaries by DOD's Strategic Command,
    OSC media aids, and a daily media report developed by State.

    Officials use this information to (1) develop a broad understanding of
    issues, (2) brief agency management and spokespersons, (3) track and
    counter misinformation, and (4) gauge the success of their news placement
    activities. According to State officials, field staff use the daily media
    report and other Washington, D.C.-based products to quickly inform
    themselves about events in other parts of the world, provide guidance to
    higher-level officials about media coverage of key events in the region,
    and develop background information and potential speaking points. DOD
    staff receive various media monitoring products, including media summaries
    and analyses from combatant commands, to augment their knowledge of events
    in their region and help develop communication strategies and speaking
    points. USAID missions and BBG monitor foreign media on an ad hoc basis to
    supplement the activities of DOD, OSC, and State.

    DOD and USAID Use Actionable Research to Guide Thematic Communication Efforts

    Agencies use research to support thematic outreach initiatives, which are
    designed to communicate a central theme or message with the goal of
    influencing the attitudes or behaviors of target audiences. DOD has
    developed a formal process for its tactical psychological operations
    (PSYOP) that generally follows the campaign-style approach, including the
    need to support each step in the process with actionable research data.
    These steps include developing clear objectives, testing messages,
    identifying targeted and complex dissemination strategies, and measuring
    effectiveness. In addition, because of the high turnover of soldiers, the
    need to train soldiers quickly, and the number of recruits who lack higher
    education, DOD has developed a rigorous training process for PSYOP
    soldiers, including extensive documentation. In one example of DOD's use
    of the campaign-style approach cited in a DOD training manual, PSYOP
    planners addressed parents of young children in a specific country to
    convince them to increase their reporting of insurgent activities. PSYOP
    planners used audience research to more clearly understand this target
    audience's vulnerabilities and fears. Based on their findings, they
    developed messages to appeal to the target audience, such as statements
    about how reporting insurgent activity increases security and how it is
    the most direct way parents can protect their children. They also assessed
    the best ways to reach the target audience, including broadcast media,
    handbills, and face-to-face communication. Finally, they conducted pre-
    and post-campaign testing of a random sample of 100 parents to measure the
    effectiveness of their efforts. This testing found that DOD's
    communication efforts directly contributed to increased reporting of
    insurgent activities.

    ^12Later in this report, we note that agencies generally lack adequate
    information on user needs and satisfaction regarding media monitoring and
    other research products.

    USAID also relies on actionable research in conjunction with its use of a
    campaign-style approach to support its public awareness campaigns. USAID
    requires its communications specialists, known as Development Outreach and
    Communication Officers, to develop written communication strategies for
    USAID missions that include goals, objectives, messages, action plans and
    budgets, as well as methods to measure the impact of communication
    efforts. These field-based specialists develop and implement information
    campaigns to inform audiences about USAID's work, and USAID staff
    commission audience research to support these efforts. Development
    Outreach and Communication Officers attend in-depth training that
    emphasizes best practices in using audience research to support outreach
    campaigns. According to USAID, the last training session focused on public
    opinion polling and communication measurement and evaluation. USAID also
    provides its communication officers with a practical, field-oriented
    "survival manual" encouraging staff to monitor local media and analyze
    local polls. The manual was recently revised to include guidance on using
    communication research instruments, particularly polling, as well as
    criteria for assessing the quality of research instruments and a standard
    set of research questions.

    One example of USAID's use of research for its campaign-style approach
    occurred in Jordan, where the mission's communication objectives called
    for increasing Jordanians' knowledge of USAID programs and improving the
    image of U.S. assistance among Jordanians. The mission identified primary,
    secondary, and tertiary target audiences and commissioned two surveys and
    a series of focus groups to gauge awareness of USAID and perceptions of
    U.S. assistance. Based on findings that the vast majority of respondents,
    particularly the poor and less educated, could not identify USAID
    programs, the mission decided to focus its outreach program on these
    groups. The mission contracted with a public relations firm to develop its
    outreach campaign, then used audience research to measure results and
    refine the campaign.

    State Generally Does Not Use Actionable Research or a Campaign-Style Approach to
    Support Its Thematic Initiatives

    In contrast to USAID and DOD and the approach we endorsed in our 2003
    report,^13 we found that State generally does not use actionable research
    to support its thematic communication efforts, and it has not adopted a
    campaign-style approach that would require using actionable research at
    each step in the communication process.^14 According to State officials,
    overall program development continues to be challenged by a lack of
    actionable, in-depth research that could help identify and develop
    culturally appropriate messages and dissemination vehicles. Field-based
    public affairs staff we contacted reported that they generally did not
    attempt to segment their target audiences or conduct in-depth research
    into these audiences because of a lack of funding and time. For example,
    the State-led pilot country initiative involving 18 posts, which is
    designed to counter extremism, is not supported by actionable research
    data. Rather, State's public affairs officers have generally been allowed
    to pursue this thematic communication effort using any combination of
    public diplomacy tools they believe to be appropriate. We also found that
    research conducted in support of the department's public diplomacy mission
    is largely generic in nature and is not tied to specific information
    campaigns at the country level. Finally, we noted a general lack of
    guidance and training provided to field staff on how to obtain and utilize
    actionable research to support their thematic communication efforts.

      Pilot Country Initiative Not Driven by Actionable Research

    Posts participating in the pilot country initiative have developed country
    strategies that list broad objectives and potential programs in each
    country to support the overall theme of countering violent extremism. We
    reviewed most of these country strategies and found that although broad
    attitudinal polling was available to inform these efforts, the strategies
    lacked actionable research to support decisions regarding audience
    targeting, message development, information dissemination strategies, and
    post-campaign evaluation and follow-up. The plans we reviewed did not
    include references to attitudinal polling of specific target groups, focus
    group data on which messages would most resonate with target audiences, or
    detailed media environment analyses that could provide the basis for
    developing in-depth information dissemination strategies. For example,
    State requested that pilot country posts develop lists of key influencers
    in their respective country, such as journalists, musicians, or civil
    society leaders. However, while the pilot country posts have put together
    these lists, they have not extensively researched their audiences to
    support the implementation of specific planned programs. Similarly,
    according to State officials, posts involved in the pilot country
    initiative have not crafted or tested messages based on in-depth research.
    Finally, we found that while State staff have identified broad goals for
    pilot countries, such as fostering positive views of the United States and
    increasing outreach to youth, these plans consistently lacked measurable
    objectives related to target audience attitude or behavior change, making
    it more difficult to use actionable research to support or assess program
    objectives.

    ^13 [42]GAO-03-951 .

    ^14We identified at least one exception to this statement. State's
    Greetings from America program presents American society and culture from
    the point of view of Indonesian and Pakistani exchange students studying
    in the United States. State has used research to tailor its programming to
    its audiences' interests and adjusted messages based on online feedback.
    According to State, research commissioned by the public affairs section in
    Indonesia showed that the program helped increase understanding of and
    positive attitudes toward the United States among local youth.

      State's Audience Research Focuses on Broad Public Opinion Polling

    Most of the audience research produced by State is broad survey
    information rather than specific information that could be used to develop
    or improve programs aimed at narrow audiences. While Bureau of
    Intelligence and Research (INR) polls are available to U.S. government
    staff, public diplomacy officers we spoke with in Washington, D.C., and
    overseas noted these polls are of limited use in developing an in-depth
    understanding of specific groups within a population. Our analysis of 12
    INR polls conducted in Indonesia, Jordan, and several other Arab countries
    in 2005 and 2006 found that while the polls focused on broad political
    issues such as opinions of U.S. policy and bilateral relations, they
    generally did not focus on cultural, religious, educational, or linguistic
    influences, which could be used at the program level to design specific
    communication campaigns. The lack of such in-depth research may, in part,
    be attributed to the limited resources available to the Office of Research
    and the need to focus on its annual schedule of public opinion polls,
    which are used by a wide range of U.S. government agencies.

