U.S. International Broadcasting: Strategic Planning and Performance
Management System Could Be Improved (Letter Report, 09/27/2000,
GAO/NSIAD-00-222).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined whether the
Broadcasting Board of Governors: broadcasters (1) responded to the
specific limitations and cost-cutting expectations regarding Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty's operations; (2) implemented an annual language
service review process; and (3) instituted a strategic planning and
performance management system.

GAO noted that: (1) the Board met its mandates under the 1994 U.S.
International Broadcasting Act to reduce Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty's annual budget by lowering its budget from $208 million in
fiscal year (FY) 1994 to approximately $71 million in FY 1996; (2) it
did this by taking several actions including relocating its operation
from Munich, Germany, to Prague, Czech Republic and significantly
reducing staff; (3) additional savings were made by: (a) eliminating
several hundred hours of broadcast overlap; (b) eliminating and
modifying a limited number of language services; (c) consolidating
transmission operations under the International Broadcasting Bureau; and
(d) deploying digital sound recording and editing technology, which has
increased Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's staff efficiency and
effectiveness; (4) the Board completed a comprehensive language service
review in January 2000 that sought to systematically evaluate U.S.
international broadcast priorities and program impact; (5) the Board
intends to use this information to strategically reallocate
approximately $4.5 million in language service funds from emerging
democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to several African countries
and selected countries in other regions; (6) according to the Board, it
intends to continue to use the annual language service review process to
strategically analyze broadcast priorities, program funding, and
resource allocations; (7) the Board has not yet established an effective
strategic planning and performance management system that incorporates
Government Performance and Results Act planning, the annual language
service review process, and the program reviews of individual language
services conducted by the International Broadcasting Bureau and the
surrogate broadcasters; (8) the Board's FY 2001 performance plan is
deficient because of missing or imprecise performance goals or
indicators and a lack of key implementation strategies and related
resource requirements that detail the key issues facing the Board; (9)
the Board has not established a standard program review approach, which
would help ensure that consistent and meaningful measures of program
quality are developed across broadcast entities; and (10) it has also
not incorporated specific audience size and composition targets into the
program review process, which would help ensure that program reviews
culminate in a written report that identifies the specific actions
needed to achieve agreed-upon performance goals.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-00-222
     TITLE:  U.S. International Broadcasting: Strategic Planning and
	     Performance Management System Could Be Improved
      DATE:  09/27/2000
   SUBJECT:  Radio broadcasting
	     Broadcasting standards
	     Strategic planning
	     Performance measures
	     Public diplomacy
	     International relations
	     Budget cuts
	     Foreign languages
	     Cost control

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** 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/NSIAD-00-222

Appendix I: Map of Press Freedom

28

Appendix II: U.S. International Broadcasting Transmission
Modes and Operations

29

Appendix III: Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Board's
Language Service Review Process

32

Appendix IV: Information on Board and British Broadcasting
Corporation Operations

34

Appendix V: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

38

Appendix VI: Comments From the Broadcasting Board of
Governors

40

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

46

Table 1: The Board's Priority/Impact Matrix 14

Table 2: Overseas U.S. News-Gathering Organizations as of
July 2000 17

Table 3: Broadcasting Board of Governors' Performance Plan,
Fiscal Year 2001 19

Table 4: Criteria Supporting the Broadcasting Board of Governors' Language
Service Review 32

Table 5: U.S. International Broadcasting and BBC World Service Operations 35

Figure 1: U.S. International Broadcasting Organization Chart 7

Figure 2: U.S. Broadcast Entities' Worldwide Coverage 9

Figure 3: U.S. International Broadcasting Language Service
Overlap 15

Figure 4: Freedom House Survey of Press Freedom, 2000 28

BBC British Broadcasting Corporation

National Security and
International Affairs Division

B-285837

September 27, 2000

The Honorable John R. Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasters include the Voice of America,
Worldnet Television and Film Service, Radio/TV Marti, Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia.1 These broadcast entities support
84 discrete "language services" such as Radio Free Asia's Mandarin service
to China and Radio/TV Marti's Spanish language broadcasts to Cuba.2 While
each broadcast entity has a unique mission, a central theme in all U.S.
international broadcasting is to provide underserved populations with
balanced news coverage in areas where a free and open press does not exist
or has not been firmly established. The open exchange of information and
ideas, in turn, is designed to serve the interests of the United States by
promoting international peace and stability.

Congress passed the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994
(title III of P.L. 103-236) with the goal of reorganizing and consolidating
U.S. international broadcast efforts in light of the end of the Cold War and
administration efforts to meet deficit reduction targets. The act
established a bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors (the Board) to
oversee and coordinate the efforts of all nonmilitary international
broadcasting.3 The act also created an International Broadcasting Bureau to
carry out all nonmilitary broadcasting activity, with the exception of Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, both of which report directly
to the Board as federally funded grantees.

In addition to these changes, the act also contains specific funding
limitations and cost-cutting expectations, including the following:

ï¿½ The total amount of grants made by the Board for the operating costs of
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was not to exceed $75 million for any fiscal
year after fiscal year 1995.

ï¿½ The Board was not to make any grant to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
unless Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's headquarters are in a location that
ensures economy, operational effectiveness, and accountability to the Board.

ï¿½ Duplication of language services and technical operations between Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the International Broadcasting Bureau (which
includes the Voice of America) were to be reduced to a level deemed
appropriate by the Board.

ï¿½ The Board was to conduct an annual assessment of language services.4

Under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-277), the Board was removed from the U.S. Information Agency and
established as an independent federal entity on October 1, 1999. As an
independent entity, the Board now is fully responsible for developing a
strategic planning and performance management system that is responsive to
both the 1994 act and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(P.L. 103-62).

As agreed with your office, this report examines whether the Board
(1) responded to the specific funding limitations and cost-cutting
expectations regarding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's operations,
(2) implemented an annual language service review process, and (3)
instituted a strategic planning and performance management system. As
requested, we also provide information on U.S. international broadcasting
and the British Broadcasting Corporation (see app. IV). Details about our
scope and methodology are presented in appendix V.

The Board met its mandates under the 1994 U.S. International Broadcasting
Act to reduce Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's annual budget by lowering
its budget from $208 million in fiscal year 1994 to approximately $71
million in fiscal year 1996. It did this by taking several actions including
relocating its operation from Munich, Germany, to Prague, Czech Republic,
and significantly reducing staff. The Board realized additional savings by
eliminating several hundred hours of broadcast overlap between Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of America; eliminating and modifying a
limited number of language services; consolidating transmission operations
under the International Broadcasting Bureau; and deploying digital sound
recording and editing technology, which has increased Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty's staff efficiency and effectiveness.

The Board completed a comprehensive language service review in January 2000
that sought to systematically evaluate U.S. international broadcast
priorities and program impact. The Board intends to use this information to
strategically reallocate approximately $4.5 million in language service
funds from emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to several
African countries and selected countries in other regions. According to the
Board, it intends to continue to use the annual language service review
process to strategically analyze broadcast priorities, program funding, and
resource allocations. In addition, the Board intends to use the language
service review next year to look at program duplication between the Voice of
America and surrogate language services, such as broadcasts to countries of
the former Soviet Union, and to determine whether this overlap effectively
serves U.S. interests on a country-by-country basis. Currently, the Board
has not decided whether it will review the overlap of overseas
news-gathering resources among U.S. broadcast entities.

The Board has not yet established an effective strategic planning and
performance management system that incorporates Results Act planning, the
annual language service review process, and the program reviews of
individual language services conducted by the International Broadcasting
Bureau (on behalf of the Voice of America and Radio/TV Marti) and the
surrogate broadcasters. The Board's fiscal year 2001 performance plan is
deficient because of missing or imprecise performance goals or indicators
and a lack of key implementation strategies and related resource
requirements that detail the key issues facing the Board. Finally, the Board
has not established a standard program review approach, which would help
ensure that consistent and meaningful measures of program quality are
developed across broadcast entities. It has also not incorporated specific
audience size and composition (that is, mass versus elite listeners) targets
into the program review process, which would help ensure that program
reviews culminate in a written report that identifies the specific actions
needed to achieve agreed-upon performance goals.

We make several recommendations in this report directed at improving the
Board's strategic planning and performance management system. Specific
recommendations address each of the three component parts of this
system--Results Act planning, the annual language service review, and the
program reviews of language services that individual broadcast entities
conduct. The Board agreed with these recommendations and noted that
implementing action has already begun.

