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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]
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][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [51][email protected] (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][email protected] (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
[email protected].
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:[email protected]
51. mailto:[email protected]
52. mailto:[email protected]
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. ***