      State Guidance and Training Is Limited

    State guidance stresses the importance of research but does not formally
    endorse a campaign-style approach to thematic communications. In a cable
    providing guidance to posts on how to develop their fiscal year 2008
    Mission Performance Plans, State highlighted the importance of selecting
    well-researched target audiences. In addition, some field staff involved
    in the pilot country initiative told us they have requested support from
    Washington, D.C., to identify and obtain such research. However, State has
    not followed up with guidance on how to conduct or obtain such research,
    and it is not clear whether it will provide such guidance for the newly
    configured Mission Strategic Plans that will be produced starting in 2009.
    State's most recent guidance to posts on the Mission Strategic Plan issued
    in 2007 did not provide any advice on selecting target audiences. Although
    State addresses elements of the campaign-style approach in the Foreign
    Service Institute training it provides to new public diplomacy staff, this
    training does not provide guidance about the extent to which staff should
    use this approach in their thematic outreach initiatives. In addition, the
    training that public diplomacy officers receive focuses almost exclusively
    on INR research and does not teach officers how to identify and assess
    other sources of actionable, in-depth research.^15

    In June 2007, the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy
    Coordinating Committee released a U.S. National Strategy for Public
    Diplomacy and Strategic Communication that describes a communication
    process model--the "ABCDE model"--that is similar to the campaign-style
    approach. While the release of the strategy is a positive development, the
    strategy presents the model as a suggested approach rather than clearly
    endorsing it for broad use in thematic outreach initiatives. In addition,
    the model does not describe how and to what extent research should be used
    to support the initiatives, although we have noted in past reports^16 that
    research should inform each step of the campaign-style approach.

    The Broadcasting Board of Governors Uses Research to Help Its Broadcast Services
    Develop and Evaluate Programs

    BBG uses audience research and media environment analysis to help its
    broadcast services plan and evaluate their programs. According to BBG
    officials, the agency's specific mandate of broadcasting accurate and
    objective news and information sets it apart from other strategic
    communication efforts. BBG's language services' news and feature programs
    are broadcast as regular communications, some of which focus on ongoing
    themes such as democracy and life in the United States. In addition,
    individual broadcasters attempt to develop and maintain long-term
    relationships with their broad audiences. Although BBG does not carry out
    thematic outreach campaigns as part of its regular activities, it does
    conduct in-depth research into its audiences and their listening habits.
    Research staff at BBG's International Broadcasting Bureau work with BBG's
    contractor to conduct surveys on audience size and media usage, focus
    groups with topics selected by a given language service, and evaluations
    of individual broadcast programs. The data from this research are used to
    design programs, analyze BBG's competition, provide the basis for
    performance reporting, target specific audiences, and determine if the
    news on BBG programs is considered credible. This research helps BBG staff
    and management evaluate their programs and make research-based decisions
    about changes. For example, when developing a pilot show, Voice of
    America-Indonesia staff discussed the idea with the affiliate that was to
    air the pilot and reviewed existing quantitative, qualitative, and
    evaluative research. In another example, BBG used focus groups of
    Jordanians and Palestinians to help them develop Radio Sawa, the U.S.
    government's Arabic-language radio station. According to BBG officials,
    these focus groups and other research in the Middle East revealed the need
    for profound change in how the U.S. approached broadcasting in the region
    and, in this case, that the station should present a mixture of music and
    news.^17

    15Because of the challenges in identifying such in-depth research, posts
    also rely on what they have called "informal" audience research, such as
    obtaining verbal feedback from participants at an embassy event. However,
    it is difficult to gauge the accuracy of informal audience research, and
    it is possible that by limiting themselves to such research agencies may
    be missing key trends and influences.

    ^16 [43]GAO-03-951 and [44]GAO-06-535 .

    Agencies Lack Systematic Methods to Assess User Satisfaction with Research
    Efforts, and Interagency Coordination Strategies Are Limited

    Agencies generally use informal and ad hoc approaches to obtain
    information about whether their research efforts meet their users'^18
    needs and, therefore, cannot be sure that their research products are
    actually useful to public diplomacy and communications officers on a
    regular basis. However, some agencies have taken steps toward a more
    systematic assessment of user satisfaction. Agencies depend on a variety
    of strategies to exchange information about their research activities.
    However, overall information sharing remains limited, particularly
    regarding general audience research activities as well as media monitoring
    conducted by DOD. Notably, the government lacks interagency protocols for
    sharing information, a forum to periodically bring key research staff
    together to discuss their common interests and concerns, and a
    clearinghouse to facilitate the sharing of audience research among
    agencies. DOD has recognized the need to better organize and coordinate
    its media monitoring activities and efforts are under way to catalogue the
    full extent of DOD's media monitoring efforts. Also, plans exist to
    develop an improved approach to coordinating this research both within and
    outside the department.

    ^17See GAO, U.S. International Broadcasting: Management of Middle East
    Broadcasting Services Could Be Improved, [45]GAO-06-762 (Washington, D.C.:
    Aug. 4, 2006).

    ^18As discussed above, users of research generally include senior-level
    managers and country-level staff, as well as policymakers and individual
    analysts.

    Agencies Generally Rely on Anecdotal Information about User Satisfaction

    Although two agencies systematically gather input from users, agencies
    generally use informal methods to assess whether users' needs are being
    met. State's Office of Research and BBG's research offices^19 consult with
    some of their users as they develop their annual research agendas. In
    particular, as staff in the Office of Research develop their plan for
    audience research each year, they solicit input from public diplomacy
    staff at the bureau level, as well as their own analysts, to gather
    information about research priorities. At BBG, the yearly research agenda
    is developed in consultation with individual broadcasters and language
    services. However, agencies generally gather such information through
    informal methods, such as irregular e-mail messages, informal
    conversations, agency meetings, and customer comment tools on their Web
    sites. For example, the OSC gathers user feedback through interagency
    meetings, dialogue with individual agency staff, and a feedback link on
    its Web site. Additionally, DOD's combatant commands and the 4th
    Psychological Operations Group Strategic Studies Detachment primarily rely
    on direct, one-on-one feedback provided through conversations and
    e-mail.^20 While approaches like these may provide some useful anecdotal
    information, they do not offer a comprehensive picture of user
    satisfaction.

    Some Agencies Have Taken Steps Towards More Systematically Assessing User
    Satisfaction

    During our small group exercise, agency participants told us that
    determining their users' needs and developing useful research products are
    among their major challenges. Additionally, all three BBG research
    directors indicated that a more systematic assessment of whether user
    needs are being met would be valuable. Further, both State's Rapid
    Response Unit and OSC are considering establishing more systematic
    strategies to assess whether their work is meeting their users' needs.
    Specifically, the Rapid Response Unit has worked with evaluation staff in
    the Public Diplomacy Evaluation Office (PDEO) to develop a customer survey
    that would be distributed to all recipients of Rapid Response Unit
    products and would assess whether recipients use the products, how they
    use them, and whether they believe the products are useful. While State
    previously opted to delay the distribution of the survey until the Rapid
    Response Unit, which was established in September 2005, became more
    established, officials from both the unit and the PDEO told us they
    believe it would be appropriate to conduct the survey in the near future.
    Similarly, OSC plans to hire a contractor to help it develop a more
    systematic strategy for assessing user satisfaction and expects this work
    to begin later this year.

    ^19Separate research offices exist in the International Broadcasting
    Bureau, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia.

    ^20USAID does not measure user satisfaction because research is conducted
    and used at the mission level, with users directly involved in the
    development, design, and execution of research activities. As such, it
    would not be helpful to have users survey their own satisfaction with the
    research they designed and commissioned.

    OSC and State Have Taken Steps to Coordinate and Share Information, but
    Officials Report Limited Access to Audience Research Data

    Both OSC and State have established mechanisms to facilitate interagency
    coordination and sharing of research information. OSC has implemented a
    variety of methods intended to foster interagency collaboration and
    information sharing, focusing on media monitoring and media environment
    analysis. First, OSC supports sharing media monitoring information through
    its Web site, which currently hosts products from over 30 organizations,
    including State's Rapid Response Unit and DOD's Strategic Command.^21
    Second, OSC staff provide assistance to agencies seeking to develop their
    own media monitoring capacity by providing technological support and
    guidance. In exchange for this support, agencies are asked to share their
    media monitoring products with OSC, which then makes them available on its
    Web site (see fig. 2). Finally, OSC staff work as liaisons with other U.S.
    agencies, providing direct support for media monitoring activities and
    creating additional avenues for interagency communication. For example,
    one OSC staff member served on detail in State's Rapid Response Unit,
    supporting the development of the unit's capacity to monitor Arabic media
    and providing a link between OSC and State.

    ^21While OSC focuses its activities on media monitoring and media
    environment analysis, its Web site includes audience research reports from
    State's Office of Research.