The Board is responsible for overseeing a complex broadcast environment
which spans 5 broadcast entities with varying missions, 84 discrete language
services, changing consumer habits and preferences, and a technology
environment that presents constant new challenges and opportunities. The
Board currently oversees a staff of almost 3,200 and a worldwide network of
leased communication satellite services and 38 owned or leased transmission
stations. The Board oversees the broadcast of almost 2,000 hours of original
(not rebroadcasts) broadcast material each week. The Board estimates that
the Voice of America's broadcasts alone reach a worldwide listening audience
of 91 million people each week. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts
reach an estimated 16 million listeners each week. Radio Free Asia and
Radio/TV Marti have difficulty obtaining reliable audience estimates due to
the closed nature of target broadcast countries.5 These audiences are
reached through a variety of means, including direct radio and television
broadcasts from U.S.-owned or -leased transmitters, local rebroadcasters
(known as affiliates) who carry U.S. international broadcasting content on
their stations, and the Internet.

The U.S. international broadcasting budget for fiscal year 2000 is about
$420 million.6 The Board, the Voice of America, Radio/TV Marti, and Worldnet
are federal entities and receive funding directly from Congress. Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia operate as independent, nonprofit
corporations and are funded by grants from the Board.

The Board's current organizational structure is illustrated in figure 1.
While this figure shows a reporting relationship from the Voice of America,
Worldnet, and Radio/TV Marti to the Director of the International
Broadcasting Bureau, these broadcast entities have a direct reporting
relationship with the Board regarding all programming issues. The Acting
Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau told us that his
organization provides consolidated technical and support services to client
broadcasters; however, programming decisions are handled by the respective
broadcast entities and the Board.

Source: Office of Strategic Planning, International Broadcasting Bureau,
June 2000.

As noted earlier, the central focus of U.S. international broadcasting is on
reaching audiences that are underserved by their local media. According to
Freedom House's year 2000 survey of press freedom, most countries rated as
"not free" are located in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia (see app. I for
a reproduction of Freedom House's current world map of press freedom).7
While all five broadcast entities share the core mandate of reaching
underserved populations, a key distinction among the entities is that the
Voice of America and Worldnet broadcast to a global audience, while Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio/TV Marti serve as
"surrogate" broadcasters in their respective regions and substitute for
local media in countries where a free and open press is deemed not to exist
or has not been fully established.8

In addition to adhering to a global mission for U.S. broadcasting, each
broadcast entity has its own broadcast mission. As described in public
documents and by Board officials, the Voice of America provides accurate and
credible international, regional, and country-specific news to a global
audience, with a particular emphasis on supplying information relating to
the United States. However, in Africa where the Voice of America serves a
surrogate role, greater emphasis is given to news of local interest. The
Voice of America meets its mandate to broadcast the U.S. position on various
foreign policy matters by including the views of U.S. officials in its
regular programs and through daily editorials that are identified as
representing the views of the U.S. government. It also broadcasts a number
of public affairs programs which focus on discussions of U.S. policy by
policymakers and experts. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty focuses on
providing regional and local news to emerging democracies in Central Europe
and the former Soviet Union, and to Iran and Iraq. Radio Free Asia and
Radio/TV Marti concentrate on providing news of local interest to audiences
in Asia and Cuba, respectively, who generally do not have access to a free
and open press. Figure 2 shows the regional coverage of the Voice of
America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio/TV
Marti.

Note: This map shows transmission stations which are owned and operated by
the International Broadcasting Bureau and does not include related technical
infrastructure such as leased transmission facilities, communication
satellites, or Internet operations.

Source: Office of Strategic Planning, International Broadcasting Bureau.

Shortwave broadcasting has dominated the history of U.S. international
broadcasting for over 50 years. Over the past decade, however, the range of
media options available to many listeners around the world has expanded to
include local AM/FM programming, television, and the Internet. This
diversified media environment has greatly increased the complexity of the
strategic decisions the Board faces. These transmission modes and certain
issues surrounding their use are described in appendix II.

Cost-cutting Expectations Have Been Met

The Board responded to the $75-million funding cap placed on Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty and related cost-cutting expectations by relocating to
virtually rent-free quarters in Prague, Czech Republic; reducing staff; and
forming local broadcast partnerships in two cases.9 The Board achieved
further savings by consolidating Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice
of America broadcast schedules, consolidating Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty and Voice of America transmission operations under the International
Broadcasting Bureau, and implementing digital sound recording and editing
technology in Prague.

One key cost-cutting action that has not been implemented was the original
expectation in the 1994 act that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty would
receive private rather than public funding after the end of calendar year
1999. Based on the results of analysis that the Board conducted, the Board
concluded that privatization was not a feasible option due to the lack of
tangible business assets (such as transmission facilities or broadcast
frequencies) of interest to commercial buyers.10 The Foreign Relations
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (sec. 503 of App. G of
P. L. 106-113) amended the original expectation regarding privatization to
require that broadcast operations to a given country should be phased out
when there is clear evidence that democratic rule has been established and
that balanced, accurate, and comprehensive news and information is widely
available.

In line with congressional expectations, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
reduced its budget from $208 million in fiscal year 1994 to approximately
$71 million in fiscal year 1996 by taking the following actions.11

ï¿½ In 1995, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty relocated its headquarters from
Munich, Germany, to quarters in Prague, Czech Republic, provided by the
Czech Republic as a public service.

ï¿½ In conjunction with the move to Prague, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
reduced its total staffing by almost 1,200 individuals, or almost 75 percent
of its workforce.

ï¿½ Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America officials coordinated
their respective broadcast schedules and eliminated over 300 weekly
broadcast hours in overlapping and duplicative programming.

ï¿½ The Polish and Czech language services were reconstituted as separate,
nonprofit corporations.12

ï¿½ Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty transmission facilities were turned over
to the International Broadcasting Bureau in 1995 in connection with the
consolidation of engineering and technical operations under the Bureau.
Prior to this consolidation, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty controlled a
network of six transmission stations located in Germany, Portugal, and
Spain. The two stations in Portugal were closed as a result of the
consolidation. International Broadcasting Bureau officials estimate that the
consolidation of engineering and technical operations initially resulted in
more than $32 million in annual recurring savings and that current annual
savings have grown to more than $50 million.13

ï¿½ A digital sound recording and editing platform was installed in connection
with the move to Prague. This technology, under appropriate circumstances,
allows one individual to produce a radio broadcast that previously would
have required the services of an announcer, a producer, and a sound
technician using the analog recording and editing technology that had been
used in Munich. One Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty official noted that
approximately 75 percent of the station's output lent itself to the
streamlined mode of production enabled by digital technology.

The Board completed its first annual language service review in January 2000
and plans to use the results of this review to strategically reallocate
approximately $4.5 million in program funds across broadcast regions on the
basis of priority and impact ratings assigned to each language service.14
The priority ratings reflected a number of factors, including the language
service's contribution to furthering U.S. strategic interests, audience
size, and other variables. The language service's impact was based on the
mass audience size and the number of "elite" (that is, government and other
influential decisionmakers) listeners reached. The Board plans to use next
year's language service review to examine the issue of duplication in
program content among the Voice of America and surrogate language services.
We also found overlap in overseas news-gathering resources among broadcast
entities. This is a potentially important duplication issue that the Board
has not reviewed. We raised a similar issue in our 1996 report reviewing
potential budget reduction options.15

Board officials explained that a comprehensive language service review was
not completed until January 2000 because the Board lacked adequate audience
research on the number and type of listeners for such a review. Starting in
1997, the Board increased the budget devoted to audience research and in
1999 tasked the International Broadcasting Bureau's Office of Strategic
Planning with developing a comprehensive set of program and performance data
to be used as the basis for the comprehensive review of language services.

Board members assigned priority and impact (audience) ratings to each
language service as a basis for reallocating resources. The evaluation
criteria used for the priority ratings included potential audience size,
U.S. strategic interests, press freedom, economic freedom, and political
freedom. For example, a service's contributions to furthering U.S. strategic
interests was scored on the basis of inputs received from a variety of
sources, including the White House, the National Security Council, the State
Department, and applicable congressional Committees. For the impact ratings,
the Board focused on audience size and composition as key performance
measures. The Board also evaluated other data, such as the language
service's program quality, operating budget, broadcast hours, signal
strength, and affiliate stations, to identify approaches for increasing
listening rates in selected countries. Audience data were based on research
conducted by the International Broadcasting Bureau's Office of Audience
Research and the InterMedia Survey Institute, which provided data on both
audience size and elite listening rates. Appendix III contains further
details on the criteria and related processes used to support the Board's
language service review process.

