a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

July 2005 INDEPENDENT 

MEDIA 

DEVELOPMENT 

ABROAD

Challenges Exist in 

Implementing U.S. 

Efforts and Measuring 

Results

GAO-05-803
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-803.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at 

(202) 512-4268 or fordj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-803, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Foreign 

Relations, U.S. Senate 

 July 2005

INDEPENDENT MEDIA DEVELOPMENT 

ABROAD 

Challenges Exist in Implementing U.S. 

Efforts and Measuring Results 

The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development 

obligated at least $40 million in fiscal year 2004 for the development of 

independent media, including activities such as journalism and business 

management training and support for legal and regulatory frameworks. 

About 60 percent of the fiscal year 2004 USAID and State obligations we 

identified supported independent media development projects in Europe and 

Eurasia. However, precise funding levels are difficult to identify due to a 

lack of agencywide budget codes to track media development obligations, 

differing definitions of independent media development, and complex 

funding patterns. 

State and USAID face challenges in designing performance indicators and 

accurately measuring and reporting results directly tied to the performance 

of U.S. independent media efforts. The tools most frequently used by State 

and USAID as performance indicators—Freedom House’s Freedom of the 

Press survey and the IREX Media Sustainability Index—are useful for 

determining the status of the media in selected countries but are of limited 

utility in measuring the specific contributions of U.S.-sponsored programs 

and activities toward developing independent media in countries when used 

alone. 

Several country-specific and programmatic challenges can impede the 

implementation of media development efforts, including a changing political 

condition, sustainability of local media outlets, and coordination between 

donors and providers. Specifically, a country’s changing political condition 

or lack of adequate civic and legal institutions can create challenges for a 

mission to plan, implement, and measure the results of its efforts. The 

sustainability of program recipients can also impede the overall success of 

efforts or specific activities at the country level. In addition, when 

coordination of activities is unstructured or informal, redundancies and 

confusion of responsibilities can impact project implementation. 

U.S. Independent Media Development Journalism Training Program in Ukraine 

Source: GAO.

Independent media development 

led by the Department of State 

and the U.S. Agency for 

International Development 

(USAID) supports the national 

security goal of developing 

sustainable democracies around 

the world. Independent media 

institutions play a role in 

supporting commerce, improving 

public health efforts, reducing 

corruption, and providing civic 

education. According to the 

Freedom House’s Freedom of the 

Press 2005 survey, despite 

important gains in some 

countries, the overall level of 

press freedom worldwide 

continued to worsen in 2004. 

GAO was asked to examine (1) 

U.S. government funding for 

independent media development 

overseas; (2) the extent to which 

U.S. agencies measure 

performance toward achieving 

results; and (3) the challenges the 

United States faces in achieving 

results. 

The Department of State 

generally concurred with our 

report and USAID offered 

technical comments that were 

incorporated, as appropriate. In 

addition, State indicated that it 

plans to develop additional 

performance indicators and 

promote best practices in the 

future. 
Page i GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

U.S.-Sponsored Media Development Funding Levels Difficult to 

Determine 9

Independent Media Development Performance Measurement 

Efforts Complicated by a Variety of Factors 11

Country-Specific and Programmatic Factors Can Impact Media 

Development Efforts 19

Agency Comments 29

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 30

Appendix II: Select International Organizations or Donors That 

Implement Media Development Programs 34

Appendix III: State Department and USAID Goals Related to Independent 

Media 35

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State 40

Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 

Development 42

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff and Acknowledgments 43

Tables Table 1: Bureaus or Offices at State and USAID and Select U.S. 

NGOs and Their Roles in Independent Media 

Development 6

Table 2: U.S. Independent Media Development Priorities for Select 

Countries 12

Table 3: Performance Objectives and Indicators Related to USAID 

Independent Media Development Efforts from Select 

Performance Monitoring Plans 15

Table 4: USAID Definition and Media Approach for Each Political 

Society 20

Table 5: Goals Related to Select Independent Media Development 

Programs from Current State Mission Performance

Plans 35

Table 6: Objectives for Select Independent Media Development 

Programs from Current USAID Country Strategies 38
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Figure Figure 1: U.S.-Sponsored Independent Media Development 

Projects and Activities in Ukraine 27
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Abbreviations

BBG Broadcasting Board of Governors

DCHA Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance

DG Office of Democracy and Governance

DRL Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

E&E Bureau for Europe and Eurasia

ECA Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

EUR/ACE Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and 

Eurasia

FSA Freedom Support Act

ICFJ International Center for Journalists

IIP Bureau of International Information Programs

IP implementing partner

IREX International Research and Exchanges Board

MDF Media Development Fund

MEPI Middle East Partnership Initiative

MSI Media Sustainability Index

NED National Endowment for Democracy

NGO nongovernmental organization

OMFU Open Media Fund for Ukraine

OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

OTI Office of Transition Initiatives

RAK Bosnian Communications Regulatory Agency

SEED Support for East European Democracy Act of 1989 

State U.S. Department of State

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

July 29, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar

Chairman 

Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman:

U.S.-sponsored independent media development efforts support the 

national security goal of developing sustainable democracies around the 

world, while complementing U.S. public diplomacy efforts by encouraging 

the development of sustainable media outlets with responsible and 

professional reporting standards and editorial practices. Independent 

media development projects include such activities as direct financial 

assistance to media outlets, journalism and business management training, 

and support for developing the legal and regulatory frameworks necessary 

for a free and open press. Beyond serving as a source of information, 

independent media institutions can play a role in supporting commerce, 

improving the effectiveness of public health efforts, reducing corruption, 

improving citizen access to information, and providing civic education.1

However, despite important gains in some countries, like Ukraine, the 

overall level of press freedom worldwide continued to worsen in 2004, 

continuing a 3-year decline.2

 The declining level of press freedom has been 

illustrated, for example, by cases of journalists being censored, tortured, 

imprisoned, and murdered in response to published news reports about 

their government. 

The Department of State (State) and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) are primarily responsible for U.S. government 

media development funding and activities. At your request, this report 

examines: (1) U.S. government funding for independent media 

development overseas, (2) the extent to which U.S. agencies measure 

performance toward achieving results, and (3) the challenges the United 

States faces in achieving results. 

1

World Bank, World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets (New 

York: Oxford University Press, 2002). 

2

As measured by Freedom House’s global average score from the Freedom of the Press 2005 

survey.
Page 2 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed documentation and spoke with 

officials from State, USAID, and their primary partners, including the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG),3

 National Endowment for 

Democracy (NED), International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), 

Internews, Eurasia Foundation, International Center for Journalists, and 

The Asia Foundation.4

 In addition to audit work performed in the United 

States, we traveled to and reviewed documentation on U.S.-sponsored 

independent media development projects in Croatia, Ukraine, and 

Indonesia. We also sent questions to posts in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, 

Georgia, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, and Mali. Our analysis of key challenges 

included a review of several recent studies covering independent media 

development. Appendix I provides a more detailed description of our scope 

and methodology. We conducted our evaluation in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards from June 2004 to July 

2005.

Results in Brief State and USAID together obligated at least $40 million in fiscal year 2004 

for the development of independent media, with USAID providing the 

largest share. The majority—about 60 percent—of the fiscal year 2004 

USAID and State obligations we identified supported independent media 

development projects in Europe and Eurasia. Precise funding levels for 

independent media development activities in countries overseas are 

difficult to identify due to a lack of agencywide budget codes to track 

media development obligations, differing definitions of independent media 

development, and complex funding patterns. 

State and USAID have a variety of independent media development efforts 

under way; however, in some cases, they face challenges in designating 

performance indicators and in accurately measuring and reporting results 

directly tied to the performance of U.S. efforts. State supports media 

efforts under the broader context of public diplomacy or democracy 

building and has not widely established specific independent media 

development performance indicators for overseas missions or for specific 

media projects or activities at posts we reviewed; anecdotal examples, 

3

Due to its limited efforts, we did not examine the BBG’s media development programs. 