    Figure 2: Opensource.gov Provides a Mechanism for Sharing of Research
    Information

    In addition, State's Interagency Strategic Communication Fusion Team and
    Infocentral Web site^22 provide mechanisms for coordination and
    information sharing focused on strategic communication activities,
    including related research. The Fusion Team brings program-level officers
    together on a weekly basis to discuss ongoing and proposed efforts,
    including research activities, across the federal government. For example,
    the Fusion Team has hosted presentations on OSC's efforts and DOD's PSYOP
    activities. Additionally, State's Bureau of International Information
    Programs maintains the Infocentral Web site (see fig. 3), which provides
    U.S. government staff with guidance and information related to strategic
    communication efforts, including polling results from State's Office of
    Research and media monitoring products from the Rapid Response Unit.

    ^22Access to both Infocentral and OSC Web site is restricted to the U.S.
    government.

    Figure 3: State's Infocentral.gov Facilitates Sharing of Some Research
    Information

    While both the fusion team and Infocentral provide opportunities to
    coordinate agency activities and share information, they are focused on
    broad strategic communication efforts and not specifically on research.

    Although OSC has established some initiatives to enhance coordination of
    media monitoring and media environment analysis, no comparable entity or
    mechanism facilitates the comprehensive coordination and sharing of
    audience research information across U.S. government agencies. Instead,
    individual agencies conduct their own audience research and provide
    limited access to many of their products. For instance, BBG's Strategic
    Audience Research Archive, a source of information on audiences and media
    throughout the world, is not currently accessible to U.S. government staff
    outside of BBG, although agency officials said it would be useful for
    their work. Agency officials indicated they have only limited knowledge of
    and access to the audience research being conducted by other agencies and
    were supportive of developing new strategies to facilitate the sharing of
    audience research information. In a positive development, State's Office
    of Research chairs a new interagency working group on research and
    analysis, which met for the first time at the beginning of May. The
    working group focuses on supporting communication efforts to counter
    terrorism but may be expanded to facilitate coordination and sharing of
    research among U.S. government agencies across a broader range of public
    diplomacy and strategic communication efforts.

    Agency coordination efforts are hampered by the lack of both interagency
    protocols for sharing information and a forum to periodically bring key
    research staff together to discuss common concerns across all topics of
    interest. The Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy
    Coordinating Committee has acknowledged the need for a centralized source
    of U.S. government audience research data for use by staff at all U.S.
    agencies, and BBG officials at our small group exercise expressed a
    willingness to share some of the contents of its audience research archive
    with staff from other agencies.

    Efforts to Improve DOD Coordination of Media Monitoring Activities

    Coordination of media monitoring also is a challenge for DOD. DOD conducts
    a number of media monitoring activities, and officials from throughout
    DOD, including the combatant commands, as well as the Joint Chiefs,
    expressed concerns that monitoring activities are not coordinated,
    awareness of all of the monitoring work being conducted within the
    department is limited, and duplication is likely. We identified multiple
    instances in which two commands monitored the same media at the same time,
    and two commands have hired the same contractor to provide media
    monitoring services. This duplication may suggest that DOD is paying for
    the same information twice. While some duplication of monitoring
    activities can be valuable to the extent that it helps ensure
    comprehensive coverage, the concerns raised by DOD officials indicate that
    at least some of the existing duplication may be the result of limited
    coordination rather than strategic choice.

    To improve coordination of monitoring activities, DOD officials from
    multiple combatant commands suggested several possible approaches,
    including creating a single Web portal to share media monitoring
    information, or managing media monitoring contracts at the department
    level rather than in the individual commands and components, as it is
    currently done. In addition, through the implementation of its 2006
    Quadrennial Defense Review Strategic Communication Execution Roadmap,^23
    DOD identified the need to reassess its media monitoring efforts and
    indicated that it intends to improve coordination as part of this process.
    Officials from the Office of Defense Support to Public Diplomacy told us
    the department is currently working to develop an agencywide inventory of
    all media monitoring activities. Upon completion of that effort, DOD plans
    to develop a new approach to guide its media monitoring activities,
    including working to improve coordination of this work both within the
    department and with other U.S. agencies.

    Conclusions

    We found no evidence to suggest that program officials lack access to the
    media monitoring information they need to perform their daily
    communication activities. DOD's and USAID's thematic communication efforts
    were guided by actionable research as part of a campaign-style approach to
    communications that calls for such data. This heightened the likelihood
    that their communication campaign objectives were achieved. In contrast,
    we found that State's key pilot country initiative was not supported by
    actionable research, in part because State has not formally endorsed or
    adopted a campaign-style approach to thematic communications. An
    interagency strategy that was released in June 2007 describes a similar
    approach called the "ABCDE model," but it does not specifically endorse
    this model for widespread use, and it does not discuss the need for
    actionable research to support the model. In addition, State officials
    have noted the lack of actionable, in-depth research available to them,
    and public diplomacy staff receive little training on how to identify and
    use such research. As a result, State, which is the lead agency for
    strategic communication, cannot be assured that its messages are targeted
    and delivered to the right audiences to achieve maximum impact.

    U.S. government research activities can provide valuable information to
    support U.S. strategic communication efforts conducted by State, DOD,
    USAID, and BBG. However, our analysis identified weaknesses in the
    agencies' strategies for assessing user satisfaction and for facilitating
    coordination within and among departments and agencies. In the absence of
    systematic assessment methods, agencies cannot be sure that their research
    activities and associated products actually meet the needs of their users,
    and they lack valuable information that could inform the substance of
    their activities and decisions on resource allocations. Further, with
    limited mechanisms to coordinate their activities and share collected
    information, agencies are unable to fully leverage work conducted by
    others and may be duplicating efforts. Multiple opportunities for
    improvement exist. Notably, the government lacks interagency protocols for
    sharing information and a forum to periodically bring key research staff
    together to discuss concerns across all topics of interest. Specifically,
    with regard to audience research, the Strategic Communication and Public
    Diplomacy Policy Coordinating Committee acknowledged the need to provide a
    centralized source of U.S. government audience research data. Given the
    size of the effort DOD is making in media monitoring, it is particularly
    important that it coordinate these activities and share the information
    generated to avoid unnecessary duplication and enable staff to leverage
    available information. DOD's Strategic Communication Roadmap process has
    prompted efforts to improve the department's media monitoring activities,
    including the launch of a departmentwide inventory of media monitoring
    activities and a stated intent to develop effective internal and external
    coordination strategies once the inventory is completed.

    ^23In September 2006, the department issued its Quadrennial Defense Review
    (QDR) Strategic Communication Execution Roadmap to define planned
    improvements, objectives, timelines, and oversight requirements to ensure
    that QDR objectives relating to communicating with foreign publics are
    achieved. The roadmap outlines three overarching objectives: (1) define
    the respective roles and responsibilities of primary support capabilities
    within DOD, including public affairs, psychological operations, military
    diplomacy, and military support for public diplomacy; (2) properly
    resource these primary support capabilities; and (3) institutionalize DOD
    strategic communication processes. Additionally, DOD seeks to develop a
    process to integrate and support strategic communication efforts within
    DOD and align its efforts with broader U.S. government activities.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    To help State adopt a more strategic approach to its communication
    efforts, including the strategic use of research, we recommend that the
    Secretary of State take the following two actions:

               o Formally endorse and adopt a research-based campaign-style
               approach to thematic communications.

               o Provide public diplomacy staff with written guidance and related
               training on the campaign-style approach, as well as how to
               identify and use actionable research to support these efforts.

               To help ensure that the government's research efforts meet the
               needs of users, we recommend that State, BBG, DOD, and OSC
               implement systematic strategies to assess user needs and
               satisfaction.

               To improve the coordination of U.S. government research activities
               and promote the sharing of information across agencies, we
               recommend that the Secretary of State direct the Under Secretary
               for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, in conjunction with other
               members of the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy
               Coordinating Committee, take the following two actions:

               o Develop interagency protocols regarding the sharing of audience
               research information, including establishing a forum that would
               bring audience research staff together on a regular basis to
               discuss plans and concerns across all topics of interest.

               o Develop an electronic clearinghouse of U.S. government audience
               research that could be accessed by staff throughout State, USAID,
               DOD, and BBG, including BBG grantees. A key component of this
               clearinghouse should be the body of research about audiences and
               media environments collected in BBG's Strategic Audience Research
               Archive. In developing this clearinghouse, OSC's model for sharing
               media monitoring information should be considered.