The Board used the language service evaluation criteria to develop
priority/impact ratings for 69 of the Board's 84 language services.16 As
shown in table 1, the Board used these ratings to develop a matrix that
identified higher priority/higher impact services, higher priority/lower
impact services, lower priority/higher impact services, and lower
priority/lower impact services. The Board intends to use this information to
strategically reallocate approximately $4.5 million in language service
funds from emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to several
African countries and selected countries in other regions. The review
resulted in 21 language service reduction recommendations, 15 recommended
service enhancements, and a call for the further review of seven
low-performing and five duplicate language services.

 Higher priority/higher impact Higher priority/lower impact

 (15 languages)                (23 languages)
 Lower priority/higher impact  Lower priority/lower impact

 (20 languages)                (11 languages)

Note: The Board requested that we not list the specific languages in each
quadrant due to the sensitive nature of this information.

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Language services rated as higher priority were concentrated in countries
with a large potential listening audience; low press, political, and
economic freedom; and high strategic interest to the United States. Higher
and lower impact scores were determined on the basis of percentage weekly
listening rates for both mass and elite audiences. Services with listening
rates below 5 percent for mass listeners and 15 percent for elite listeners
were rated as having lower impact. Services that ranked above this threshold
were rated as having higher impact.

According to the Board, next year's language review will include an
assessment of overlapping language services among the five U.S. broadcast
entities. Board officials told us that the strategy of duplicating language
services has been designed to allow U.S. international broadcast entities to
achieve their respective missions by offering different program content in
the same language. Nonetheless, the Board said in a written evaluation of
this year's language service review that it is essential that the Board
revisit the respective roles of the broadcasting services in light of
evolving foreign policy and geopolitical and budget realities in the new
century. The Board intends to use the language service review next year to
look at program duplication between the Voice of America and surrogate
language services, such as broadcasts to countries of the former Soviet
Union, and to determine whether this overlap effectively serves U.S.
interests on a country-by-country basis.

Figure 3 shows those languages where both the Voice of America and a
surrogate service broadcast in the same language.

Source: Office of Strategic Planning, International Broadcasting Bureau.

While the Board intends to review the issue of program content duplication
next year, it does not expect to explicitly review the duplicate news
resources maintained by broadcast entities overseas. The Voice of America,
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia each maintain field
offices and freelance journalists in their respective regions. Voice of
America resources overlap with those deployed by Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty and Radio Free Asia in their respective regions. For example, Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty has a combined total of about 700 bureau staff and
freelance journalists covering its broadcast area. The Voice of America has
a combined staff of about 150 in the same region. In addition to the issue
of overlap, broadcasting officials noted that
news-gathering resources are not shared across broadcast entities. For
example, one Voice of America language Division Director noted that news
feeds from Voice of America overseas bureaus are not shared with Radio Free
Asia and that Radio Free Asia news feeds are not shared with the Voice of
America. The Division Director said "They do their work, and we do ours." A
Radio/TV Marti employee noted that neither the Voice of America nor Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty share relevant news items of interest to Radio/TV
Marti listeners. As an example, news from Russia is not directly available
to the station, because Radio/TV Marti does not have overseas bureaus or
freelance journalists.

We reported on a similar issue in our 1996 report on budget reduction
options for the U.S. Information Agency.17 In our report, we noted areas
where elimination of existing overlap could yield management improvements
and cost reductions. One area we highlighted was the potential for further
consolidation of overseas news bureaus and other broadcasting assets. Our
report cited the overlap in news-gathering resources deployed by the Voice
of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Moscow as an example of a
potential area for consolidation.

Table 2 provides details on the number of bureaus, bureau staff, and
freelance journalists deployed by each broadcast entity along with related
fiscal year 2000 funding data.

                                                                 Operating
   Broadcast                     Number   Bureau   Freelance      budget
    entity         Coverage        of     staff   journalists  (fiscal year
                                bureaus
                                                                  2000)
                East/Central
 Radio Free     Europe, the
 Europe/Radio   Former Soviet   24a       182    536           $7,227,000
 Liberty        Union, Iran,
                and Iraq
                East/Central
 Voice of       Europe and the
 America        Former Soviet   4         12     142           $1,914,336
                Union
 Radio Free
 Asia           Far East        8         14     287           $3,214,787
 Voice of
 America        Far East        4         14     87            $2,164,295
                Africa, Near
 Voice of       East and North
 America        Africa, and     8         24     170           $1,926,928
                South Central
                Asia
 Voice of
 America        Latin America   2         8      90            $354,951

a News coverage for Iran and Iraq is provided by Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty's London bureau.

Source: Office of Strategic Planning, International Broadcasting Bureau.

The need to manage overseas resources effectively is heightened by the fact
that several broadcasting officials commented they do not have adequate
news-gathering resources and that product quality has suffered as a result.
For example, a Radio/TV Marti official told us that a lack of resources has
prevented the station from sending journalists to domestic locations outside
of the Miami area and overseas to report on news stories of interest to the
Cuban people. A Radio Free Asia language Director noted that her service has
only $500 a month to pay for reports from freelance journalists that cost
$50 to $100 per report. She noted that this level of funding is not
sufficient to produce original and up-to-date programming. Radio Free Asia
officials have since told us that freelance budgets have been adjusted to
fully fund all language services' projected requirements for the remainder
of fiscal year 2000.

Development

The Board has not yet developed a strategic planning and performance
management system that provides a high level of assurance that resources are
being used in the most effective manner possible. The key components of this
system are Results Act planning, the annual language service review, and the
program reviews of individual language services. The Board's fiscal year
2001 Results Act performance plan is deficient because of missing or
imprecise performance goals and indicators and a lack of key implementation
strategies and related resource requirements. In addition, the lack of a
standard program review approach and audience goals for individual language
services limits the usefulness of the program reviews that the broadcast
entities conduct to assess the content and presentation of their individual
language service programs.

As a newly independent federal entity, the Board has full responsibility for
implementing its strategic planning and performance management system. A key
component of such a system is Results Act planning. Under the Results Act,
executive agencies are required to prepare 5-year strategic plans that set
the general direction for their efforts. Agencies then develop annual
performance plans that establish the connections between
long-term strategic goals outlined in the strategic plan and the day-to-day
activities of program managers and staff. Finally, the act requires that
each agency produce an annual performance report on the extent to which it
is meeting its annual performance goals and the actions needed to achieve or
modify those goals that have not been met.18 Board officials pointed out
that they have made considerable progress in implementing a strategic
planning and performance management system and that they submitted a
performance report in March 2000 as required.

and Composition Weaken the Board's Performance Plan

The Board's fiscal year 2001 performance plan includes two strategic
objectives that are not supported by accompanying performance goals and
indicators. First, the performance plan lists encouraging the development of
a free and independent media as a strategic objective. This reflects one of
the objectives embodied in the 1994 Broadcasting Act that calls for the
training and technical support for independent indigenous media through
government agencies or private U.S. entities. The second strategic objective
lacking supporting performance goals and indicators relates to the Board's
need for comprehensive and up-to-date audience research data. Again, the
1994 Broadcasting Act stipulates that U.S. international broadcasting
efforts should be based on reliable audience research data. The Board
recognizes that its performance plan has some limitations and has formed a
Results Act indicators review team to address them.

Table 3 provides an overview of the Board's fiscal year 2001 performance
plan that was included with the agency's fiscal year 2001 budget submission
to Congress. This performance plan supports the Board's stated mission of
using U.S. international broadcasting to encourage the development and
growth of democratic values in support of the diplomatic, humanitarian, and
economic goals of the United States. The array of programs and accurate
information that U.S. international broadcasting strives to provide foreign
audiences worldwide are intended to help people understand democratic
ideals, civil governance, free market economics and trade, and respect for
the rule of law. Within this context, while a number of performance goals
and indicators are used to assess the extent to which U.S. international
broadcasting is achieving its mission, Board officials told us that audience
size is the most important performance goal and indicator.19 Table 3 shows
the strategic objectives and the performance goals and indicators contained
in the Board's fiscal year 2001 performance plan.