4

Department of Defense media activities, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, were not 

included in the scope of our work, as its primary focus for independent media is 

psychological operations and postconflict media reconstruction.
Page 3 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

rather than quantifiable measures, are frequently used to demonstrate 

success. USAID more frequently established performance measures for its 

missions and individual media development projects. Examples of 

performance indicators used for USAID missions we visited and reviewed 

included the audience share of media outlets, the sustainability of those 

outlets, the number of journalists trained, and the quality of programming 

developed. We also found that the tools most widely used by State and 

USAID as performance indicators—Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press 

survey and the IREX Media Sustainability Index—are useful for measuring 

the state of the media in countries but they are of limited utility in 

measuring the specific contributions of U.S.-sponsored projects toward 

developing independent media in countries when used alone. 

Several country-specific and programmatic challenges can impede the 

implementation of media development efforts. Foremost, a nation’s 

changing political condition or lack of adequate civic and legal institutions 

can impact a mission’s ability to plan and implement its media activities 

and measure the results of its efforts. The sustainability of project 

recipients can also impede the overall success of projects or specific 

activities at the country level. For example, in Croatia, a U.S.-sponsored 

national television network, which linked several local stations’ news 

programs together to compete with the state media’s nationwide 

newscasts, is struggling to survive in part because the network did not 

develop the advertising revenue and profit-sharing structures necessary to 

sustain it. In addition, when coordination of activities is unstructured or 

informal, redundancies and confusion can impact efforts. For example, due 

to a lack of coordination between various agency officials in Washington, 

D.C., and in Indonesia, two nongovernmental organizations (NGO), one 

funded by State and the other by USAID, each received funds to rebuild 

some of the same radio stations destroyed during the recent Indian Ocean 

tsunami. While USAID has taken actions to improve coordination, funding 

for regional conferences and program evaluations is limited.

Background The United States has, for many years, funded various agencies’ 

educational, visitor, and democracy-assistance programs that promote 

democratic ideals, including freedom of the press. Although considered a 

fundamental human right by many, freedom of the press remains unrealized 

in many parts of the world, particularly in countries governed by repressive 

regimes. Journalists continue to be censored, tortured, imprisoned, and 

murdered for publishing articles or broadcasting information about their 

government. Media assistance emerged as a significant aspect of 
Page 4 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

development work in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly following the end of 

the Cold War and the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. Media 

development aid has evolved from relatively modest activities with minor 

donations of equipment and training tours for journalists to, in some cases, 

long-term, multifaceted projects with millions of dollars invested over the 

life of the project. 

Independent media development efforts are not clearly defined, but are 

commonly understood to include activities such as

• training5

 or educating local or indigenous reporters and editors on 

subjects such as media ethics, professionalism, accountability, 

investigative journalism, media business management and marketing, 

strategies for transforming state broadcasters into public service 

networks, and legal defense or legal regulatory issues;

• developing media or press centers;

• developing journalism schools and curriculum;

• ensuring the financial sustainability and independence of media outlets, 

through loan programs, advertising development, grants for 

commodities, and other means;

• supplying equipment or helping to build infrastructure needed to ensure 

media independence, including technical capacity;

• developing professional journalist, publisher, or broadcast associations;

• developing networks of independent media, such as sharing 

arrangements, which link production, distribution, and management of 

material; 

• supporting the establishment of legal and regulatory frameworks and 

advocacy groups that protect freedom of the press;

• promoting an understanding of professional media practices and the 

role of free and independent media in society; and

5

Includes activities such as in-country training, third-country training, long-term study, 

training of trainers, and in-country residencies by expatriate experts.
Page 5 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

• engaging diplomatically to advance the development of press freedoms 

or media-related institutions, laws, and regulatory frameworks.

A Number of Agencies and 

Organizations Implement or 

Fund a Range of Media 

Development Efforts 

The Department of State and USAID are primarily responsible for funding 

and overseeing U.S. media development projects and activities. State and 

USAID do not have separate global or agency-specific independent media 

development strategies and goals; rather, State and USAID often consider 

independent media development part of broader agency goals. State’s 

independent media development efforts are generally used as tools within 

broader public diplomacy and democracy building efforts.6

 USAID’s 

independent media development efforts are generally designed to promote 

the development of civil society and increase citizen access to information. 

A commonly agreed upon definition of independent media development 

programs does not exist among State, USAID, and other donors. Rather, a 

variety of U.S. projects and activities support independent media in various 

countries overseas through individual contracts, grants, or cooperative 

agreements with NGO partners, or through other established U.S. 

programs, such as exchange programs administered by embassy public 

affairs sections. In addition, donors frequently use different approaches for 

developing independent media. For example, State offers training 

opportunities to a select number of individuals in the media sector or offers 

small grants to organizations for media development. NED provides small, 

short-term grants to media or advocacy organizations in many countries. In 

contrast, USAID has developed a more comprehensive, multiyear, 

multiproject approach to developing independent media in many countries 

that addresses the training and education of journalists, financial 

sustainability of local organizations, and development of the supporting 

legal and regulatory frameworks. 

Five primary U.S. nongovernmental organizations—IREX, Internews, the 

International Center for Journalists, Eurasia Foundation, and The Asia 

Foundation—assist U.S. donors by implementing media development 

projects and offering funding or programmatic activities to local media 

6

One senior State official told us there is currently no separate interagency strategy guiding 

U.S. democracy assistance programs. Moreover, as identified in our recent GAO report on 

public diplomacy, no U.S. strategic communications strategy currently exists to guide 

agency public diplomacy efforts. See GAO, Interagency Coordination Efforts Hampered by 

the Lack of a National Communication Strategy, GAO-05-323 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4, 

2005).
Page 6 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

organizations. In addition, due to political sensitivities in the region, USAID 

has awarded contracts to private organizations for media development 

projects in the Middle East. Examples of possible independent media 

development recipients include media outlets, media organizations, and 

local nongovernmental organizations; professional associations; journalism 

schools or universities; and policymakers. In addition, there are several 

international organizations that support media development. (See app. II). 

See table 1 for a description of the roles of each bureau or office at State 

and USAID and select U.S. NGOs in independent media development. 

Table 1: Bureaus or Offices at State and USAID and Select U.S. NGOs and Their Roles in Independent Media Development

Donor Department of State Roles

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 

(DRL)

Funds and administers projects that develop 

legal and regulatory frameworks in support of 

free and independent media in countries with a 

history of government-run media. Provides a 

number of democracy-building grants for specific 

media development activities or to support 

specific media outlets.

Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to 

Europe and Eurasia (EUR/ACE)

Provides funding and oversight for Freedom 

Support Act (FSA) and Support for East 

European Democracy (SEED) funds allocated to 

embassy’s public affairs sections and USAID for 

journalism training and other media 

development activities. 

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) Funds, oversees, and administers select grants 

for programs that foster mutual understanding 

between the United States and other countries, 

including international educational and citizen 

exchange media development efforts that 

promote personal, professional, and institutional 

ties between private citizens and organizations 

in the United States and abroad. 

Bureau of International Information Programs 

(IIP)

Funds, oversees, and provides select support to 

Speaker/Specialist and Professional-inResidence programs, which develop 

international understanding of professional 

media practices in democratic societies, as well 

as of the importance of press freedom and of 

developing knowledge of media-related 

institutions, laws, and regulatory frameworks. 
Page 7 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) Supports efforts to promote free uncensored 

press in the Middle East by funding, overseeing, 

and administering grants for projects that 

improve the quality of reporting, train journalists, 

and support the growth of independent selfregulating sectors of media sustainability. 

U.S. embassy public affairs sections Responsible for coordinating, overseeing, and 

administering select grants for State’s 

independent media efforts at U.S. missions 

overseas. Efforts, including academic and citizen 

exchange programs, speakers programs, 

international visitors programs, and book 

translations, are designed to improve the 

professionalism of the media, while at the same 

time increasing mutual understanding among 

citizens. 

Regional bureaus Oversee U.S. embassy public affairs sections’ 

media efforts in each region, including the 

Middle East Partnership Initiative media 

activities. 

USAID

Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and 

Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA)

Manages programs in fragile states by 

strengthening democratic systems, 

nongovernmental organizations, and other 

elements of civil society. Both the Office of 

Democracy and Governance and the Office of 

Transition Initiatives oversee media development 

projects. 

• Office of Democracy and Governance (DG) Coordinates and administers grants for longterm independent media development efforts 

overseas and works to strengthen commitment 

to an independent and politically active civil 

society in developing countries. The range of 

groups receiving USAID Democracy and 

Governance assistance includes coalitions of 

professional associations, civic education 

groups, women's rights organizations, business 

and labor federations, media groups, bar 

associations, environmental activist groups, and 

human rights monitoring organizations. 

• Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) Primarily responsible for coordinating and 

administering grants for USAID short-term 

media development efforts. Designed to provide 

fast, flexible assistance in response to rapidly 

changing conditions on the ground, such as in 

postconflict situations.

Bureau for Europe and Eurasia (E&E) Oversees and coordinates USAID independent 

media development country efforts and 

administers grants for regional media projects in 

Europe and Eurasia.

(Continued From Previous Page)
Page 8 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Sources: State, USAID, and U.S. NGOs.

USAID Overseas Missions Funds and administers comprehensive or 

targeted independent media development efforts 

at the country level with program design and 

technical support provided by various USAID 

bureaus. 

NED

National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Funds and oversees in-country subgrants that 

promote freedom of information, human rights, 

electronic communication, nontraditional 

communication, media monitoring, and media 

law reform through local, grassroots 

organizations.

Providers U.S. nongovernmental organizations Roles

Eurasia Foundation Funds and oversees subgrants and provides 

technical assistance to grassroots organizations 

that promote civil society, including media 

development in 12 countries of the former Soviet 

Union.

Internews Supports open media worldwide by 

implementing State and USAID grants and 

cooperative agreements to foster independent 

media in emerging democracies and training 

journalists and station managers in the 

standards and practices of professional 

journalism. 

International Research and Exchanges Board 

(IREX)

Implement State and USAID grants and 

cooperative agreements that focus on (1) 

professionalism in reporting or journalism 

training, (2) democratic media legislation, (3) 

support for local media associations, and (4) 

media business management for sustainability. 

International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) Provides global training programs and resources 

for journalists with 30 percent USAID funding 

and 70 percent private donor funding. ICFJ’s 

workshops cover reporting, editing, production, 

ethics, and business management. 

The Asia Foundation Supports the development of an open AsiaPacific region by providing funding to local 

organizations for programs that help improve 

governance and law, economic reform and 

development, and international relations. 

Provides subgrants to directly assist media in 

areas such as management training, regulatory 

analysis, equipment supply, media ethics, direct 

technical assistance, media law and regulatory 

reform, and networking.

(Continued From Previous Page)
Page 9 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

U.S.-Sponsored Media 

Development Funding 

Levels Difficult to 

Determine 

Our analysis of available documents revealed that together, State and 

USAID obligated at least $40 million in fiscal year 2004 to support a number 

of independent media development efforts. According to State, it obligated 

approximately $14 million for media development projects for fiscal year 

2004.7

 State also transferred more than $700,000 to the BBG8 for fiscal year 

2004 independent media development obligations. USAID was not able to 

provide global budget obligations figures for its 2004 support of 

independent media. However, we calculated that USAID obligated at least 

$25.6 million in fiscal year 2004.9

 USAID’s largest independent media 

contractors—Internews and IREX— received fiscal year 2004 obligations 

of $14.1 million and $11.3 million, respectively. In addition, the Asia 

Foundation identified that it received $175,000 in fiscal year 2004 

obligations provided by USAID. Although we were not able to confirm 

these figures, USAID officials told us that they obligated an average of $33 

million per year for independent media development efforts since 1991 in 

amounts ranging from approximately $13 million in fiscal year 1992 to $61 

million in fiscal year 1999.

We found that the largest portion of the State and USAID fiscal year 2004 

obligations for independent media development—about 60 percent of all 

the agency obligations we could identify—funded efforts in Europe and 

Eurasia. The Middle East, which has the lowest level of press freedom, 

according to Freedom House’s 2005 Press Freedom survey, received only 

about 2 percent of the total fiscal year 2004 obligations we could identify. 

Agency officials said that the larger funding levels for Europe and Eurasia 

are attributable to the democracy assistance funding provided through the 

Freedom Support Act and the Support for East European Democracy Act 

7

State department officials provided us these figures directly after requesting information 

from relevant bureaus and posts regarding their 2004 obligations for independent media. 

8

The BBG has an interagency agreement with USAID through which it receives an 

interagency transfer from State’s Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and 

Eurasia to support a limited number of media training programs.

9

We were not able to compile global fiscal year 2004 obligations using initial budget records 

USAID provided because we determined that they were not sufficiently reliable due to 

insufficient or inconsistent media activity coding and lack of updated global data for the 

fiscal year. We subsequently obtained documentation or records on fiscal year 2004 

obligations made by USAID from the main NGO providers that receive independent media 

development grants from USAID headquarters, including the International Center for 

Journalists, IREX, The Asia Foundation, and Internews. For more information on how these 

figures were developed and data limitations, see appendix I.
Page 10 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

of 198910 and the high priority given to independent media development 

projects by the Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and 

Eurasia. According to State officials, independent media development 

funding levels for the Middle East are expected to increase in the future 

due to an expansion of efforts through the Middle East Partnership 

Initiative. In addition, USAID officials said they expect that USAID will 

provide up to four times the amount of media development funding to 

individual countries in the Middle East in the near future—with the U.S. 

Mission in Egypt already in the process of launching a $15 million media 

project. Officials at one mission in Central Europe expressed concern that 

such a funding shift could be detrimental to the ultimate success of media 

development efforts in European countries that have fragile and changing 

media environments.

Due to a variety of factors, it is difficult to accurately determine U.S. 

funding obligations for independent media development efforts. USAID 

media development funding is difficult to track globally over time because 

the agency has not implemented consistent agencywide budget codes to 

document its obligations for cooperative agreements, grants, and contracts 

for independent media projects and activities.11 Rather, USAID’s financial 

systems are designed to collect obligation information at the higher 

strategic objective level, where, we were told by USAID officials, there are 

inconsistencies in coding independent media activities because definitions 

for budget codes and strategic objectives have changed over the years. 

However, USAID officials told us they are currently in the process of 

developing systems to better track agencywide obligations data for 

individual program components under each strategic objective, including 

for independent media development efforts. State Department funding is 

also difficult to track because State does not keep systematic records or 

budget codes of its obligations at the level of independent media 

development activities and posts consider varying activities to embody 

independent media development. Finally, complex donor funding 

arrangements, including in some cases multiple project implementers and 

subgrantees, can obscure funding relationships and make it difficult to 

10See Public Law 102-511 and Public Law 101-179, respectively.

11USAID officials told us that individual missions currently track spending for various 

program components, including media development; however, because independent media 

projects can often be defined differently or be intermixed within broader civil society 

projects, all missions may not be recording media spending in the same manner.
Page 11 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

accurately determine the overall level of U.S. financial support, as well as 

the number of specific efforts provided in individual countries. 

Independent Media 

Development 

Performance 

Measurement Efforts 

Complicated by a 

Variety of Factors

State and USAID have a variety of independent media development efforts 

under way. State has not widely established specific independent media 

development performance indicators for the overseas missions we 

reviewed or for specific media projects or activities sponsored by its 

embassy public affairs sections. USAID frequently established specific 

independent media development performance indicators for its missions 

and for specific independent media development projects we reviewed. 

Both agencies commonly used the IREX Media Sustainability Index (MSI) 

and Freedom House’s Press Freedom surveys to measure performance— 

where indicators were established; however, our analysis found these 

indexes to be of limited utility in measuring the contributions of specific 

media activities, or the efforts of entire missions toward developing 

independent media in particular countries, when used alone. 

State and USAID Sponsor a 

Number of Media Efforts

State and USAID support a wide range of media projects and activities, 

from training journalists to supporting media law reform. In the countries 

we visited—Croatia, Ukraine, and Indonesia—we spoke with several 

individuals who said that they had benefited from U.S. government media 

support. For example, we met with members of a consortium of five local 

NGOs advocating passage of Indonesia’s Freedom of Information Act and 

working with the Parliament to get it placed on the agenda. In Croatia, we 

visited a U.S.-funded national association of journalists whose mission is to 

raise the professional standards of its 2,000 members. In Ukraine, we met 

with individuals of a U.S.-sponsored organization that has provided 220 

training programs, in subjects ranging from technical production to media 

management, to over 2,800 media professionals. We also spoke with a 

number of journalists in all three countries who had visited television, 

radio, and newspaper operations throughout the United States as part of 

embassy exchange programs. See table 2 for a description of current U.S. 

independent media development efforts and priorities in countries we 

selected for in-depth analysis.
Page 12 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Table 2: U.S. Independent Media Development Priorities for Select Countries

Source: State Department.