               We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that
               officials from the Office of Support to Public Diplomacy and
               Public Affairs follow through on plans to develop a new approach
               to guide the department's media monitoring activities, including
               working to improve coordination of this work both within the
               department and with other U.S. agencies.

    			  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

               We received written comments on a draft of this report from the
               Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Department of Defense, and
               the Department of State. Their comments are reproduced in
               appendixes V through VII, respectively. Each agency generally
               concurred with the report's findings, conclusions, and
               recommendations. Regarding our recommendation that the Department
               of State formally endorse and adopt a research driven
               campaign-style approach to thematic communications, State noted a
               preference for the new "ABCDE" model that incorporates research,
               evaluation, and assessment as necessary steps in the process of
               effective communication. State added that posts do not have
               sufficient resources to obtain actionable research to support
               every step of every thematic communication plan, as suggested by
               the campaign-style approach.

               We agree with State that posts should have the freedom to choose
               the communication model (campaign-style, ABCDE, or any other
               relevant model) that works best. Nonetheless, we reiterate that
               State has not yet formally endorsed the use of research to guide
               post communication efforts or explained how and to what extent
               research should be incorporated in the models to support the
               development of post-specific communication plans. We also
               acknowledge that resource constraints can limit the extent of
               research conducted and that choices and trade-offs must be made at
               times. We are encouraged, however, by State's cited example that
               posts involved with the pilot country initiative identified the
               need for additional research and that Congress has approved $2
               million in additional funding for this purpose.

               The Broadcasting Board of Governors generally concurred with our
               report recommendation that agencies institute systematic
               strategies to assess end-user needs and satisfaction. BBG's
               response points out that while research staff routinely query end
               users and managers regarding their specific research needs,
               surveying users could yield more complete feedback on the utility
               of provided research. BBG's response also endorses GAO's
               recommendation regarding the need to establish a clearinghouse of
               U.S. government-sponsored research; however, it adds that BBG
               reserves the right to withhold selected research information meant
               for internal use only.

               Both State and DOD provided technical comments, which have been
               incorporated throughout the report where appropriate. USAID
               received a draft but had no comments.

               We are sending copies of this report to relevant agency heads and
               to other interested Members of Congress. We will also make copies
               available to others upon request. In addition, the 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 at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for
               our Office of

               Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
               last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
               listed in appendix VIII.

               Sincerely yours,

               Jess T. Ford
    			  Director, International Affairs and Trade

    			  Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

               We examined (1) what strategic communication objectives U.S.
               agencies pursue and how research is used to support these
               objectives, and (2) how agencies identify end-user needs, assess
               end-user satisfaction, and coordinate the sharing of available
               research. We also provide information in appendix IV on a new
               strategic communication model adopted by the British government
               that could help broadly inform U.S. operations and related
               research activities. Our review focused on the efforts of the
               Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for International
               Development (USAID), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the
               Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). We also reviewed the
               activities of the Open Source Center, which is under the authority
               of the Director of National Intelligence.

               To assess how U.S. agencies use research to support their
               strategic communication objectives, we examined agencies'
               communication efforts and met with agency officials in Washington,
               including senior managers, research directors, and relevant
               program staff. At State, we met with senior officials in the
               Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public
               Affairs; the Bureaus of International Information Programs (IIP),
               Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), and Intelligence and
               Research (INR); as well as with staff from all six regional
               bureaus. Additionally, we obtained information from State Public
               Affairs Officers (PAO) in order to get a perspective on how
               research supports communication efforts in the field.
               Specifically, we held a discussion session with a group of PAOs
               during State's Worldwide PAO Conference in January 2007;
               distributed a questionnaire and held semistructured interviews
               with PAOs in Germany, India, Niger, Peru, the Philippines, and
               Yemen; and corresponded with post staff in Indonesia and Jordan.
               We selected these countries based on a variety of factors,
               including geographic location, presence of a significant Muslim
               population,^1 post size, recent visits by U.S. officials, and
               inclusion in State's pilot country initiative.

    ^1We identified countries meeting this criterion based on ECA Bureau's
    list of 58 countries and territories with significant Muslim populations,
    as previously reported in GAO,U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department
    Efforts to Engage Muslim Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and
    Face Significant Challenges, [46]GAO-06-535 (Washington, D.C.: May 3,
    2006).

               At USAID, we met with officials in the Legislative and Public
               Affairs Bureau and interviewed USAID mission staff in Indonesia
               and Jordan to learn about how research is used as part of USAID's
               Development Outreach and Communications Program. At DOD, we
               conducted fieldwork at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and MacDill Air
               Force Base in Tampa, Florida; spoke with DOD officials from the
               Joint Chiefs of Staff, Special Operations Command, the Office of
               Defense Support to Public Diplomacy, the 4th Psychological
               Operations Group, and the Joint Psychological Operations Support
               Element to learn about how research is conducted and used to
               support psychological operations; and corresponded with staff in
               the combatant commands to gain an understanding of how they use
               research to inform their communication efforts. Finally, to learn
               how research is used at the BBG, we met with senior BBG managers,
               as well as the research directors for the International
               Broadcasting Bureau, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio
               Free Asia. Additionally, we met with staff who manage Voice of
               America broadcasting in Indonesia and with the leadership of the
               Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

               To determine how the agencies assess user needs and satisfaction,
               and coordinate their research efforts, we met with senior
               officials at State's Office of the Under Secretary for Public
               Diplomacy and Public Affairs, as well as the Bureaus of Public
               Affairs, Educational and Cultural Affairs, and Intelligence and
               Research. We also interviewed and corresponded with officials and
               staff at the Open Source Center, DOD, USAID, BBG, and the Central
               Intelligence Agency's Global Information and Influence Team.
               Additionally, we reviewed the research materials available through
               the Open Source Center's Web site; IIP's Infocentral Web site; and
               the BBG's Strategic Audience Research Archive. Finally, we
               reviewed agency planning documentation and research products.

               To assess the extent to which the British government's new model
               can inform U.S. research activities, we conducted fieldwork in the
               United Kingdom. We met with government and private-sector
               officials in London to discuss British government communication
               strategies and related research efforts. We selected the British
               government for this case study because the United States and the
               United Kingdom share many key characteristics, including
               well-developed public diplomacy efforts, parallel organizations
               and communication types, and similar communication goals. Further,
               we have previously drawn upon the United Kingdom for insights into
               public diplomacy activities.

               Additionally, we convened a group of senior agency managers,
               research directors, and representatives from academia and the
               private sector to discuss key challenges facing U.S. government
               strategic communications and related research efforts and identify
               potential solutions to address these challenges. We selected
               participants based on their expertise and experience with U.S.
               strategic communication efforts and related research. The
               discussion included a short exercise designed to build consensus
               around the key challenges related to conducting audience research
               and media monitoring.

               We conducted our work from May 2006 through May 2007 in accordance
               with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    			  Appendix II: Audience Research, Media Environment Analysis, and
    			  Media Monitoring Activities by Agency

               Agency research efforts include (1) audience attitude polls and
               studies; (2) media environment analyses of media outlets, key
               industry leaders, and preferences in a given country; and (3)
               daily monitoring of media outlets around the world to determine
               what is being said about the United States. Tables 1, 2, and 3
               provide details on government research efforts in each of these
               categories.