   Strategic objective       Performance goal       Performance indicator
 Provide audiences        Percent of services
 comprehensive, accurate, that broadcast entities
 and objective news and   score as "good or       Program quality.a
 information.             better."
 Represent American       Percent of services
 society and culture in a that broadcast entities
 balanced and             score as "good or       Program quality.
 comprehensive way.b      better."
 Present the policies of
 the United States        Percent of services
 clearly and effectively, that broadcast entities
 along with responsible   score as "good or       Program quality.
 discussion and opinions  better."
 of those policies.b
 Reach audiences in the
 languages, media, and    Global and regional     Regular listening/viewing
 program formats that are audience targets.       audience.
 most appropriate.c

 Samed                    Target number of        Count of local
                          affiliates.             affiliates.
                          Target signal strength
 Same                     average for U.S.        Signal strength.
                          broadcasting as a
                          whole.
                          Target satellite
 Same                     performance standard    Satellite Effectiveness
                          for U.S. broadcasting   Index.
                          as a whole.
                          Target costs for
 Same                     running International   Transmission network
                          Broadcasting Bureau     expenses.
                          transmission stations.
                                                  Internet performance
 Same                     Internet goal under     indicator (under
                          development.
                                                  development).
 Encourage development of
 a free and independent   No performance goal.    No indicator.
 media.
 Utilize comprehensive
 and accurate research to No performance goal.    No indicator.
 understand audiences.

Note: Program quality, regular listening/viewing audiences, and local
affiliate performance goals were not established for all broadcast entities.
For example, audience targets were not established for Worldnet, Radio/TV
Marti, and Radio Free Asia, given present difficulties associated with
collecting meaningful audience size data for each of these entities.

a Program quality is measured in connection with the program reviews
conducted by the International Broadcasting Bureau, Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. Program quality assessments examine such
issues as program balance and objectivity and production values such as
timing and use of musical bridges. See appendix III for additional details.

b Because Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia are surrogate
broadcasters, these two objectives do not apply to them.

c "Most appropriate" includes considerations of efficiency and effectiveness
of delivery to those audiences.

d This objective does not apply to Radio Free Asia, which does not have an
affiliates network.

Source: Office of Strategic Planning, International Broadcasting Bureau.

Of the performance goals and indicators shown in table 3, Board officials
have identified audience size as the most important performance goal and
indicator for assessing to what extent U.S. international broadcasting is
achieving its mission. Audience size provides an indicator of how many
people around the world are tuning in to information intended to help them
understand democratic ideals, civil governance, and the rule of law.
However, the Board uses only global audience size estimates by broadcast
entity to set performance goals and track performance. For example, the
fiscal year 2001 performance plan lists the Voice of America's current
listening audience at 91 million and sets a performance target of 92 million
for fiscal year 2001. A January 1999 memo provided instructions on preparing
submissions to the fiscal year 2001 performance plan; it invited units to
suggest potential program enhancements and provide a memo describing the
impact these enhancements would have on such performance measures as
audience size. The instructions also called for a description of how the
actual impact of such program enhancements would be measured. However, this
guidance did not discuss the systematic establishment of specific audience
targets by language service or the method for monitoring such targets to
provide meaningful performance data (such as the number of language services
achieving target performance levels each year) for inclusion in the Board's
annual performance plan.

The Board acknowledges in its performance plan that changes in estimated
global listening audiences from year to year do not necessarily indicate a
"genuine" increase in listeners because better survey techniques may simply
have identified additional listeners not included in earlier estimates. In
addition, the International Broadcasting Bureau's Office of Research
reported that the Voice of America's global estimate should be taken only as
a rough indication of the number of listeners, with a potentially wide
margin of error.20 The report further noted that "most of Voice of America's
audience is heavily concentrated in a small number of countries; as a
result, exclusive reliance on the global estimate as a measure of
effectiveness may obscure important changes that occur from year to year at
the regional or country level." Radio Free Asia officials have pointed out
that Radio Free Asia is relatively new and has no effective means to
advertise its services in the closed target countries. Further, these
officials said that it is very difficult to obtain reliable audience size
estimates. Thus, the officials believed that audience size would not be an
adequate measure of Radio Free Asia's performance at this time.

A second problem with this key performance indicator is that the performance
plan makes no distinction between mass versus elite (that is, government and
other influential decisionmakers) audiences and only references mass
listening audiences in its strategic objectives and performance goals. The
distinction between these two basic audiences has major implications for the
Board with regard to setting strategic objectives and performance goals,
establishing and refining broadcast strategies, and allocating resources in
the most effective manner possible. A senior Voice of America official told
us that the agency's biggest challenge is analyzing its programming language
by language and determining what matches the needs of the various audiences
the Voice of America is trying to reach. The target audience can also change
over time. For example, the Voice of America's audience in Africa has
typically been made up of an elite group of 40- to 50-year-old males in
political or civil service leadership positions. Now, one official told us,
the African language services need to attract more of a mass audience in
order to reach future leaders.

the Board's Planned Actions

According to the Results Act, agency performance plans should describe the
operational processes, skills, technology, and other resources an agency
will need to achieve its performance goals. The plans should describe both
the agency's existing strategies and resources and any significant changes
to them. We found that the Board's fiscal year 2001 plan does not discuss
such strategies or resource requirements for its ongoing initiatives. For
example, the plan does not include a discussion of the Board's Internet
deployment plan. This is a concern, given the complex issues the Board faces
as it attempts to integrate the Internet with the more traditional radio and
television distribution efforts of five discrete broadcast entities in an
era of rapid political and technological changes and shifting consumer
demands and preferences.

The lack of a discussion of the role and significance of the International
Broadcasting Bureau's deployment of digital production technology for the
Voice of America is another concern. Under the title of the "Digital
Broadcasting Program," the digital production technology effort is being
overseen by the Board. This $57-million effort to upgrade the Voice of
America's operations from an analog mode to a digital one will allow, in
certain cases, a single staff member to perform the work previously assigned
to an announcer, a producer, and a sound technician. Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty and Radio Free Asia have already implemented digital production
systems, and Radio/TV Marti expects to have its digital project completed by
December 2001. However, according to a senior International Broadcasting
Bureau official, the Digital Broadcasting Program, which was initiated in
1995, was supposed to be finished within a 3- to 4-year time period
predicated on the project's receiving funding at the planned levels. Actual
funding has been extended over a longer period of time, and a definitive
end-point for the project remains to be established. The Board's performance
plan does not highlight the importance of this project to the Voice of
America's effectiveness, the specific strategies being followed to ensure
successful implementation, the impact budget shortfalls will have on its
completion, and the projected cost savings (in terms of long-term staffing
needs, for example) to be derived from full implementation of the project.

The usefulness of annual program reviews of individual language services is
hampered by (1) a lack of consistency in how program quality scores--a key
component of the program review process--are developed across broadcast
entities and (2) the lack of audience size and composition targets, which
would help focus language service planning efforts.21 The International
Broadcasting Bureau conducts program reviews for the Voice of America and
Radio/TV Marti, while Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia
conduct their own reviews. Program reviews evaluate a number of factors,
including audience size, signal strength, affiliates management, and program
content and presentation. The latter factor is referred to as "program
quality." Program reviews culminate with a written report with
recommendations for improving operations in one or more of the previously
listed areas.

Board officials acknowledge that there is variability in how program reviews
are conducted across broadcast entities. Specifically, they noted that a
consistent approach to evaluating program quality remains to be established.
Program quality refers to content and presentation issues such as program
balance and objectivity, program pacing, use of musical bridges between
program segments, and the quality of the announcer's voice. One key
methodological difference that exists today is that some broadcast entities
use external experts and in-country listening panels in assessing program
quality, and others do not. For example, the International Broadcasting
Bureau relies on internal personnel to develop program quality assessments.
Voice of America language program directors generally noted that these
assessments were not that rigorous and would benefit from input from outside
experts, such as journalists and academic specialists. In contrast, Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty does utilize external experts and in-country
listening panels in its program quality review process. Funding permitting,
Board officials noted that they

eventually intend to move all program reviews toward a uniform process and
methodology that incorporates the views of external experts and
in-country listening panels in assessing program quality.22

Finally, we noted that program reviews center on discussions of program
operations and a general desire to improve language service performance
without the benefit of focussing on specific performance targets such as
audience size and composition. Board officials noted that performance
targets for individual language services could be established at the Results
Act and annual language service review levels and these targets could form
the focal point for program reviews. Focused program reviews could, in turn,
influence and modify the next iteration of performance targets established
at the Results Act and annual language service review levels.