Case study country Independent media development priorities

Croatia Promote independent media through exchange and training programs to expose Croatian journalists and 

editors to U.S. practices.

Ukraine Employ bilateral engagements, including sustained high-level demarches, in support of a free press, 

access to information, and journalists’ rights to freely exercise their profession; coordinate with the EU 

and G-7 and other key countries, donors, and institutions on matters including assistance and policy; 

support grassroots media initiatives such as expansion of Internet access by regional media, substantive 

newspaper supplements, and TV documentaries through embassy, USAID, NGO, and foundation 

projects; provide technical assistance for projects that strengthen independent media and increase the 

availability of quality news, journalist advocacy, financial viability, and managerial capacity of independent 

media; finance legal assistance for journalists and media outlets; improve the legal and regulatory 

frameworks for media, including access to information, laws protecting free speech, and fair professional 

practices for media; foster the growth of NGOs that promote media freedom.

Bosnia-Herzegovina Assist viable private sector broadcast and print media to provide a broad range of objective programming; 

provide technical assistance and political support to Bosnian Communications Regulatory Agency (RAK), 

Press Council, Association of Electronic Media, journalist associations, and media training providers; 

support domestic production.

Kyrgyzstan Work with government officials to press for reform of media and libel laws and to reduce pressure against 

independent media; support independent media through programs to provide independent printing 

facilities, legal counsel, institutional support to journalists’ associations, and training in new media 

technology; support journalists’ professional associations and their capacity to monitor and document 

press freedom infringements and advocate on these issues with the government; monitor violations of 

press freedom and report on policy and trends affecting media; teach objective journalism and 

management skills to increase media outlets’ professional and economic viability; support programs that 

encourage political dialogue and debate, such as discussion clubs and TV/radio talk shows, and ensure 

that remote areas also have access to such programs; increase the accessibility to diverse forms of 

information about political, economic, and social issues for all citizens throughout the country; support 

spread of Internet access throughout the country.

Haiti Strengthen the independent press; strengthen media independence and community radio networks; 

increase citizen awareness of their rights and responsibilities to the extent that citizens apply this 

knowledge in everyday experiences; strengthen journalists’ ability to report on issues related to 

democratic development and to advocate for greater freedom of the press. 

Georgia Foster the development of an increasingly vibrant civil society; assist in building a vibrant and diverse civil 

society, including political parties, independent and responsible media, and constituency-based NGO 

coalitions, to advocate for reforms in Georgia and to partner with the new government in carrying out key 

reforms; increase journalistic professionalism through U.S. and locally based assistance for print and 

broadcast media.

Egypt Initiate new projects to support journalism training on free, fair, and accurate reporting through both 

classroom work and internships with U.S. news media.

Indonesia Professionalize media through exchange and training programs; U.S. Fulbright lecturers, students and 

researchers outreach on the topic of free and responsible media; provide Small Democracy Grants to 

bolster free and independent media.
Page 13 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Performance Indicators for 

State’s Independent Media 

Development Efforts Not 

Widely Established

While State’s independent media activities conducted at overseas missions 

support U.S. objectives in these countries, performance indicators were 

not widely established for the activities, making it difficult for State to 

accurately measure and report their value. At four of the nine countries we 

reviewed, State had developed some media-related performance indicators 

to measure the overall results of the missions’ independent media 

development efforts. For instance, for Kyrgyzstan, State currently 

measures the results of the embassy’s efforts in developing independent 

media and improving the availability of political information in several 

ways, including by surveying whether editors and journalists that receive 

support become more skilled in reporting and editing political news. 

However, aside from counting the number of participants, specific 

performance indicators for individual embassy-sponsored independent 

media projects or activities were not widely established in the cases we 

reviewed. For example, embassy officials in Croatia said there were no 

measurable performance indicators tracked for their journalism exchanges 

and other media-related public diplomacy efforts.

Several State Department officials told us that posts rely heavily on their 

knowledge of the activities and anecdotal reports of accomplishments to 

evaluate performance. In some instances, embassy public affairs sections 

submit reporting cables to State Department bureaus and offices or enter 

descriptions of media projects or activities and anecdotal information into 

a database managed by the Bureau of International Information Programs. 

State’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) bureau has, in some 

cases, used quantifiable indicators, including the number of local radio 

stations that broadcast sponsored programs or the number of articles 

written as a result of journalist training seminars, to measure the 

performance of independent media projects related to democracy 

assistance, in addition to gathering descriptive or anecdotal information on 

accomplishments.

State officials told us that embassies are more likely to develop 

independent media-specific performance indicators for evaluating results 

when independent media is a priority at the post and specific performance 

goals are set in mission-planning documents.12 For example, the current 

12Media development efforts are frequently designated by the mission as a tactic or strategy 

for accomplishing broader performance goals related to Democracy and Human Rights or 

Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. See table 6 in appendix III for related goals and 

strategies for our case study countries.
Page 14 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

mission plan for Kyrgyzstan includes a stated goal of helping to build 

independent media that reports objectively and freely. Officials also said 

that posts are not currently required to develop specific indicators for 

individual public diplomacy projects and activities; however, a requirement 

for the establishment of such measures is currently being considered. 

Additionally, officials in State’s Middle East Partnership Initiative office 

told us the office plans to develop measures for the effectiveness of its new 

media assistance project in the Middle East, but could not provide details 

because the initiative is still being designed. State officials we spoke with 

told us it is difficult to develop performance indicators with limited staff 

and funding, as well as the inherent difficulties in determining when and 

how results will occur for public diplomacy-related efforts. 

USAID Performance 

Indicators for Independent 

Media Development Efforts 

Frequently Established

In the cases we reviewed, USAID performance indicators for independent 

media efforts were frequently established at the country or USAID mission 

level and for individual projects. For example, six of the nine USAID 

missions we reviewed established performance indicators in their current 

planning documents for their missions’ independent media performance 

objectives. In addition, all missions we obtained documentation from had 

established performance indicators for country-specific projects.13 USAID 

officials told us that the establishment of specific independent media 

performance objectives is left to the discretion of the local USAID mission 

and that some missions with active independent media development 

projects or activities may not choose to designate media-related 

performance objectives based on their relative priorities, or they may view 

media development as a crosscutting issue or as a tool for accomplishing 

other specific objectives.14 See table 3 for a list of the objectives and 

performance indicators for USAID missions in the countries we reviewed. 

13Seven of the nine USAID missions provided us with documentation on performance 

indicators for specific independent media projects; we did not obtain relevant 

documentation from the USAID missions in Egypt and Mali.

14If performance objectives (referred to as strategic objectives or intermediate results by 

USAID) are established, USAID missions are required to establish performance indicators 

for those goals.
Page 15 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Table 3: Performance Objectives and Indicators Related to USAID Independent Media Development Efforts from Select 

Performance Monitoring Plans

Country Performance objective Mission performance indicators

Ukraine Availability of quality information increased • Media sustainability index (MSI)

• Quantity of information produced by partner regional outlets (print 

and broadcast)

• Quality of information produced by partner regional outlets (print 

and broadcast)

Croatia Sustainable and balanced commercial media • An increased rating for Croatia on the overall average for media 

sustainability (MSI)

• Freedom House’s Press Freedom survey score 

• An increased rating for Croatia on the MSI, attribute 3: Multiple 

news sources provide citizens with reliable and objective news

Journalists’ professional standards improved • An increased rating for Croatia on the MSI, attribute 2: Journalism 

meets professional standards of quality

Management and business capacity of media 

organizations strengthened

• An increased rating for Croatia on the MSI attribute 4: Independent 

media are well-managed businesses, allowing editorial 

independence

BosniaHerzegovinaViable private-sector broadcast and print media 

provide broad range of objective programming 

• Number of people who buy independent news publications

• Audience share of independent broadcast media

Kyrgyzstan Increased availability of information on civic 

rights and domestic public issues

• MSI

Increased news programming • Average daily minutes of nonstate electronic media local news 

programming

Improved financial management systems in 

targeted media entities

• Technical quality of local nongovernmental broadcast news

• Quality of independent broadcast management.