    Table 1: Audience Research

    Agency/office               Activity
    Department of State
    Bureau of Intelligence and  The Office of Research conducts and contracts
    Research                    for public opinion polls and focus groups, in
                                   over 50 countries each year, to support U.S.
                                   government public diplomacy staff, as well as
                                   members of the intelligence community.
                                   Research activities focus on both mass and
                                   elite audiences and examine public opinion of
                                   the United States, including foreign policy,
                                   as well as other issues of importance to
                                   foreign audiences.
    Bureau of Western           WHA commissioned the Office of Research, INR
    Hemisphere Affairs (WHA)^a  to conduct focus groups in Bolivia, Colombia,
                                   Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela in 2005 and to
                                   purchase polling questions on a regional
                                   public opinion survey in 2006. These
                                   activities have focused on public opinion
                                   regarding democracy and democratic government,
                                   the United States, and economic development.
    Bureau of Educational and   ECA conducts focus groups, in-depth
    Cultural Affairs (ECA)      interviews, and surveys with program
                                   participants to evaluate the impact of bureau
                                   programs, including exchanges.
    U.S. embassies              Some embassy staff conduct informal surveys
                                   and focus groups and contract for additional
                                   research support on a limited basis.
    Broadcasting Board of
    Governors
    International Broadcasting  The research offices manage their audience
    Bureau^b                    research through a BBG-wide master contract
                                   with InterMedia for surveys, focus groups,
    Radio Free Europe/Radio     in-depth interviews, and listener/monitoring
    Liberty                     panels to assess broadcast coverage, media
                                   consumption habits, and audience ratings in
    Radio Free Asia             over 100 countries, with a general focus on
                                   areas in which the BBG broadcasts.
    U.S. Agency for
    International Development
    Select missions             Missions in Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt,
                                   Indonesia, Jordan, and West Bank/Gaza
                                   contracted for polling and focus groups in
                                   2005 and 2006 to support specific, targeted
                                   public awareness campaigns through the
                                   Development Outreach and Communications
                                   Program.
    Department of Defense
    4th Psychological           SSD analysts conduct target audience analysis,
    Operations Group, Strategic assessing how to communicate specific messages
    Studies Detachment (SSD)    to identified target audiences, to support
                                   psychological operations around the world.
                                   Analysts draw upon a variety of inputs in
                                   conducting these analyses, including knowledge
                                   of religious, linguistic, and cultural
                                   factors, as well as polling data and
                                   in-country research.
    Joint Psychological         R&A analysts conduct target audience analysis,
    Operations Support Element, assessing how to communicate specific messages
    Research & Analysis         to identified target audiences, to support
    Directorate (R&A)           psychological operations around the world,
                                   with a general focus on transregional
                                   psychological operations
    European Command (EUCOM)    In close cooperation with the Office of
                                   Research, INR, EUCOM recently contracted for
                                   polling in nine Trans Saharan countries to
                                   support influence and information operations
                                   to counter terrorism.
    Central Command (CENTCOM)   CENTCOM recently contracted for issue-specific
                                   polling and focus groups within the command
                                   area of responsibility.
    Central Intelligence Agency
    Global Information and      GIIT conducts polling with an undisclosed
    Influence Team (GIIT)       focus in an undisclosed number of countries.

    Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

    ^aWe spoke with public diplomacy staff from all of the regional bureaus
    within the Department of State. None reported conducting audience research
    of their own, and the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs is the only
    bureau that reported contracting for audience research.

    ^bThe International Broadcasting Bureau has responsibility for research
    for the Voice of America, Radio/TV Marti, and the Middle East Broadcasting
    Networks.

    Table 2: Media Environment Analysis

    Agency/office                Activity
    Department of State, Bureau  In 2005, IIP created its "Media Matrix," an
    of International Information internal Web site and database that tracks
    Programs (IIP)               information about key media outlets in
                                    individual countries around the world.
                                    Embassy staff are responsible for inputting
                                    and maintaining the information.
    Department of State, Public  In 2006, State contracted for a multi-country
    Diplomacy Hubs               media environment analysis in Europe. The
                                    contractor provided analysis of key media
                                    outlets, their audiences, and other
                                    environmental factors influencing media.
    Broadcasting Board of        The BBG contracts for the development and
    Governors (BBG)              maintenance of the Strategic Audience
                                    Research Archive (SARA), which is an
                                    electronic archive that provides country- and
                                    region-level media and audience profiles in
                                    each of the language areas targeted by the
                                    BBG.
    Director of National         Analysts have produced media guides in over
    Intelligence, Open Source    30 cities, countries, and regions around the
    Center                       world. Media guides provide information
                                    regarding key media outlets and their
                                    audiences within individual countries and
                                    regions.

    Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

    Table 3: Media Monitoring

    Agency/office           Media monitored    Activity
    Director of National Intelligence
    Open Source Center      Print, radio,      Monitors media around the world
                               television, blogs, and provides a variety of
                               chat rooms         summary and analysis products.
    Department of Defense
    Office of the Secretary Television and Web Contracts for media monitoring
    of Defense              sites              focused on countering Islamic
                                                  extremism and produces daily
                                                  summaries and some additional
                                                  topic-specific special
                                                  products.
    Strategic Command       Print              Contracts for monitoring of
                                                  print media in 50 countries
                                                  around the world, and provides
                                                  daily and weekly summaries, as
                                                  well as special reports.
    European Command        Print, television, Contracts for monitoring of
                               radio, blogs       media within the command area
                                                  of responsibility and other
                                                  regions based on command
                                                  interest, and provides daily
                                                  summary products.
    Central Command         Print, television, Conducts region-based
                               blogs              monitoring with an emphasis on
                                                  extremist activity and provides
                                                  daily summary products.
    Pacific Command         Print, television, Conducts and contracts for
                               radio, blogs, chat monitoring of media within the
                               rooms              command area of responsibility,
                                                  and provides a variety of
                                                  summary products.
    Northern Command        Print, television, Conducts and contracts for
                               radio, blogs       monitoring and provides daily
                                                  summary products.
    Southern Command        Print, television, Conducts and contracts for
                               radio, blogs       monitoring of news and opinion
                                                  and provides daily, and weekly
                                                  products.
    Transportation Command  Print, television, Conducts monitoring focused on
                               radio, blogs       defense issues and their impact
                                                  on the command mission; does
                                                  not provide products based on
                                                  monitoring.
    Joint Forces Command    Print              Conducts monitoring focused on
                                                  the global war on terror, and
                                                  provides daily summary
                                                  products.
    Department of State
    Media Reaction          Print              Monitors print commentaries
    Division, Office of                        around the world, and provides
    Research, INR                              daily summaries and special
                                                  products.
    Rapid Response Unit     Print, television, Monitors media around the world
                               blogs              to inform U.S. government
                                                  responses and messaging.
                                                  Produces a daily one-page media
                                                  summary, along with regional
                                                  summaries.
    Digital Outreach Team   Blogs              Contracts for monitoring of
                                                  blog content as part of an
                                                  effort to counter terrorist use
                                                  of the Internet.
    Select regional         Varies             Conduct formal and informal
    bureaus^a                                  monitoring in conjunction with
                                                  post-level activities.
    U.S. embassies          Varies             Monitor national and
                                                  international media outlets to
                                                  support embassy and Washington,
                                                  D.C.-based activities.
    U.S. Agency for International Development
    Individual missions     Varies             Conduct media monitoring both
                                                  in-house and via contractors,
                                                  focusing on coverage of USAID
                                                  activities.
    Broadcasting Board of Governors
    Radio Free Europe/Radio Print, television, Conducts monitoring of media in
    Liberty                 radio              target broadcast countries and
                                                  regions, and provides daily and
                                                  weekly products.

    Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

    aWe spoke with public diplomacy staff from all of the regional bureaus
    within the State Department. Staff in the Bureaus of East Asian and
    Pacific Affairs, Western Hemisphere Affairs, South and Central Asian
    Affairs, and Near Eastern Affairs reported conducting some media
    monitoring.

    Appendix III: Audience Research and Media Monitoring Resources for Select
    Activity Centers

    Agencies devote varying levels of resources to research in support of U.S.
    strategic communication efforts.^1 In general, funding for audience
    research appears to be more limited than for media monitoring. Of the
    agencies we reviewed, the State Department (State) and the Broadcasting
    Board of Governors (BBG) are responsible for the largest share of the
    spending on audience research, with the U.S. Agency for International
    Development (USAID) and the Department of Defense (DOD) devoting
    relatively little funding to these efforts. With regard to media
    monitoring, DOD has made a significant investment, with the Strategic
    Command and the Office of Defense Support to Public Diplomacy each
    reporting annual expenditures on media monitoring that exceeded State's
    total annual spending for audience research and media monitoring
    activities combined in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Tables 4 through 7
    provide additional details regarding agency spending and staffing for both
    audience research and media monitoring.

    Table 4: Audience Research Expenditures^a

    Dollars in thousands
    Agency/office                            Fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006
    Department of State, Bureau of
    Intelligence and Research, Office of
    Research                                           $2,922           $3,422
    Department of State, Bureau of Western
    Hemisphere Affairs                                     60               10
    Broadcasting Board of Governors^b                  11,476            9,828
    Select USAID Missions (6 total)                       220              112
    Department of Defense, 4th Psychological
    Operations Group Strategic Studies
    Detachment                                            175            175^c
    Department of Defense, Central Command                  0            200^d

    Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

    ^aExpenditure totals include direct costs, including contractor costs, but
    do not include staff costs associated with conducting or overseeing these
    activities.

    bBBG totals reflect expenditures for all research activities, including
    those conducted by the International Broadcasting Bureau, Radio Free
    Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. Additionally, they include over
    $8 million per year for the board's master contract with InterMedia, some
    of which pays for media environment analyses.

    cExpenditure values for the Strategic Studies Detachment are estimates
    because SSD funding is not tracked separately from the overall budget for
    the 4th Psychological Operations Group.

    dThis total for CENTCOM was for a contractor responsible for researching
    open source and subscriber-based polling, not for conducting polling.