The Board has taken actions to fulfill the mandates and expectations
contained in the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994. It has
implemented the steps necessary to reduce Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's
budget to below the $75 million ceiling established by Congress. The Board
established a language service review process that is designed to realign
budget resources strategically on an annual basis. Finally, the Board has
developed a strategic planning and performance management system that
consists of Results Act planning, the annual language service review, and
the program reviews of individual language services. This system is intended
to help ensure that U.S. international broadcasting resources are used in
the most effective manner possible.

Despite the Board's overall progress and its continuing efforts to further
refine its strategic planning and performance management system, the
broadcast entities could benefit from the closer integration of
international broadcast missions and strategic objectives and more clearly
defined performance goals and indicators as called for by the Results Act.
For example, the Board's global audience goal, in particular, is less useful
as a key indicator of broadcast effectiveness than summary data on the
success of language services in achieving individual audience size and
composition targets. Further, the performance plan lacks an implementation
strategy and related resource requirements for the Board's key initiatives.
Addressing these strategic planning issues could help ensure that resources
are managed more effectively with more clearly defined results.

The Board's current plans for its next language services review do not
include a plan to analyze the deployment of field news-gathering resources
among the broadcast entities. Such an analysis could potentially identify
areas of unnecessary overlap, which would allow them to redirect resources
to areas needing more news coverage. A lack of adequate news coverage
ultimately diminishes the quality of U.S. broadcast efforts and potentially
affects the size and nature of the listening audience, a key performance
indicator.

Finally, annual program reviews conducted for individual language services
do not employ a consistent approach to assessing program quality and do not
focus on specific audience size and composition targets. A standard review
approach, which incorporates both outside experts and in-country listening
panels, would increase the overall value of program quality assessments and
allow meaningful comparisons among individual language services and among
broadcast entities. Improved program quality measures would also benefit the
annual language service review process and the Board's Results Act planning,
each of which incorporate program quality as a performance measure.
Establishing specific audience targets for each language service would
enable program review teams to develop action plans listing the specific
steps and resources needed to achieve any audience share and composition
goals established at the Results Act level. These action plans and related
resource discussions could be incorporated in both Results Act planning and
the annual language service review process which is the Board's primary
vehicle for assessing the distribution of broadcasting resources.

To strengthen the Board's management oversight and provide greater assurance
that international broadcasting funds are being effectively expended, we
recommend that the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors

ï¿½ include in the Board's performance plan a clearer indication of how its
broadcast missions, strategic objectives, performance goals, and performance
indicators relate to each other; and establish audience and other goals, as
appropriate, at the individual language service level;

ï¿½ include implementation strategies and related resource requirements in its
performance plan;

ï¿½ analyze overseas news-gathering networks across its broadcast entities to
determine if resources could be more effectively deployed; and

ï¿½ institute a standardized approach to conducting program quality
assessments and require that program reviews produce a detailed action plan
that responds to specific audience size and composition targets established
at the Results Act and annual language service review level.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors provided written comments on a draft of
this report. The Board stated that the report is fair and accurate, and the
Board concurred with our recommendations. The Board said that some actions
currently underway will serve to partially implement the recommendations and
that it will implement additional actions in the future. For example, the
Board has launched a review of its existing performance plan that will
include drawing clearer linkages between broadcast missions, strategic
objectives, and performance goals. The Board also intends to establish
audience and other goals, as appropriate, at the individual language service
level. The Board agreed with our recommendation that it analyze its overseas
news-gathering network next year. However, the Board said that an analysis
of its overseas
news-gathering resources would be more useful as a stand-alone analysis
rather than as part of the annual language service review as we recommended.
We recognize the need for such flexibility and modified our recommendation
accordingly.

The Board expressed concern that the information we provided on U.S.
international broadcasting and the British Broadcasting Corporation was
unfair and presented a misleading picture of two very different
organizations (see app. IV). The Board noted that U.S. international
broadcasting has been charged with a far more complex mission, which
includes conveying the views of the U.S. government and functioning as a
surrogate broadcaster in areas where gaining access to target audiences is
difficult. The Board added that caution was needed when comparing total
operating costs, listening audience size, the number of language services,
and the implied cost per listener, due to the significant differences
between the two organizations. To address the Board's concerns, we modified
the introduction to appendix IV. We also adjusted U.S. budget data to remove
television production and transmission costs which are not included in the
British Broadcasting Corporation budget figure. However, we believe that
providing information on the world's top two international broadcasters is
useful and serves to illustrate both the similarities and differences in how
these two organizations conduct their business. Further, discussions with
U.S. broadcast staff and our review of internal documents indicate that the
Board considers the British Broadcasting Corporation to be a key competitor
and closely tracks its activities in selected broadcast markets around the
world.

The comments provided by the Board are reprinted in appendix VI. The Board
also provided technical comments in attachment B, which we have incorporated
in the report as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Marc B. Nathanson,
Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors; and to interested congressional
committees. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call
me at (202) 512-4268. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are
listed in appendix VII.

Sincerely yours,
Jess T. Ford
Associate Director
International Relations and Trade Issues

Map of Press Freedom

The core mandate of U.S. international broadcasting is to reach audiences in
countries where a fair and open press does not exist or has not been fully
established. The Board's primary basis for assessing the status of press
freedom around the world is the annual survey of press freedom conducted by
an organization called Freedom House, which is partly supported by U.S.
grant funds. As shown in figure 4, Freedom House's most recent survey shows
that the most severely underserved audiences are concentrated in Africa, the
Middle East, and Asia.

Note: To allow vivid contrasts among press freedom categories, country
outlines could not be shown for several countries in Africa, the Middle
East, and Asia.

Source: Freedom House.

U.S. International Broadcasting Transmission Modes and Operations

U.S. international broadcasting operates within the context of a complex and
evolving transmission environment. Each of the key broadcast methods the
United States uses is described in the following section and in more detail
in an August 1999 International Broadcasting Bureau study.23

Shortwave − This transmission mode utilizes the reflective properties
of the ionosphere to carry an analog radio signal to listeners typically up
to 4,200 miles away or even farther under some circumstances. In many
situations the quality of shortwave transmissions can be comparable to that
of AM/FM broadcasts. However, over long distances, where shortwave is so
valuable, transmission quality can vary considerably. Despite its drawbacks,
shortwave remains the primary transmission medium (and sometimes the only
option) for international broadcasters seeking to reach target populations
where press freedom is completely or largely restricted. One problem with
shortwave broadcasts is that countries, such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba,
attempt to block U.S. broadcast signals. To counteract these jamming
activities, international broadcasters use very powerful transmitters,
operating from multiple locations, on multiple frequencies. This increases
the costs of shortwave broadcasting relative to most other transmission
mediums but it still remains an economical medium for reaching large areas.
Shortwave broadcasting is currently carried on a network of 22 U.S.-owned
and 16 leased transmission facilities. However, U.S.-owned transmitters in
the Philippines and Thailand currently cannot be used for Radio Free Asia
broadcasts because of host government prohibitions.

The future of shortwave radio could be significantly affected by the
development of digital shortwave, which offers several advantages over the
current analog form of shortwave transmission. Digital shortwave is capable
of producing AM quality audio, which does not degrade over long distances.
Digital shortwave receivers (which are not yet commercially available) can
be programmed to lock on to a station name as opposed to a specific
broadcasting frequency. This development could have major implications for
countries such as China and Cuba, which actively jam current shortwave
transmissions. Under a digital system, it may be possible to scramble
frequencies to frustrate jammers while not affecting listeners, whose preset
stations would be available at a touch of a button. However, the
International Broadcasting Bureau noted that it is unclear whether these
potential anti-jamming features will be available in mass-market products.

Transnational AM (medium-wave) broadcasts − Broadcasting from
U.S.-owned or -leased transmission facilities, AM broadcasts can reach
target audiences up to 900 miles away or even farther under some
circumstances. One advantage of AM broadcasting is the enormous number of
listeners with AM/FM receivers. As is the case with shortwave transmissions,
one drawback of medium-wave transmissions is that they can be jammed by
hostile governments.

AM/FM Radio Affiliates -- Radio affiliates are local AM/FM or television
stations that rebroadcast U.S.-produced program content. Some affiliates are
paid to carry this content, and others are not. FM signals provide the
highest sound quality, but they are limited to a line-of-sight broadcast
range typically of about 25 to 75 miles depending on the height of the
transmitting antenna and other local conditions. The Board currently has
more than 1,300 radio affiliates, with the largest concentration of
affiliates in Central Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Latin America.
For example, the Board has 516 radio affiliates in Latin America. In
contrast, it has only 54 radio affiliates in Africa.