Georgia Alternative media represents citizen concerns 

on key issues

• Percentage of citizens who respond that the media fairly represent 

the views of all citizens

• Percentage of stories/articles by USAID-assisted media outlets 

representing two or more viewpoints

Mali Increase pubic access to quality development 

information in targeted areas 

• Percentage of Malians having access to at least one local radio 

station

• Internet access costs

Regulatory and policy environment responsive 

to public interest

• Appropriation of Internet management by a neutral institution

• Internet access costs reduced

• Mean time to obtain radio licenses reduced

Policies and procedures proposed for adoption • Internet regulatory policies proposed

• Radio licensing procedures proposed

Improved quality of development information • Percentage of radio broadcasts that employ appropriate 

communication techniques

Enhanced institutional capacity to produce 

development information

• Number of information content producers trained 

• Percentage of radio stations in targeted areas having trained staff in 

program production

Haiti Civil society organizations positively influence 

policies

• (No specific media indicators identified in mission performance 

monitoring plan)
Page 16 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Source: USAID.

a

Indicates USAID intermediate results, subintermediate results, or lower-level results categories.

State and USAID Missions 

Use Broad Indexes of 

Country Press Freedom 

That Cannot Measure 

Performance of U.S. Efforts

In the cases we reviewed, State and USAID often selected media indexes, 

such as the Media Sustainability Index (MSI) and Freedom House’s Press 

Freedom survey, to measure the results of their independent media 

development efforts. The MSI and the Press Freedom survey assess the 

freedom of media in a country; however, when used alone as performance 

indicators, media indexes are of limited utility in measuring the specific 

contributions of specific activities or combined U.S. efforts toward 

developing independent media in particular countries. 

State and USAID Rely Frequently 

on Media Indexes to Measure 

Performance

State and USAID commonly use media indexes to measure the 

performance of independent media efforts. In cases we reviewed where 

State had specifically defined performance indicators for its independent 

media development efforts, Freedom House’s Press Freedom survey and 

MSI were frequently used by the mission for measuring results. In the cases 

we reviewed, all four State missions that designated performance 

indicators relied on media indexes to measure the performance of their 

efforts.15 For example, the U.S. Mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina designated 

the MSI as its primary performance indicator for its independent media 

efforts. USAID missions we reviewed also frequently used the MSI and the 

Press Freedom survey as measures of performance. Of six USAID missions 

that established indicators for their performance goals, three used the 

media indexes as performance indicators. Some missions, including the 

USAID Missions to Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, used the MSI along with other 

measures they had created to measure the accomplishment of performance

Indonesia (Strengthening independent media is a crosscutting objective, crossing all mission 

performance objectives)

• (No specific media indicators identified in mission performance 

monitoring plan)

Egypt Establish and ensure media freedom and 

freedom of information

• (Under development)

(Continued From Previous Page)

Country Performance objective Mission performance indicators

15Media-specific indicators were established in current planning documents for the U.S. 

missions to Ukraine, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia. In addition to the MSI 

and Freedom House Press Freedom Survey, Freedom House’s Nations in Transit 

Independent Media Survey scores were used.
Page 17 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

objectives.16 However, the USAID Mission to Croatia used the media 

indexes alone to measure performance objectives related to independent 

media development. In addition, the only performance indicators 

established for the USAID media project in Croatia were the four broad 

MSI components, including “journalists professional standards improved in 

Croatia” and “multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable and 

objective news.” USAID officials told us that the MSI index is generally 

promoted and used as an independent media development performance 

indicator in Europe and Eurasia and that it is generally used in 

coordination with more specific indicators of activities to determine 

program performance. 

Broad Indicators Assess Media 

Freedom, Not Necessarily a 

Measure of U.S. Efforts

Media indexes used alone are of limited use for determining the 

performance of U.S. independent media development programs. 

Commonly used media indexes—such as the Press Freedom Survey and 

MSI in particular—cannot pinpoint the effects of U.S. government 

programs, and are general indicators rather than precise measures. These 

indexes use reasonably consistent methodologies to measure broad 

concepts such as press freedom and media sustainability. However, 

because the indexes focus on broad concepts that are affected by a wide 

variety of social, political, and economic factors, they have limited utility 

for purposes of identifying the effects of particular U.S. media development 

programs. The indexes do provide general measures of trends and allow for 

some cross-country comparisons. However, IREX has only been collecting 

data on the MSI for 3 years, which makes it impossible to evaluate longer 

term trends and establish baselines for efforts that began before 2001. 

Another concern is the time lag in the data of 1 year from scoring to 

publication.

Freedom House and IREX officials told us that the Press Freedom survey 

and MSI were not designed to measure the performance of U.S. media 

development programs. According to a senior Freedom House official, the 

Press Freedom survey was initially intended to inform debate and 

discussion about the state of media development in particular countries, 

and potentially could be used to prod particular countries to liberalize their 

16The USAID mission to Ukraine has hired a special marketing consultant to develop 

specific indicators of performance, including measures of the quality and quantity of news 

and information produced by partner media outlets, consumer satisfaction with partner 

media outlets, financial viability of partner outlets, and awareness of legal rights and 

responsibilities of journalists and media owners. Funds were set aside in the cooperative 

agreement for the development of such data.
Page 18 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

media. Freedom House’s Press Freedom survey has been used to assess the 

freedom of the media in more than 100 nations since 1981. The Press 

Freedom survey evaluates countries’ legal, political, and economic 

environments, scoring between 8 and 12 subcategories. According to IREX 

officials, the MSI was designed, with the support of USAID, to be used for 

making prioritized decisions on funding. IREX’s Media Sustainability Index 

has assessed the sustainability of independent media in about 20 countries 

in Europe and Eurasia since 2001.17 The MSI measures five objectives—free 

speech, professional journalism, plurality of news sources, business 

management, and supporting institutions—each of which includes between 

7 and 9 subcategories. Freedom House and IREX officials both stated that 

use of the indexes for anything other than what they were designed for 

imply an unwarranted precision to their measures. 

Some State and USAID officials indicated that they do not think media 

indexes alone are comprehensive indicators for measuring mission or 

project performance and supported the development of additional 

measures in some cases. However, they also told us that it is difficult to 

develop their own independent media development performance indicators 

for several reasons. In addition to funding constraints, agencies noted that 

there are also difficulties separating media efforts from broader goals and 

determining when and how results will occur for democracy-related or 

public diplomacy programs.18 Some USAID officials in the field noted that 

USAID officials in Washington, D.C., supported using the MSI as a primary 

performance indicator and some USAID officials noted they viewed using 

the MSI as a cost-effective means to provide a common indicator to 

measure and compare the results of efforts in Europe and Eurasia.

17Countries or territories assessed in the MSI include Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, 

Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, 

Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and 

Uzbekistan.

18State provided a list of some suggested measures for missions, including using the 

following as indicators when relevant independent media development goals are 

established: opposition parties have access to state-run media, independent media outlets 

are established, and mechanisms are established to provide citizens with information to 

make objective decisions about political and social choices. 
Page 19 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Country-Specific and 

Programmatic Factors 

Can Impact Media 

Development Efforts

In all the cases we reviewed, countries faced changing political conditions 

or deficiencies in the legal, regulatory, or professional environments, which 

created challenges for planning and implementing independent media 

development efforts. In some cases, programmatic factors, such as 

unsustainable local partner organizations or lack of coordination at 

overseas missions, affected overall U.S. efforts or specific projects or 

activities in a country. The following media development challenges 

represent a sample of those frequently mentioned during our review. 

Country-Specific Factors, 

Such as a Changing Political 

Society or Inadequate Legal, 

Regulatory and Professional 

Environments, Can Impact 

Media Development Efforts

A country’s political conditions can impact efforts to plan and implement 

independent media development projects and activities. In January 2004, 

USAID surveyed its independent media development efforts, as well as 

those supported by other donors, and determined that different 

programmatic approaches are required for five different types of political 

societies, which USAID classified as: (1) closed, (2) 

semidemocratic/developing, (3) war-torn, (4) postconflict, and (5) 

transition. For semidemocratic, postconflict, or transitional countries 

making progress toward democracy or no longer experiencing conflict, 

USAID has identified a variety of activities to support the development of 

an independent media. However, in closed or war-torn societies, USAID 

determined it can do very little because the environments are unsuitable 

for outside intervention. See table 4 for definitions of political societies and 

further detail on the appropriate programmatic media strategies identified 

by USAID. 
Page 20 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Table 4: USAID Definition and Media Approach for Each Political Society

Source: USAID.