    ^1We were unable to provide comprehensive data on total expenditures for
    U.S. government research activities due to a variety of factors, including
    the large number of activity centers, a lack of specific budget line-items
    for research activities in many instances, and the fact that staff often
    devote only part of their work time to research activities. We do not list
    resources for media environment analysis separately because they are
    relatively limited, and these analyses mostly draw upon information
    gathered through audience research and media monitoring activities.

    Table 5: Audience Research Staffing

    Agency/office                                              Number of staff
    Department of State, Bureau of Intelligence and Research,
    Office of Research                                                      35
    Broadcasting Board of Governors                                         13
    Department of Defense, 4th Psychological Operations Group
    Strategic Studies Detachment                                            36
    Department of Defense, Joint Psychological Operations
    Support Element Research & Analysis Directorate                         10
    Department of Defense, European Command                                1^a

    Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

    aThis staff person devotes only 20 percent of her/his work time to
    audience research efforts.

    Table 6: Media Monitoring Expenditures

    Dollars in thousands
    Agency/office                            Fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006
    Department of State
    Rapid Response Unit                                  $222             $323
    Digital Outreach Team                                   0            249^a
    Department of Defense
    Office of Defense Support to Public
    Diplomacy                                           3,500            6,900
    Strategic Command                                   7,500            9,300
    European Command                                      225              200
    Pacific Command                                       960            2,036
    Northern Command                                       31               36
    Southern Command                                        0                5

    Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

    aTotal expenditures for IIP paid for two contractors to support the
    Digital Outreach Team. While IIP reported this spending for both audience
    research and media monitoring, the description of the Digital Outreach
    Team provided by State staff indicates that the activities being conducted
    are consistent with our definition of media monitoring, though not
    audience research. Additionally, the funds listed were not spent
    exclusively on media monitoring.

    Table 7: Media Monitoring Staffing

    Agency/office                     Staff
    Department of State
    Rapid Response Unit               7^a
    Digital Outreach Team             2^b
    Media Reaction Division           5
    Selected embassies                Range from 6-12^c
    Department of Defense
    European Command                  11
    Central Command                   Approximately 38
    Pacific Command                   57
    Northern Command                  6^d
    Southern Command                  2
    Transportation Command            3
    Joint Forces Command              1^e
    Director of National Intelligence
    Open Source Center                Approximately 500^f

    Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

    aNot all of these staff members work in the Rapid Response Unit full time.
    Additionally, the Rapid Response Unit is supported by three contractors,
    one detailee from the Open Source Center, and one analyst (part time) from
    the Media Reaction Division of INR's Office of Research.

    bOne of these staff members is dedicated to the Digital Outreach Team full
    time, while the other only spends about one-quarter time on the team.
    Additionally, the team has hired two contractors to observe and analyze
    content of foreign Arabic- and English-language discussion forums and
    blogs.

    cStaff members at our selected embassies devote varying amounts of their
    work time to media monitoring efforts, ranging from 2 to 30 hours per
    week.

    dNorthern Command estimates that these staff spend a combined total of
    approximately 4 hours per day conducting media monitoring work.

    eJoint Forces Command estimates that this individual spends approximately
    half of his work time conducting media monitoring activities.

    fOf the Open Source Center staff, approximately 200 are located within the
    United States and about 300 are overseas.

    Appendix IV: Elements of New British Approach to
    Government Strategic Communication Could Help Inform U.S.

    British government officials cited several major changes to their
    strategic communication activities that have broad implications for the
    effectiveness of their outreach efforts and specific implications for the
    scope and nature of research conducted to support these changes. Major
    changes implemented by the British government include (1) adopting a
    common set of strategic priorities, (2) closer integration of strategic
    planning and research across key agencies based on a consistent framework
    for program development and evaluation, (3) a focus on behavior change
    performance goals, and (4) the creation of new public diplomacy tools to
    supplement traditional activities such as exchange programs. The State
    Department's (State) communication efforts mirror some of these practices
    but diverge in several key respects. For example, State uses public
    diplomacy to help improve the general image of the United States and to
    support specific foreign policy objectives, such as countering extremism.
    British officials stated that their public diplomacy efforts will now
    focus on promoting specific foreign policy objectives as opposed to
    nation-branding efforts. These areas of divergence offer possible insights
    for U.S. strategic communicators that could help guide strategic
    refinements and prompt related changes to research strategies and outputs.

    United Kingdom Recently Completed Reviews of Its Strategic Communication Efforts

    Two major reviews of British strategic communication efforts have
    identified opportunities for improvement. First, a January 2004 report by
    the Phillis Commission^1concluded that the importance of communications to
    government and modern society requires that such efforts are approached in
    a systematic and coordinated manner. In response, the British government
    appointed a Permanent Secretary for Government Communications and
    established a new cabinet-level support group, called the Government
    Communications Network, to promote communication best practices throughout
    the British government, including agencies communicating with foreign
    audiences. A second review, led by Lord Carter of Coles and completed in
    December 2005, reported that British public diplomacy efforts had improved
    since 2002, but that additional advances were needed, including a clearer
    articulation of the purpose of these efforts, greater clarification of the
    roles and responsibilities of key government agencies,^2 and the adoption
    of an improved system for measuring and evaluating program impact. In
    order to deliver greater accountability, the Carter team called for the
    creation of a new Public Diplomacy Board, which would be responsible for
    agreeing on a communication strategy, advising on resource allocation
    decisions, and ensuring performance measurement and monitoring. In
    response, the Public Diplomacy Board^3 was formed in April 2006 to provide
    strategic and program guidance to key government agencies engaged in
    strategic communication, with a focus on the Foreign and Commonwealth
    Office (FCO), the British Council, and the BBC World Service.^4
    Significantly, it was stressed that the BBC World Service only has
    observer status on the board and retains absolute editorial independence
    over its operations and reporting.

    ^1Named for its Chairman, Bob Phillis, the group's report sought to
    address a perceived breakdown in trust between the government, the media,
    and the general public, resulting in a general failure of government
    communicators to dialogue effectively with target audiences.

    Public Diplomacy Board Endorses Significant Changes to British Strategic
    Communication Practices

    The Public Diplomacy Board has endorsed a new approach to government
    outreach efforts that includes adopting a common set of strategic
    priorities, closer integration of strategic planning and research across
    key agencies based on a consistent framework for program development and
    evaluation, a focus on behavior change performance goals, and the creation
    of new public diplomacy tools. These four changes are consistent with the
    findings and recommendations of the 2004 and 2005 reviews noted above and
    a December 2006 report by a private contractor hired by the board to help
    guide the development and evaluation of government communication efforts.
    Under the direction of the Public Diplomacy Board, Foreign and
    Commonwealth Office staff will pilot test this new approach using three of
    the British government's International Strategic Priorities (ISP) in
    select countries.^5 A senior British official explained that audience
    research will be used to develop communication programs and related
    evaluation techniques in each pilot country. A research evaluation expert
    has been hired to work with post staff to develop research plans tailored
    to each country's specific needs and the target ISP. Research will
    generally be conducted at the post level to ensure that it is relevant and
    directly supports program objectives.

    ^2The report defines the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), British
    Council, and BBC World Service as the government's three key public
    diplomacy partners.

    ^3Other members of the board, which is led by FCO's Minister for Public
    Diplomacy, include FCO's Director of Communication, representatives from
    the British Council and BBC World Service, and two independent members
    (one advertising expert and one country branding expert). The board sets
    common strategic objectives for the public diplomacy community, makes
    recommendations on resource allocations, monitors ongoing performance
    data, and provides feedback to partner agencies to ensure that performance
    measurement becomes embedded in each organization's culture.

    ^4Primary responsibility for British public diplomacy efforts rests with
    the FCO's Public Diplomacy Group which is also responsible for overseeing
    grants-in-aid to the British Council--which manages cultural affairs,
    exchanges, and English-language training--and to BBC World Service--which
    provides news and information to a worldwide audience. The Ministry of
    Defense, the Department for International Development, and Visit Britain
    (the British government's leading tourism promotion body) each play
    supporting roles in promoting British government public diplomacy
    objectives.