Paid Leases and Licenses − Paid leases and licenses are another form
of local rebroadcasting. A lease is an agreement with a local station or
network for a specific allocation of airtime for a specific cost. The Board
currently has 24 AM/FM leases worldwide. Licenses are granted by a national
authority to broadcasters for the use of a dedicated AM or FM frequency to
broadcast locally using their own equipment. However, in most cases,
national regulations require that the license be issued in the name of a
local entity. According to a 1999 International Broadcasting Bureau document
on transmission strategies, the Voice of America has traditionally placed
its emphasis on building its network of AM/FM affiliates, while other
international broadcasters, such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the
British Broadcasting Corporation, and Radio France International, have
invested substantially in local leases and licenses.

Television via Local Affiliates − Most U.S.-produced television
content is broadcast through local cable and land-based broadcast
affiliates. According to Board officials, television has become the
predominant media choice for viewers in several key areas, including Russia
and China. The Board reports that it has almost 500 television
cable/terrestrial affiliates concentrated in the former Soviet Union and
Latin America.

Television content for U.S. international broadcasting has traditionally
been provided by the Worldnet Television and Film Service, which is the
official television broadcast arm of the U.S. government. According to the
Board, it has transferred the public diplomacy portion of Worldnet to the
State Department under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of
1998. (P.L. 105-277). The Board has submitted a reprogramming request to
Congress to transfer Worldnet's remaining resources (totaling
$20.5 million in fiscal year 2000 funding) to Voice of America TV.

Satellite Radio and Television − This medium relies on direct
satellite transmission to relatively expensive analog or digital receivers
or private satellite dishes. While not appropriate for reaching mass
audiences, this option does offer the opportunity to reach "elite" listeners
who are the key decisionmakers U.S. international broadcasters would like to
reach in target countries.

Internet Webcasting and E-mail Delivery - The Internet offers the first
truly interactive medium for delivering text, audio, and video streams to
users' personal computers.24 The use of e-mail also provides broadcasters
with the ability to send text messages to subscriber lists with the contents
of U.S. audio broadcasts. U.S. broadcast entities have also established a
presence on the Internet, and the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, and Radio Free Asia have initiated e-mail subscriber programs.
Again, the Internet is currently not poised to deliver information to mass
audiences around the globe; however, it represents another key delivery
option for reaching elite listeners. While Internet webcasting is not
susceptible to jamming, it is susceptible to blocking at entry portals by
hostile governments.

Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Board's Language Service Review Process

Table 4 provides a brief overview of the criteria and related processes used
to support the Board's language service review process. Audience listening
rate is the key variable used to assess the impact a language service is
having. However, the Board used additional impact criteria, such as program
quality and transmission effectiveness, to help identify potential solutions
to low audience listening rates.

          Criteria                            Description
                             Board staff assign a quantitative "strategic
                             interests" score to each language on the basis
                             of a number of inputs. Board staff consult
                             U.S. foreign affairs officials and printed
 U.S. strategic interests    documents such as the Central Intelligence
                             Agency's World Factbook, Department of
                             Commerce statistics, information from
                             nongovernmental organizations, and in-house
                             regional and country experts.
                             The Board bases potential audience size on
                             population statistics drawn from a private
                             group called the Population Reference Bureau,
 Adult population size       which produces updated adult country
                             population statistics each year. The size of a
                             country is important not only for potential
                             audience size but also for regional influence.
                             Because of the Board's unique concern about
                             press freedom, it uses the Annual Press
                             Freedom Survey conducted by the Freedom House
                             organization to gauge the development of free
 Press freedom               media environments around the world. In
                             addition, the Board uses information from the
                             Committee for the Protection of Journalists
                             and other similar sources to develop a final
                             score.
                             The Board developed a political freedom rating
 Political freedom           for each country on the basis of Freedom
                             House's Annual Survey of Political Rights and
                             Civil Liberties.

 Economic freedom            The Board uses the Heritage Foundation's
                             annual survey of economic freedom.
                             Audience research seeks to gauge the regular
                             weekly listening audience for each of the
                             Board's 84 language services. The Board
                             conducts studies on a cyclical basis, with the
                             goal of updating audience numbers for each
                             service every year and conducting qualitative
                             research where appropriate. For the most part,
 Audience listening rate     this goal has been met, with the exception of
                             closed societies such as China or Cuba where
                             more ad hoc measures such as ï¿½migrï¿½ or visitor
                             surveys must be used to gauge audience size.
                             Data are collected for both mass and elite
                             listeners, and the Board assesses both target
                             groups in assigning a final audience score to
                             each language service.
                             Currently, the International Broadcasting
                             Bureau (on behalf of the Voice of America and
                             Radio/TV Marti), Radio Free Europe/Radio
                             Liberty, and Radio Free Asia take different
                             approaches to measuring program quality.
                             Program quality addresses such issues as
                             whether program content is fair and balanced,
                             and a number of presentation issues including
                             program pacing, use of musical bridges, and
                             the appeal of the announcer's voice.
 Program quality
                             In the case of the International Broadcasting
                             Bureau, program quality is assessed using only
                             internal staff. In contrast, Radio Free
                             Europe/Radio Liberty involves outside experts
                             and in-country listening panels in its
                             assessments of program quality. While Radio
                             Free Asia is still developing its procedures
                             for assessing program quality, it is moving
                             toward the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
                             assessment model.
                             Signal quality determines whether radio
                             signals are being received clearly by the
                             intended audiences. Short- and medium-wave
                             signal strength is measured and compiled twice
                             each year for almost all language services.
                             This information is collected through a
                             worldwide network of monitoring stations
                             managed by the International Broadcasting
                             Bureau that periodically sample and record the
                             audio quality of U.S. international
                             broadcasts. The signal quality of individual
                             language services is rated on a five-point
                             scale.

                             The Board also has a separate satellite
                             transmission effectiveness rating, which seeks
                             to gauge the ability of the International
 Transmission effectiveness  Broadcasting Bureau's satellite distribution
                             network to provide quality radio and TV signal
                             delivery to affiliates and private satellite
                             dish owners. This index examines the signal
                             reception of small antennae, the size of the
                             target country's television population, the
                             number of channels available on the satellite,
                             the signal strength of the satellite, the
                             satellite's capability to cover multiple time
                             zones, and the ability of the satellite to
                             serve as both a radio and a TV program feed
                             within the overall network, especially during
                             "prime time." Information for this index is
                             collected by the International Broadcasting
                             Bureau's Office of Engineering and Technical
                             Services, which uses it for decision-making in
                             satellite leasing and related activities with
                             the intent of improving transmission services
                             over time.
                             The Board maintains an affiliates database for
 Affiliates database         the Voice of America and is currently
                             inputting data for Radio Free Europe/Radio
                             Liberty.
                             The number of original broadcast hours
                             produced by each language service is obtained
 Broadcast hours             from program logs that each language service
                             maintains. Original broadcast hours are
                             currently defined to include no more than 70
                             percent repeat material.
                             The Board compiles annual production and
 Production and transmission transmission costs for each language service,
 costs                       cost per listener ratio, and related budget
                             information.

Source: Office of Strategic Planning, International Broadcasting Bureau.

Information on Board and British Broadcasting Corporation Operations

The British Broadcasting Corporation's (BBC) World Service has adopted a
model for international broadcasting that differs in several key respects
from the approach U.S. broadcasters use. Three of the most significant
differences between the Board and the BBC are mission, organizational
structure, and future operations.

ï¿½ The central mission of U.S. international broadcasting is geared toward
reaching audiences that are underserved by available media voices. As a
result, the United States does not broadcast to fully democratic nations
such as Canada, the United Kingdom, or Germany. In contrast, the BBC's
mission is much broader and includes reaching listeners in markets around
the world, including media-rich countries such as the United States.

ï¿½ The organization of U.S. international broadcasting has evolved along the
lines of "official" and "surrogate" broadcast entities. This division has
led to the creation of five separate broadcast entities with varying
missions, budget resources, and operating styles. The BBC has only one World
Service, which, according to BBC officials, varies broadcast content on a
country-by-country basis in response to market research and audience
demands.