We examined independent media development projects in nine different 

countries—Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Georgia, Haiti, Indonesia, 

Krygyzstan, Mali, and Ukraine—each experiencing differing domestic 

political conditions that limit the impact of these projects. In some of the 

cases we reviewed, changes in domestic conditions or the status of 

political societies occurred following the onset of independent media 

development activities, creating further challenges in implementing efforts 

in these countries. For example, in Haiti—a nation experiencing civil 

conflict—violent demonstrations and protests prior to the departure of the 

Political society Definition USAID media approach

Closed Closed societies are governed by monarchs, military 

dictators, or ideologues with a relatively closed political 

system and underdeveloped economy. Free press is 

almost nonexistent in these societies.

USAID or other international agencies have not 

designed or implemented major projects for 

independent media development in closed 

societies. The situation is likely to change because 

of the growing interest in promoting democracy in 

the Middle East.

Semidemocratic/ 

developing 

Countries that appear to have made tangible progress 

toward democratization, but where stagnation and even 

backsliding occur, are considered semidemocratic 

developing societies. Independent media remains 

extremely fragile in such countries, and journalists work 

under trying conditions. Subtle forms of censorship and 

self-censorship continue, and the legal and regulatory 

environment is not conducive to a free press. 

USAID and other international actors can 

undertake a wide variety of media projects, but 

strong political and diplomatic pressure is 

necessary to push for independent media in 

semidemocratic societies. If multiple donors work 

together, they increase the chances of gaining 

political support for independent media 

development.

War-torn This category refers to countries with ongoing civil wars. 

Such societies tend to have highly authoritarian regimes 

and predatory social and political structures. Civil wars 

give the ruling regime a pretext to stifle whatever little 

freedom media enjoyed in the past. 

USAID and other donors can do very little in such 

conditions, as the whole political environment, 

intellectual climate, and economic conditions are 

not suitable for outside interventions. 

Postconflict This category refers to countries where conflict has 

ended, leading to the establishment of a legitimate 

government. One distinguishing characteristic of these 

societies is that tremendous opportunities exist for 

establishing democratic institutions and practices.

Examples of the types of projects that can be 

undertaken in these countries include the following: 

establishing a legal framework for free media, 

supporting the government in establishing 

appropriate regulatory bodies, training journalists, 

assisting independent media outlets, and 

establishing civil society organizations that 

articulate the interests of journalists and a free 

press.

Transition This category primarily refers to relatively socially and 

economically advanced societies in which the political 

order has collapsed, opening the way for liberalization 

and democratization. 

As in postconflict societies, unprecedented 

opportunities for promoting independent media 

exist in these countries. Practically all of the 

programming strategies suggested for postconflict 

societies have been followed in transition countries.
Page 21 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

president prevented some USAID-funded media development projects from 

continuing because staff were physically unable to get to work. Officials 

told us that several radio stations suffered extensive damage from looters, 

and community radio stations reported several cases where police, as well 

as government officials loyal to the president, tried to use their power to 

silence independent media voices. After the president’s departure, all 

nonessential USAID staff were ordered to evacuate the country, and the 

media project was on hold for nearly a month. 

In countries with deficient legal, regulatory, or professional environments, 

agencies can face challenges in implementing independent media 

development projects and activities. All nine of the countries we reviewed 

faced challenges due to deficiencies in at least one of these areas, which 

impacted efforts to train the media, build the capacity of the media outlets, 

and improve the freedom of the press within the country. In particular, 

these deficiencies have led to such challenges as limited press freedom due 

to direct government control over the media industry; changing legal and 

regulatory frameworks; limited training opportunities; and lack of skilled 

journalists due to widespread problems in professional and educational 

systems. Agency officials provided examples of how such deficiencies have 

impacted their programs: 

• Limited press freedom. Prior to the revolution in Kyrgyzstan, the Kyrgyz 

government maintained a tight hold on broadcast frequencies, 

prevented new stations from obtaining frequencies, and canceled 

frequencies of certain independent outlets. Agency officials said that 

journalists were afraid to broadcast on certain topics for fear of 

harassment or prosecution. In Georgia, most television stations are 

owned by oligarchs, many of whom support the new government. 

According to embassy officials in Tbilisi, working journalists exercise 

self-censorship for fear that reports critical of the government would be 

unpopular with their owners. 

• Changing legal and regulatory frameworks. Although Ukraine’s new 

president stated publicly his support for a free mass media, State 

officials said Ukraine’s legal and regulatory environments still need 

assistance. Though legislation has been enacted to improve freedom of 

the press and oversight of the media industry, these changes have not 

been consistently applied by Ukrainian judges and media outlets. 

Therefore, journalists can still be pressured by government officials and 

oligarchs to report information in a certain way, and media outlets’ legal 

status and license to operate remain in question. 
Page 22 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

• Limited training opportunities. Since 1993, Mali’s constitution has 

made it relatively easy to obtain radio broadcast licenses for FM 

frequencies. However, officials noted that that there are currently no incountry professional training institutions for broadcast media. As a 

result, individuals have to go outside of Mali to receive training, or 

obtain informal training from their peers and colleagues.

• Lack of skilled journalists. In Croatia, most journalists have little 

academic or professional training. Agency officials stated that although 

independent media is evolving, journalists still report biased news and 

information, do not check their facts or sources, do not follow up or 

correct their errors, and skew the focus of articles to accomplish 

personal agendas. 

According to USAID’s January 2004 media assistance study, USAID has 

funded a range of activities designed to further promote legal and 

regulatory reforms, though undemocratic structures, politicians, and slowto-change traditions have made the creation of enabling laws, policies, and 

practices difficult or impossible in some cases. Assistance projects and 

training efforts have been designed to mitigate legal, regulatory, and 

professional deficiencies, though progress of these programs has been 

slow. Agency officials from missions in several countries we examined 

provided examples of approaches to addressing unregulated media 

environments, including the following: 

• Limited press freedom. In order to limit editorial interference by state 

bodies, USAID’s media project in Kyrgyzstan currently supports local 

efforts to draft a new broadcasting law, which would include 

stipulations for the transformation of state television and radio to a 

public broadcasting system. To dilute the editorial influence of oligarchs 

who own the vast majority of TV stations in Georgia, USAID’s 

implementing partner in Tbilisi introduced a television rating system, 

which produced verifiable ratings that made the commercial market far 

more attractive to advertisers. The increased interest of advertisers in 

the media market has made nonbusiness-based policies more costly for 

oligarch owners.

• Changing legal and regulatory frameworks. USAID’s media 

development project in Ukraine has established a Media Law Institute 

that will provide journalists with an outlet for legal defense and 

consultations when faced with political pressure. The center also plans 
Page 23 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

to train local lawyers and judges on media law reform, and to publish 

bulletins about changes in legislation. 

• Limited training opportunities. The USAID Mission to Mali has tried to 

address the lack of professional media training institutions by 

supporting a technical training facility, bringing professionals to Mali to 

conduct training sessions, and sending broadcast and print journalists 

as well as key members of the government and civil society to an 

anticorruption ethics training seminar. 

• Lack of skilled journalists. Croatia’s USAID media development project 

focused on developing the capacity of the national journalist 

association, including conferences to improve journalists’ 

professionalism, their capacity for reporting, and their relationships 

with other sectors of society, such as the police and judiciary. 

Additionally, University of Zagreb’s journalism school partnered with 

the U.S. Embassy to participate in academic exchange programs, 

international visits, and speaker programs. 

Programmatic Factors Can 

Affect Media Development 

Efforts

The sustainability of local organizations can impact the overall results of 

media development efforts or the success of specific projects and activities 

in a country. Additionally, limited coordination and lack of communication 

with local recipients at some posts have impacted some projects and 

activities by causing confusion of responsibilities or duplication of efforts. 

Sustainability of Local 

Organizations Can Affect LongTerm Media Development 

Results 

The success of media development projects and activities can be impacted 

by the sustainability of local partners. We found that seven of the nine 

countries we reviewed had cases where local media outlets had difficulty 

ensuring their financial sustainability as their U.S. funding decreased. 