      Focus on International Strategic Priorities

    The first concept endorsed by the board was that public diplomacy
    activities should focus on supporting the British government's policy
    objectives--or International Strategic Priorities formulated by the
    Foreign and Commonwealth Office--rather than on promoting the image of the
    United Kingdom as a brand. The board has concluded that any attempts to
    manage the image of a developed country are largely doomed to failure
    given the scope and complexity of the task relative to available
    resources. One board member noted in a written response to GAO that the
    public diplomacy field needed major innovations, including new skill sets
    and perspectives, to become a key component in the art of peaceful
    international relations. This individual noted that public diplomacy
    should help a government achieve its foreign policy objectives, rather
    than spending money on "propaganda" and image making.

    Under this new approach, public diplomacy will become a tool to help
    achieve intermediate and long-term foreign policy goals, such as climate
    control and countering terrorism, where targeted communication efforts can
    reasonably be expected to have a measurable impact on target audience
    behaviors. One British government official noted that, in limited
    circumstances, it makes sense to attempt to influence foreign publics to
    hold more favorable views of the British government, culture, and people
    and cited the example of Visit Britain, an initiative that explicitly
    seeks to project a positive image of the United Kingdom to attract
    tourists. It was also noted that nongovernment players such as private
    businesses can and should play an active role in image building efforts.

    ^5A total of 10 International Strategic Priorities (ISPs) have been
    formulated by FCO. Pilot countries will focus on climate control,
    democratic development, and promoting U.K. business investment. Pilot
    country strategies have been developed and implementation is expected to
    begin this year. Results will be evaluated and adjustments made before
    program efforts are expanded to additional countries and ISPs.

      Integration and Coordination of Strategic Planning and Evaluative Research

    The board and its contractor have adopted a model of public diplomacy that
    requires the close integration and coordination of strategic planning and
    evaluative research across key agencies. First, by design the board
    includes representatives from FCO, the British Council, and BBC World
    Service to facilitate the coordination of government communication efforts
    toward common strategic goals and objectives. Second, the board's
    contractor reports that the partner agencies have agreed to establish
    shared communication strategies, which will be implemented jointly
    overseas, and focus on narrowly defined target audiences where genuine
    impact can be reasonably expected. Finally, the contractor has developed a
    shared evaluation and research system that will provide uniform
    performance information and allow the board to manage toward common and
    clear objectives. Both the shared communication strategies and the common
    evaluation and research system will be supported by a framework, called a
    logic model, that ties inputs and outputs to desired public diplomacy
    outcomes. Each partner organization will assume responsibility for
    monitoring inputs and outputs, and evaluation of intermediate and
    longer-term outcomes will be shared among the three public diplomacy
    partners. The board will review and analyze partner reporting data and
    analysis and use it to refine ongoing strategies, plan new strategies and
    activities, and report to Parliament on the effectiveness of its shared
    strategy approach and the ultimate effectiveness of the British
    government's public diplomacy efforts.

    Within the context of this established framework, the contractor's report
    outlines a number of research instruments that can be used to assess
    progress toward each type of intermediate outcome: (1) opinion and
    behavior tracking research, (2) media monitoring, (3) tracking of
    objective outcomes, and (4) evaluative research. Assessing progress
    against longer-term outcomes will be based on a narrative report,
    supported by externally generated indicators where available. Analysis
    will be needed to suggest whether progress on intermediate outcomes is
    contributing as expected to achieving the longer-term outcomes.

      Focus on Behavior Change

    A common theme from board members, other British government officials, and
    outside experts was that government communication efforts should focus on
    changing target behaviors based on detailed audience research. A senior
    FCO public diplomacy official told us that "if you can't change behavior,
    there is no point in doing public diplomacy." The same official added
    there is no point in doing audience research if specific communication
    objectives are lacking.

    The central importance of research in focusing on behavior change was
    reiterated by a private-sector group in London called Strategic
    Communications Laboratory (SCL), which provides consulting and program
    services to both governments and private groups. SCL officials we met with
    told us that communication efforts typically do not come into focus until
    desired behavior changes are identified. SCL officials also stressed the
    critical importance of understanding group behavior since individuals take
    social cues and behavior norms from the groups they belong to.

      Identification of New Public Diplomacy Tools

    With a new approach to public diplomacy, the board has seen the need for
    new tools to complement traditional activities such as press releases,
    conferences, art exhibits, and exchanges. As noted by one board member,
    "most foreign services continue to work with a limited range of fairly
    conventional public diplomacy tools and techniques, some of which are
    little more than simple media relations, clumsily adapted from the private
    sector, and poorly suited to the modern world." While traditional tools
    will not be abandoned, the board wants government communicators to think
    more creatively about how to reach foreign publics and not rely
    exclusively on the same mechanisms they have used to reach these audiences
    in the past. With these aims in mind, a Public Diplomacy Laboratory has
    been set up under the auspices of the Public Diplomacy Board to tap into a
    wide range of contributors, including marketing experts, journalists,
    interactive specialists, writers, propaganda scholars, psychologists,
    anthropologists and sociologists, political scientists, and others.

    State Department Strategic Communication Efforts Diverge in Several Ways along
    Four Key Principles

    Comparing the four key principles endorsed by the British government's
    Public Diplomacy Board with State Department practices reveals some
    similarities and certain key differences. First, unlike the United
    Kingdom, the State Department follows a dual set of objectives, which
    encourages the use of public diplomacy as both a tool designed to change
    public attitudes towards the United States and to promote U.S. foreign
    policy objectives. Second, while various attempts have been made to
    develop and coordinate U.S. agency strategic planning, evaluation, and
    research activities, these efforts remain largely separated. Third, State
    focuses on attitude-based program outputs and outcome measures and does
    not set explicit behavior change objectives. Fourth, State has not
    launched an effort comparable to the British government's Public Diplomacy
    Laboratory to identify new public diplomacy tools.

      Focus on International Strategic Priorities

    State's public diplomacy encompasses a dual set of objectives--one focused
    on using public diplomacy as a tool to promote specific foreign policy
    objectives, and another on using public diplomacy to promote a more
    positive image of the United States. This dual nature of U.S. public
    diplomacy efforts is reflected in the strategic framework established by
    the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in 2005, which
    lists three top priorities: (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. According to the framework, the department will achieve these
    goals using five tactics--engagement, exchanges, education, empowerment,
    and evaluation--implemented through various public diplomacy programs and
    other means. This framework provides a focal point for such key
    initiatives as the pilot country initiative designed to counter extremism
    in 18 target countries. What is not clear, however, is how the Under
    Secretary's strategic framework links to State and USAID's joint strategic
    plan and related annual mission planning activities, which are driven by a
    related but different set of expectations and priorities.

    This dual view of the purpose of public diplomacy is also reflected in
    State-USAID's 2004-2009 joint strategic plan, and in State's annual
    mission performance planning guidance. The joint strategic plan lists 12
    discrete objectives focused on such topics as counterterrorism, democracy
    and human rights, and promoting mutual understanding through U.S. public
    diplomacy efforts. The plan makes clear that public diplomacy and public
    affairs can be pursued both to increase understanding for American values,
    policies, and initiatives to create a receptive international environment,
    and to promote specific foreign policy objectives. In addition, State's
    mission performance planning guidance allows public diplomacy staff in the
    field to integrate public diplomacy into strategic plan goals, focus on
    public diplomacy as a stand alone performance goal, or do both.^6

    6For the fiscal year 2008 planning cycle, posts can pursue public
    diplomacy as a stand-alone goal, integrate public diplomacy into other
    mission goals such as counter terrorism efforts, or both. When treated as
    a stand-alone goal, posts are expected to generate related performance
    indicators and targets. However, when public diplomacy efforts are
    integrated with other strategic goals, posts are not required to develop
    related performance targets and indicators.

      Integration and Coordination of Strategic Planning and Evaluative Research

    Compared to the system developed in the United Kingdom, which defines an
    explicit partnership arrangement among FCO, British Council, and BBC World
    Service, U.S. agencies involved with strategic communication efforts
    remain largely separate despite numerous attempts to improve
    coordination.^7 U.S. government agency efforts to improve the coordination
    of strategic planning include the following: (1) the Secretary of State or
    designee serves as member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG);
    (2) BBG annually consults with State regarding its country priorities; (3)
    the Department of Defense recently established a new Office of Defense
    Support to Public Diplomacy to improve coordination with State's outreach
    efforts; and (4) the government has convened a series of policy
    coordinating committees culminating in the current Strategic Communication
    and Public Diplomacy Policy Coordinating Committee, chaired by the Under
    Secretary, which recently released an interagency communication strategy.