ï¿½ Finally, U.S. international broadcasting and certain component operations
are either subject to sunset provisions or are required to phase out over a
period of time. In contrast, the World Service is not subject to sunset. In
the case of U.S. international broadcasting, an original sunset provision in
the 1994 International Broadcasting Act generally required the Board to
cease funding Radio Free Asia after September 30, 1998. The act was amended
in 1999 to provide for explicit sunset of funding for Radio Free Asia after
September 30, 2009.25 Congress has also specified conditions under which
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasting should be phased out in a
particular country. Radio TV/Marti is required to be terminated upon
transmittal by the President to appropriate congressional Committees of a
determination that a democratically elected government is in power in
Cuba.26 Even the Voice of America's goal to serve audiences deprived of full
access to an open and free press suggests a diminishing role over time as
the long-sought goal of global press freedom is eventually achieved.

Information on U.S. international broadcasting and BBC World Service
operations is provided in table 5. The table is designed to provide summary
data on U.S. and BBC broadcast operations and the table notes should be read
carefully to understand the data on total budget costs, listening audience,
and number of language services. This numerical data is not sufficient to
draw conclusions about the relative efficiency and effectiveness of the two
organizations. Additional factors such as the relative costs of reaching
different target audiences, the different mixes of broadcast technology, and
the nature of operating overheads would need to considered to arrive at
valid conclusions.

                        U.S. International          BBC World Service
                          Broadcasting
 Year founded     1942                          1932
 Annual budget
 (fiscal year     $367 milliona                 $255 milliona
 2000)
 Listening
 audience         $107 millionb                 $151 million
 Number of
 language         84c                           43
 services
                                                British Foreign Office
                                                provides a list of
                                                broadcast languages and
                                                number of broadcast hours
                                                in each language.
                  General and specific policy
                  guidance on U.S. strategic    A full-time BBC Director
                  interests provided by         General and part-time
                  Congress, White House,        governing board provide
                  National Security Council,    strategic guidance and
                  and the State Department.     oversight for the BBC World
                  Several broadcast languages   Service.
                  have broadcast mandates from
                  Congress.                     The World Service has a
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                  Part-time governing board     a senior management team
 Organizational   charged with directing and    that directs daily
 structure        overseeing U.S.               operations and develops
                  broadcasting. Board is also   strategic planning
                  responsible for overall       documents for review by the
                  strategic planning.           BBC's governing board and
                                                the Director General.
                  Broadcast entities include
                  governmental agencies (Voice  Regional language groups
                  of America, Worldnet, and     report to the Chief
                  Radio/TV Marti) and grantees  Executive Officer, who has
                  providing surrogate           the authority to reallocate
                  broadcast services (Radio     resources, implement
                  Free Europe/Radio Liberty     program changes, etc.
                  and Radio Free Asia).
                                                BBC World Service is
                                                organized as a corporation
                                                that receives an annual
                                                grant-in-aid from the
                                                British government.
                  To broadcast unbiased
                  information of
                  international, regional, and
                  local significance to
                  audiences with unserved
                  needs, with the goal of       Primary mission is to be
                  stimulating the development   the world's best known and
                  of democratic values and      most respected voice in
                                                international broadcasting,
 Broadcasting     institutions around the       thereby bringing benefit to
 mission          world. These developments     Britain.
                  are linked to increasing
                  world peace and stability,
                  which is in the interest of   To become the world's
                  the United States.            reference point for
                                                information.
                  Broadcast missions for
                  individual entities
                  emphasize a particular news
                  focus and target audience.
                  Radio Free Asia has an
                  explicit sunset for its
                  operations.

                  Radio Free Europe/Radio
                  Liberty operations are
                  expected to phase out
                  eventually.

                  Radio/TV Marti is required
                  to terminate operations when
 Sunset           a democratically elected
 provisions       government takes power in     No sunset provision.
                  Cuba.

                  The Voice of America does
                  not have an explicit sunset
                  date for its operations.
                  However, the core mission of
                  U.S. international
                  broadcasting to reach the
                  "underserved" suggests a
                  diminished role for the
                  Voice of America over time.
                                                The BBC has adopted the
                                                "balanced scorecard"
                                                approach to performance
 Performance      Requirements under the1993    management. This approach
 management       Results Act, annual language  relies on the collection
 system           service review, and program   and analysis of detailed
                  reviews.                      performance data in four
                                                areas (customer, finance,
                                                business processes, and
                                                learning and growth).
                                                The World Service segments
 Target audience  Masses and elites             its audience into four
                                                distinct groups according
                                                to their information needs.
                  Voice of America and
                                                BBC World Service charter
 Editorial policy Radio/TV Marti are required   explicitly prohibits
                  to carry daily U.S.
                  government editorials.        government editorials.
                  News of America,
                  international news, regional
                  news, and local news.
                  Relative mix of content
                  varies among U.S.             International news,
                  broadcasters. For example,    regional news, and local
                  Voice of America generally    news. Relative mix of
 Program content  carries less local content    content adjusted on a
                  than a surrogate              country-by- country basis
                  broadcaster. However, in      based on the BBC's target
                  Africa, Voice of America      audience goals and listener
                  local content is relatively   preferences.
                  high since it serves as a
                  surrogate broadcaster to
                  several African nations.
                  In areas of language
                  duplication, some agency      The BBC broadly defines its
                  officials cited other U.S.    competition as including
                  broadcasters as key           information providers from
 Views on         competitors. More broadly,    a wide spectrum, including
 competition      agency officials indicated    other international
                  that they view other          broadcasters, Cable News
                  international broadcasters,   Network, Internet portal
                  most notably the BBC, as      providers such as Yahoo,
                  their competition.            etc.
                                                The BBC privatized its
                                                transmission resources in
                  International Broadcasting    1997 and formed a private
                  Bureau manages a network of   corporation, called Merlin
                  38 U.S.-owned and -leased     Communications, to handle
                  shortwave/medium-wave         its worldwide communication
                  transmission facilities.      needs including satellite
                                                communications,
                  International Broadcasting    shortwave/medium-wave
 Transmission     Bureau manages a worldwide    transmissions, and
 operations       network of leased satellite   affiliate management. Under
                  links.                        the privatization effort,
                                                the BBC sold its domestic
                  International Broadcasting    transmission facilities to
                  Bureau delivers program       Merlin while retaining
                  content to a network of       legal ownership of its
                  almost 2,000 radio and TV     overseas transmission
                  affiliates worldwide.         facilities due to local
                                                arrangements that were made
                                                with the BBC and not
                                                Merlin.

a U.S. budget figures adjusted to remove approximately $53 million in
television production costs for Worldnet, Voice of America TV, and TV Marti.
This adjustment was made to reflect the fact that television production
costs are not included in the World Service budget figure because
international television broadcast operations are handled by a separate BBC
entity called BBC World. Both budget figures include support services such
as central news services, English language programming, and computer
services. In the case of U.S. broadcasting, these support services are
provided internally. In the case of the World Service, these support
services are supplied under contract from the BBC.

b The U.S. audience figure includes audience counts for Voice of America and
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which overlap to a certain degree. The U.S.
figure does not include the estimated listening total for Radio Free Asia or
Radio/TV Marti due to the difficulty of conducting audience research studies
in closed societies. Finally, the figure does not include estimated Worldnet
listening totals, which the Board believes cannot be accurately measured for
a number of reasons.

c Figure includes 24 "duplicative" services run by the Voice of America and
surrogate broadcasters. Many of these languages services were established in
response to congressional mandates.

Source: GAO analysis.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget requested that we examine
whether the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors (1) responded to the
specific mandates regarding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's operations,
(2) implemented an annual language service review process, and (3)
instituted a strategic planning and performance management system. He also
asked us to provide information on U.S. international Broadcasting and
British Broadcasting Corporation operations.

To assess whether the Board has responded to the specific cost-cutting
mandates and expectations established in the 1994 International Broadcasting
Act, we examined the Board's transmission consolidation efforts, the history
of consolidation activities in connection with Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty's move from Munich to Prague, the Board's efforts to privatize Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty's operations by fiscal year 1999, and the Board's
efforts to adopt digital production technology for each broadcast entity. We
met with Board, International Broadcasting Bureau, Voice of America,
Worldnet Television and Film Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and
Radio Free Asia senior officials in Washington, D.C., to discuss these
issues and review applicable documentation. This documentation included the
Board's report on Congress's earlier mandate to privatize Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty's operations and additional documentation on the
Board's transmission consolidation efforts, the relocation from Munich to
Prague, and the Digital Broadcasting Program being implemented by the
International Broadcasting Bureau on behalf of the Voice of America. We also
met with Radio/TV Marti officials in Miami, Florida, and Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty officials in Prague to review their respective
streamlining and cost-cutting activities.