Sustainability challenges were primarily due to a poor economic 

environment or lack of sufficient business management training. Specific 

examples include the following: 

• Poor economic environment. An official from the USAID Mission in 

Haiti stated that because many independent radio stations are 

community owned, the stations cannot increase their operating budgets 

or replace expensive pieces of equipment without first increasing the 

financial resources available to the entire community. Additionally, the 

self-sustainability of private media outlets in Bosnia-Herzegovina 

continues to be a major problem due to widespread crime and 

corruption and a national unemployment rate of about 40 percent. 
Page 24 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

• Lack of business management training. According to one local 

television station owner in Croatia, a U.S.-sponsored national television 

network, designed to link several local station’s news programs, is 

struggling to survive because the network did not develop the 

advertising revenue and profit-sharing structures necessary to keep it 

financially sustainable. USAID acknowledged that this may be the case, 

but they viewed the network project as a success because it had served 

to provide an alternative, independent news program to the statecontrolled TV network during an earlier period of political transition. 

To respond to these programmatic challenges, some USAID officials 

offered the following suggestions: 

• Poor economic environment. The USAID Mission to BosniaHerzegovina has focused on encouraging local business development 

strategies, and currently financially supports the survival of only a select 

number of media outlets. The USAID Mission in Mali told us that 

because of the country’s high poverty rate, they conduct workshops for 

radio stations in order to provide them with small-business concepts 

that can be used to generate additional outside revenues, like the sale of 

solar power to provide lighting or the creation of centers to provide the 

community with computer services and Internet access.

• Lack of business management training. Since 2002, Georgia’s USAID 

media project has worked to promote the sustainability of print and 

broadcast media outlets by improving their business management skills 

and establishing an independent and credible national system of 

television audience measurement. As a result of better information on 

the profile of viewers, TV advertising in Georgia increased from $3 

million to $7 million in 2004 and is expected to increase to $13 million by 

2006. 

Various studies have also offered suggestions for addressing the 

sustainability of media outlets. A working paper by the Netherlands 

Institute of International Relations on “International Media Assistance” 

suggested allowing more time during the life of a project to focus on 

sustainability. Another report published by USAID, Media Assistance: 

Policy and Programmatic Lessons, suggested that in postconflict 

societies, only media outlets willing to take concrete and concerted steps 

toward economic independence should be given technical or financial 

assistance. According to this study, USAID has implemented several 
Page 25 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

activities that promote the financial independence or sustainability of 

media outlets, but these activities have achieved only limited success. 

Limited Coordination at Some 

Locations Can Result in 

Confusion of Responsibilities 

and Duplication of Efforts

While not as widespread as other programmatic challenges, we found that 

four of the nine countries we examined were challenged by coordination 

issues, such as an unclear chain of command and limited communication, 

which resulted in confusion over the responsibilities of donors and 

providers of media development, duplication of efforts, or periods of 

program inactivity. For example, the director of a Croatian media 

development project worked with three different U.S. donors, with no clear 

chain of command established. Thus, the director was unsure to whom he 

should report under certain circumstances, resulting in difficulty in 

reacting to urgent needs. In another case we reviewed, State and USAID 

had unknowingly funded different NGOs that were working independently 

to rebuild the same radio stations that had been destroyed during the 

recent tsunami in Indonesia, leading to on-the-ground project conflicts. 

Officials at the USAID Mission to Indonesia told us this duplication of effort 

resulted from their lack of awareness of a grant awarded by State’s DRL 

bureau in Washington, D.C., that was similar to the grant USAID awarded.19

Poorly maintained roads, combined with poor phone and Internet access, 

contributed to communication and coordination challenges faced by the 

USAID Mission in Haiti and the community radios it supports; this, in turn 

slowed USAID’s training activities, the delivery of equipment, and other 

activities. USAID officials said they are planning to install Internet and 

phone lines in rural areas to improve the situation. 

One example of effective coordination can be found in Ukraine. Ukraine is 

challenged by a complicated network of donors, providers, and recipients 

(see fig. 1), multiple ongoing projects, various funding sources, and 

agencies funding the same organizations and similar activities. For 

example, four separate organizations, including the U.S. Embassy (via the 

Media Development Ffund), Internews Network (via a cooperative 

agreement via the USAID mission), the International Renaissance 

Foundation, and NED (via its annual grant from State), currently provide 

U.S.-sponsored funding or programmatic activities to the advocacy and 

media monitoring organization Telekritika. However, in Kiev, USAID and 

State officials have worked well together to minimize coordination 

19In May 2005, USAID Indonesia completed its media strategy that sets out broad strategic 

parameters with respect to media programming, including some attention on the tsunamiaffected region of Aceh.
Page 26 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

problems by keeping track of donor awards on a Web site and attending 

donor coordination meetings on a monthly basis. According to USAID 

officials, the Web site “Marketplace for Donors” is funded jointly by State 

(the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, public affairs section) and the International 

Renaissance Foundation. 
Page 27 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Figure 1: U.S.-Sponsored Independent Media Development Projects and Activities in Ukraine

Due to the complex network of donors and 

providers in Ukraine, State and USAID have 

coordinated their media efforts.

Independent 

Association of 

Broadcasters

Local end recipients (i.e., Crimean Information and Press Center, Kafa and MV newspapers,TVRK Chernomorska and many others)

International 

Renaissance 

Foundation

International 

Research and 

Exchanges Board 

(IREX)

Ukrainian 

Association of 

Press Publishers

Open Media Fund

 for Ukraine

(OMFU)

International 

visitor 

program

Academic

and 

citizens 

exchanges

Speaker 

programs

IREX Ukrainian 

Media Partnership 

Program

Office of the 

Coordinator of 

the U.S. 

Assistance to 

Europe and 

Eurasia

Embassy 

public affairs 

section

Eurasia

Foundation

National 

Endowment for 

Democracy 

(NED)

Internews 

Network, 

U-Media

Telekritika

Ukrainian 

Newspaper 

Publishers 

Association

Media 

Development 

Fund (MDF)

Sources: GAO; Nova Development (clip art).

Department of

State

USAID

U.S. government agencies

Subrecipients of USAID IPs

U.S. government prime recipients

and/or implementing partners (IP) Funds

Public affairs section/embassy-funded programs

Local end recipients
Page 28 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Media evaluations have made specific suggestions to improve the 

coordination of donors, providers, and recipients of independent media 

development programming in order to minimize the confusion of 

responsibilities and duplication of efforts. An evaluation by the University 

of Oxford, “Mapping Media Assistance,” suggested donors and providers 

coordinate the distribution of their limited resources in a systematic and 

logical manner, based on their areas of specialization. The Netherlands 

Institute of International Relations working paper on “International Media 

Assistance,” suggested establishing a strategic coordination mechanism, 

like the European Media Agency for the European Union, that could serve 

as a clearinghouse and evaluator of all media-related assistance proposals 

for the targeted countries. 

To address challenges in coordination, USAID funds regional media 

conferences and has conducted a limited number of independent media 

program evaluations, so that participants can share lessons learned; 

however, these efforts face funding constraints. USAID has funded six 

independent media development regional conferences in Europe and 

Eurasia and one multiregional conference over the past 8 years. These 

conferences have brought together journalists, media development donors, 

providers, and civil society organizations to discuss issues in journalism 

that transcend borders. USAID has also designated the Bureau for Policy 

and Program Coordination to conduct several assessments of independent 

media programs in various countries and identify lessons learned and best 

practices. In addition, USAID bureaus and missions have conducted several 

different types of studies on independent media efforts, including midterm 

assessments, final reports, and program evaluations. According to the 

Policy and Program Coordination bureau director, USAID’s independent 

media evaluations have created a body of knowledge and lessons learned 

on subjects ranging from conflict areas to transitional countries. However, 

USAID media officials noted that the discontinuation of funding for 

conferences and limited funding levels for evaluations could reduce the 

amount of collaboration and sharing of lessons learned officials said is 

necessary to enhance media development programming efforts. 