    While these mechanisms have facilitated some improvements in interagency
    coordination within the U.S. government, they do not replicate the unified
    board approach adopted in the United Kingdom. For example, under the
    British system, BBC World Service, while having only an observer role, is
    a strategic contributor to the Public Diplomacy Board and is expected on
    an ongoing basis to demonstrate in broad terms how its efforts support the
    International Strategic Priorities of the British government. We found no
    comparable arrangement or expectation exists for the BBG and its assorted
    broadcast entities.

    State has taken significant steps to incorporate an evaluation framework
    that is almost identical to the logic model developed for the Public
    Diplomacy Board. However, one key difference is that State's model applies
    only to State's operations and does not extend to key partners, as is the
    case with the Public Diplomacy Board. In September 2005, State hired the
    Performance Institute^8 to review its evaluation system and develop a
    logic model for application to its public diplomacy operations. The
    Performance Institute delivered its final report in October 2006, and
    State has begun to incorporate the model into its program design and
    evaluation efforts. Finally, State recently launched a pilot performance
    measurement project that is designed to collect, document, and quantify
    reliable annual and long-term performance measures to support government
    reporting requirements. Some of the prototype tools developed for this
    initiative, such as State's new media tracker, appear similar to the
    research tools developed by the Public Diplomacy Board's contractor. Other
    planned efforts, such as the Public Diplomacy Board's plans to track
    behavior change, are not incorporated in State's plans.

    ^7U.S. interagency efforts currently include both DOD and USAID. In
    contrast, the British system does not currently incorporate counterpart
    organizations, but it may in the future, according to British officials.

    ^8The Performance Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based contractor that
    specializes in the development of evaluation models for government
    clients.

      Focus on Behavior Change

    While State officials participating in our small group panel argued that
    ultimately all public diplomacy efforts are directed at behavior change,
    we found no evidence that State has explicitly factored expected behavior
    change into its operations--as part of setting communication strategies
    and objectives, designing programs, or evaluating results.^9 Our review of
    State's strategic plan, mission performance planning guidance, Results Act
    planning documents, and planning reports required by the Office of
    Management and Budget reveals that the department's focus remains on
    tracking outputs (such as the number of exchange participants and speaker
    programs), measuring broad attitudinal changes in foreign publics, and
    measuring specific attitudinal changes in selected cases, such as exchange
    program participants.

      Identification of New Public Diplomacy Tools

    The current Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs has
    indicated a willingness to try new communication approaches where
    appropriate. However, we are unaware of any effort similar to the Public
    Diplomacy Laboratory where an explicit attempt has been made to bring
    together creative thinkers, from across a range of disciplines, on an
    ongoing basis to brainstorm new and creative approaches to U.S. public
    diplomacy.

    ^9One senior USAID official noted that if and when State decides that its
    public diplomacy efforts should seek to change target audience behaviors,
    USAID would be available to assist with this effort. This official noted
    that the "social marketing" discipline provides a framework for
    communication efforts designed to change social behavior(s). USAID's
    Development Outreach and Communication Officers do not engage in social
    marketing since USAID's mission is restricted to telling America's
    assistance story. However, other parts of USAID use social marketing
    communication techniques extensively to promote desired behavior change
    involving such issues as personal health decisions.

    Appendix V: Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors

    Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense

    Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contact

    Jess T. Ford, (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov

    Staff Acknowledgments

    In addition to the individual named above, Audrey Solis, Assistant
    Director; Rick Boudreau; Joe Carney; Kate France Smiles; Michael ten Kate;
    and Eve Weisberg made significant contributions to this report. Wilfred
    Holloway, Ernie Jackson, Karen O'Conor, Andrew Stavisky, and Elizabeth
    Wood provided technical assistance.

    (320427)

    GAO's Mission

    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.

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through GAO's Web site ( [47]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
    [48]www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    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. 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

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

    Contact:

    Web site: [49]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
    E-mail: [50]fraudnet@gao.gov
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [51]JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [52]AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    [53]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-904 .

    To view the full product, including the scope
    and methodology, click on the link above.

    For more information, contact Jess T. Ford, (202) 512-4128 or
    fordj@gao.gov.

    Highlights of [54]GAO-07-904 , a report to the Ranking Member, Committee
    on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

    July 2007

    U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

    Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use and Coordination of Research

    U.S. strategic communication efforts are supported by media and audience
    research efforts conducted by the State Department (State), U.S. Agency
    for International Development (USAID), Broadcasting Board of Governors
    (BBG), Department of Defense (DOD), and Open Source Center (OSC). GAO
    examined (1) how research is used to support U.S. strategic communication
    objectives; and (2) how agencies identify end-user needs, assess end-user
    satisfaction, and share available research. GAO examined program documents
    and met with key officials.

    [55]What GAO Recommends

    GAO recommends that (1) the Secretary of State formally adopt a
    research-focused, "campaign-style" approach to thematic communications;
    (2) State, BBG, DOD, and OSC systematically assess user needs and
    satisfaction; (3) the Secretary of State, in conjunction with other
    members of the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy
    Coordinating Committee, establish protocols for sharing audience research
    information as well as create a research staff forum and clearinghouse of
    U.S. government-sponsored research; and (4) the Secretary of Defense
    ensure that planned steps to improve the coordination of media monitoring
    activities are implemented. Agencies agreed with these recommendations.

    Agencies rely on an array of media monitoring products to support daily
    communication activities. DOD and USAID use program-specific research to
    design, implement, and evaluate the impact of thematic communication
    efforts created to influence the attitudes and behaviors of target
    audiences. In contrast, we found that State has generally not adopted a
    research-focused approach to implement its thematic communication efforts.
    For example, in a recent major thematic communication effort, 18 posts
    participating in an ongoing pilot initiative developed country-level
    communication plans focusing on the broad theme of countering extremism.
    Although broad attitudinal polling is available to inform these efforts,
    these plans were not supported by the types of program-specific research
    inherent in the "campaign-style" approach utilized by both DOD and USAID,
    which stipulates that communication efforts should follow a logical and
    predictable series of steps. The pilot country plans GAO reviewed did not
    include program-specific research such as attitudinal polling of specific
    target groups, focus group data on which messages would most resonate with
    target audiences, or detailed media environment analyses that could
    provide the basis for developing in-depth information dissemination
    strategies. State commitment to the development of a defined approach to
    thematic communications, centered on program-specific research, has been
    absent. However, there is evidence to suggest that State's approach is
    changing. A June 2007 interagency communication strategy developed under
    the guidance of State's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public
    Affairs describes a communication process model similar to the
    campaign-style approach, with the major exception that it does not
    describe how and to what extent research should be used to support each
    step in the communication process.

    U.S. government agencies conducting research on foreign audiences
    currently do not have systematic processes in place to assess end-user
    needs or satisfaction pertaining to research products, or to coordinate or
    share research. In the absence of systematic processes to understand the
    needs or level of satisfaction of policymakers, managers, and program
    staff, agencies generally rely on ad hoc feedback mechanisms, such as
    conversations with individual users and irregular e-mail submissions.
    Agencies utilize certain mechanisms to coordinate and share research
    information, for example, the Open Source Center aggregates media
    monitoring data from more than 30 organizations on its Web site. However,
    efforts to coordinate and share audience  research data are hampered by
    the lack of interagency protocols for sharing information, a dedicated
    forum to periodically bring key research staff together to discuss common
    concerns across all topics of interest, and a clearinghouse for collected
    research. DOD is currently reviewing the organization and effectiveness of
    its media monitoring efforts and agency officials indicated that an
    improved approach to both internal and external coordination will be
    developed once a department-wide inventory of media monitoring activities
    is completed.

    References

    Visible links
      39. fhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-535
      40. fhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-951
      41. fhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-951
      42. fhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-951
      43. fhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-951
      44. fhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-535
      45. fhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-762
      46. fhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-535
      47. fhttp://www.gao.gov/
      48. fhttp://www.gao.gov/
      49. fhttp://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
      50. mailto:fraudnet@gao.gov
      51. mailto:JarmonG@gao.gov
      52. mailto:AndersonP1@gao.gov
      53. fhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-904
      54. fhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-904
    *** End of document. ***