To assess whether the Board implemented a language service review process,
we met with International Broadcasting Bureau planning staff in Washington,
D.C., to determine the process, evaluation criteria, and outcome of this
year's language service review. We reviewed the Board's February 2000
reports on this process and the linkage between these documents and the
Board's reallocation decisions.

To assess whether the Board has instituted a strategic planning and
performance management system, we obtained and reviewed copies of all
relevant Results Act planning documents, including the Board's 5-year
strategic plan dated December 1997; annual performance plans for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001; and the Board's March 2000 annual performance
report. We compared the Board's fiscal year 2001 performance plan against
GAO's guide for evaluating agency annual performance plans.27 We also met
with Board staff to discuss the Board's latest efforts to update its Results
Act planning documents.

In order to prepare a comparison of Board and BBC World Service operations,
we interviewed BBC officials in London and collected and analyzed relevant
documents including World Service strategic plans, marketing and audience
research information, and data relating to the BBC's performance management
system.

We conducted our review from December 1999 to August 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Comments From the Broadcasting Board of Governors

The following are GAO's comments on the Broadcasting Board of Governors'
letter dated September 13, 2000.

1. We agree that U.S. international broadcasters and the BBC World Service
have different roles. However, the fact that U.S. international broadcasters
have multiple and more complex missions does not obviate the value of
examining the BBC's operations relative to U.S. international broadcasting.
The Board acknowledges the value of tracking and evaluating the activities
of competitors by maintaining an on-line database to capture this
information. The database includes country-by-country audience data that
shows how U.S. international broadcasters are doing relative to other major
international broadcasters, with a particular focus on the BBC. The Board's
database also summarizes this information into seven regional groups to help
identify broader performance trends. For example, with regard to the 35
countries in Africa targeted by the Voice of America and the BBC, the
Board's database shows that the BBC has a higher audience share than the
Voice of America in 25 countries, the Voice of America has a higher audience
share in 8 countries, and the two organizations are tied for listeners in
two countries.

2. The number of language services shown in table 5 in appendix IV is
footnoted to indicate that 24 of the U.S. language services are duplicate
language services run by the Voice of America and surrogate broadcasters. We
revised the applicable table note to point out that many of the Board's
language services have been mandated by Congress.

3. We revised the table to show a total funding figure of $367 million for
U.S. international broadcasting. This figure was calculated by deducting $53
million in television production and transmission costs from a total U.S.
funding figure of $420 million for fiscal year 2000. We made this change to
reflect that the BBC funding figure does not include television costs.

4. We agree that simply dividing the number of total listeners by total
broadcast costs does not provide meaningful comparative information in the
absence of a more detailed understanding of why costs differ between the two
organizations. Explanatory factors might include the relative costs of
reaching different target audiences, different mixes of broadcast
technology, and the relative efficiency and effectiveness of each
organization. We revised the introduction to table 5 to emphasize that our
table is designed to provide summary data on U.S. and BBC broadcast
operations. We also incorporated the Board's concern that readers should
avoid making a cost-per-listener comparison between U.S. and BBC
international broadcasting.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Jess T. Ford (202) 512-4268
Lawrence L. Suda (202) 512-5380

In addition to those named above, Michael ten Kate, Wyley Neal,
Ernie Jackson, and Rona Mendelsohn made key contributions to this report.

(711468)

Table 1: The Board's Priority/Impact Matrix 14

Table 2: Overseas U.S. News-Gathering Organizations as of
July 2000 17

Table 3: Broadcasting Board of Governors' Performance Plan,
Fiscal Year 2001 19

Table 4: Criteria Supporting the Broadcasting Board of Governors' Language
Service Review 32

Table 5: U.S. International Broadcasting and BBC World Service Operations 35

Figure 1: U.S. International Broadcasting Organization Chart 7

Figure 2: U.S. Broadcast Entities' Worldwide Coverage 9

Figure 3: U.S. International Broadcasting Language Service
Overlap 15

Figure 4: Freedom House Survey of Press Freedom, 2000 28
  

1. We refer to these five organizations as "broadcast entities" throughout
this report.

2. This figure includes duplicate language services run by both the Voice of
America and other U.S. broadcasters. It also includes the Voice of America's
English language services.

3. The Board is composed of nine voting members. Eight members are appointed
by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for 3-year terms. The
ninth member is the Secretary of State. Throughout this report, we use the
term "the Board" to refer to actions taken by the Board and the broadcast
entities reporting to the Board.

4. Most U.S. broadcasts are delivered in the language of the target
audience. As a result, U.S. international broadcasting is organized around
language services that are sometimes duplicated across broadcast entities.

5. Worldnet has primarily been used for public diplomacy-related broadcasts,
and the Board has not commissioned audience share analyses.

6. The fiscal year 2000 budget for international broadcasting represents, in
inflation-adjusted terms, a reduction of approximately 33 percent since
fiscal year 1994 .

7. Freedom House is a bipartisan, nonprofit group that is partly funded by
the
U.S. government.

8. Congress created two additional surrogate services in 1998--Radio Free
Iraq and Radio Free Iran--which are funded and administered under the Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty grant.

9. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty pays a nominal rent of about $1 per
month.

10. See Report on RFE/RL, Inc. dated March 16, 1999, to the Chairman,
Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate.

11. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's fiscal year 2000 budget is
approximately $68 million.

12. The Polish service ceased broadcasting at the end of fiscal year 1997.

13. Other changes were made involving Voice of America transmission
operations, and the International Broadcasting Bureau later assumed
responsibility for managing Radio Free Asia's transmission needs. Radio/TV
Marti remains something of a special case because it receives separate
funding for its transmission operations. Specifically, Radio/TV Marti
operates its own AM transmission facilities in Marathon, Florida, and an
aerostat in Cudjoe Key, Florida, for television transmissions. Shortwave
transmissions, however, are provided by the International Broadcasting
Bureau from its transmission stations in Greenville, North Carolina, and
Delano, California.

14. Although the Board included Radio Free Asia in its review, these
language services were not part of the budget reallocation deliberations
because they are relatively new, and gathering requisite evaluation data is
difficult. However, the Board did note that as reliable data become
available, Radio Free Asia will figure equally in the review process.
Another exception in this review cycle includes the Voice of America's
Worldwide English service. The Board did assess the priority of the Voice of
America's English-language broadcasts, but, with the exception of Voice of
America English to Africa, did not undertake an in-depth review of Voice of
America worldwide English services.

15. See U.S. Information Agency: Options for Addressing Possible Budget
Reductions (GAO/NSIAD-96-179 , Sept. 23, 1996).

16. The Board excluded language services in cases where insufficient data
existed to judge language service impact.

17. U.S. Information Agency: Options for Addressing Possible Budget
Reductions.

18. We used GAO's performance plan evaluation guide to assess the Board's
annual performance plan. See The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to
Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20 , Apr. 1998).

19. Board and Radio Free Asia officials have noted that audience size is not
an adequate indicator for Radio Free Asia because Radio Free Asia is
relatively new and unknown, its signal is often jammed, and it is very
difficult to measure audience size in its target countries.

20. Research Memorandum: Voice of America's Global Audience, Office of
Research, International Broadcasting Bureau (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1999).

21. Program quality scores are also incorporated in the Board's annual
language service review and Results Act planning. Program quality is used in
the annual language service review to help assess why a particular language
is not attracting a desired audience size. Program quality is used as a
performance indicator in the Board's annual performance plan to establish
target program quality goals for the Voice of America, Radio/TV Marti, and
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

22. Radio Free Asia's program review and program quality review processes
are still evolving. However, these processes are trending toward adopting a
review model which is similar to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's.

23. Broadcasting into the Millennium: Transmission Strategies and Outlook
for the International Broadcasting Bureau, (International Broadcasting
Bureau, Aug. 1999).

24. Current developments in Internet broadcasting suggest that Internet
usage will expand from its present base of personal computers to handheld
devices such as cell phones and other Internet appliances. An International
Broadcasting Bureau team is investigating Internet content and transmission
schemes compatible with handheld devices, and Radio Free Asia and Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty are jointly experimenting with new Internet
technologies. These developments have significant implications for reaching
listeners who cannot afford their own personal computer.

25. 22 U.S.C. sect.6208(g).

26. Cuba Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-114).

27. The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual
Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20 , Apr. 1998).
*** End of document. ***