Additionally, several media officials indicated that in some instances 

insufficient funding for USAID program evaluations has forced media 

development providers to fund their own evaluations through their project 

budgets, thus reducing funds available for development activities. Although 

USAID requires its evaluations to be posted on the Development 

Experience Clearinghouse to make them accessible to other posts, one 

senior official said it was unclear to what degree the lessons learned from 

evaluations are shared or used by missions. For example, one official in 
Page 29 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Croatia said that program evaluations are shared only within the region due 

to concerns that other countries’ approaches may not be relevant. 

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of State and the USAID 

Administrator for their review and comment. State generally concurred 

with our report, and USAID offered technical comments that were 

incorporated, as appropriate. In addition, State indicated that it plans to 

develop additional performance indicators and promote best practices in 

the future. The comments provided by State are reprinted in appendix IV, 

and comments by USAID are reprinted in appendix V. 

We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of 

Congress. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of State and the 

Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. We will 

also make copies available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-4268 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 30 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed documentation and spoke with 

officials from the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID), the Broadcasting Board of Governors 

(BBG), and key U.S. nongovernmental organization (NGO) partners, 

including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the 

International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), Internews, The Asia 

Foundation, the Eurasia Foundation, and the International Center for 

Journalists. In addition, we reviewed USAID’s guidance for performance 

measurement. Department of Defense media activities were not included in 

the scope of our work as its primary focus in the media field is on 

conducting psychological operations.

In addition to audit work performed in the United States, we traveled to 

and reviewed documentation on U.S.-sponsored independent media 

development programs in Croatia, Ukraine, and Indonesia. These countries 

were primarily selected based on geographic representation; preliminary 

estimates on funding and years of assistance provided;1

 and the range of 

programs offered. During travel to Croatia, Ukraine, and Indonesia, we met 

with State Department and USAID officials; multiple nonprofit, private 

donor, and multilateral officials; and program recipients to discuss issues 

of coordination, funding, measuring of program effectiveness, and 

challenges faced when implementing foreign independent media 

development programs. We also sent questions to and reviewed select 

documentation from posts in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Georgia, Haiti, 

Kyrgyzstan, and Mali. 

Agency Fiscal Year 2004 

Budget Obligations

In order to determine estimates for agency fiscal year 2004 obligations, we 

obtained data from State, USAID, the BBG, and select NGOs. Assessments 

of the reliability of the data yielded mixed results, but provided an overall 

indication of the minimum level of funding for the agency. 

USAID and Select NGOs USAID’s historic budget obligations from USAID’s Democracy, Conflict, 

and Humanitarian Assistance bureau proved to be unreliable because (1) 

USAID historic budget records on media development programs are 

incomplete after 1996 because agencywide budget codes related to media 

activities were discontinued at this time; (2) USAID budget records were 

1

With the exception of two countries that we were not able to obtain initial estimates for, 

case studies and follow-up countries were selected that had estimated U.S. investments of 

over $1 million for independent media development.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

not finalized for fiscal year 2004; and (3) historic funding codes could not 

be recoded or configured to accurately reflect the specific activities of 

missions falling under our definition of independent media development. In 

addition, although USAID officials indicated that individual missions 

currently track spending for various program components—including 

media development—independent media projects can often be defined 

differently or be intermixed within broader civil society projects; thus, 

missions may record media funding levels inconsistently. Given this 

determination, we instead obtained USAID fiscal year 2004 obligations 

from NGOs that USAID identified as the main implementers of independent 

media development projects. In particular, we gathered documentation 

separately from the International Center for Journalists, Internews, The 

Eurasia Foundation, the Asia Foundation, and IREX. USAID officials told 

us that the true figure for USAID fiscal year 2004 obligations is likely 

significantly higher than our estimate because (1) we were not able to 

obtain documentation from all NGOs that received independent media 

development grants from USAID headquarters;2

 (2) we were not able to 

obtain data on fiscal year 2004 obligations awarded directly by USAID 

missions to local NGOS; and (3) we may not have captured all budget 

accounts that funded obligations for fiscal year 2004.3

 

State Department and the 

National Endowment for 

Democracy 

We gathered State Department fiscal year obligation data by obtaining 

documentation from the following bureaus or offices: Democracy Human 

Rights and Labor (DRL), the Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to 

Europe and Eurasia (EUR/ACE), Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), 

International Information Programs (IIP), Middle East Partnership 

Initiative (MEPI), and State’s regional bureaus.4

 We requested the bureaus 

and offices include 2004 budget obligations that met our definition of media 

assistance programs and exclude programs funded by the State 

2

We obtained documentation or records on fiscal year 2004 obligations made by USAID from 

the main NGO providers that receive independent media development grants from USAID 

headquarters, including the International Center for Journalists, IREX, the Asia Foundation, 

and Internews. In addition, we obtained information from the Eurasia Foundation on the 

amount in subgrants it awarded during fiscal year 2004.

3

Some agency budget accounts fund obligations for only 1 fiscal year, over 2 fiscal years, or 

until funds are expended (also called “no-year” money). In some instances, we were not able 

to associate an obligated amount to a particular fiscal year.

4

State’s East Asia and Pacific bureau reported actual expenditures. Agency officials 

indicated that these expenditures were approximations because of the time of year that the 

data were collected.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 32 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Department via interagency transfers to USAID or BBG. To assess the 

reliability of the obligation data, we (1) posed a standard set of questions to 

State officials, and (2) reviewed the list provided for consistency with our 

definition of media assistance programs. According to State officials, some 

variation existed in the techniques used to compile the programs and 

budget obligations. For example, some bureaus or agencies relied on 

electronic databases to gather information, while others did not have these 

systems. We found the list of programs to be consistent with the media 

assistance program definition in our request. We determined that the data 

provided by State were sufficiently reliable to provide an estimate of 2004 

budget obligations for media assistance programs. We were not able to 

specifically determine NED’s fiscal year 2004 obligations from State for 

independent media development projects because NED receives several 

broad grants each year for its work to support democratic initiatives. 

However, we were able to obtain information from NED on the amount in 

subgrants for media development activities it awarded during fiscal year 

2004.5

Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

We determined fiscal year 2004 obligations data provided by the BBG to be 

sufficiently reliable following an interview with BBG officials to assess data 

reliability. The key factors in making the determination were that BBG (1) 

used one budget account for the program area, and (2) routinely performed 

checks on the reliability of the database used.

Review of Media 

Development Indexes

To address our objective of examining agency performance measurement 

for independent media development efforts, we also (1) reviewed available 

agency, country, and program-level performance documentation for the 

case study countries; and (2) assessed the principle media development 

indexes—Freedom House’s Press Freedom survey and the IREX Media 

Sustainability Index (MSI). Our analysis of the Press Freedom survey and 

the IREX MSI included interviews with officials at the organizations 

responsible for the indexes and interviews with State and USAID officials 

to determine the strengths and limitations of the data. 

5

The data showed that during fiscal year 2004, NED awarded approximately $6.5 million in 

subgrants for independent media development projects. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Challenges to Media 

Development

To address the challenges that the United States faces in implementing 

media development activities and achieving results, we interviewed or 

requested information from State and USAID officials in BosniaHerzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Georgia, Haiti, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, 

and Ukraine. State and officials at all nine missions were asked to list the 

challenges their mission has dealt with while implementing media 

development programs and provide specific examples of how each 

challenge impeded the effectiveness of their program. The officials were 

also asked to explain the steps their mission took to mitigate these 

challenges. Although the challenges provided could not be generalized 

worldwide, we believe that the steps taken to mitigate the challenges, or 

lessons learned, should be shared globally. Lastly, we reviewed several 

media development studies published between 2000 and 2005 by State, 

USAID, the Knight Foundation, University of Oxford, Freedom House, 

IREX, Foreign Affairs, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, 

UNESCO, the United Kingdom’s Department for International 

Development, World Bank Institute Development Studies, and Routledge 

Group. We did not review these studies for sufficiency of methodology. 
Page 34 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Appendix II

Select International Organizations or Donors 

That Implement Media Development 

Programs ApendxiI

Source: Select non-U.S. donors.

Note: Media development funding from these various donors was not readily available, not presented 

in similar formats, and not easily verifiable. 

Select non-U.S. donors Program description

European Commission Provides major source of funding for media development at the European level as part of its 

larger program of human rights and democratization. Includes both macroprojects, 

implemented in partnership with international organizations (like the Office of Security and 

Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE) that work with local entities, and microprojects that 

directly fund local organizations. 

Organization for Security and Cooperation 

in Europe (OSCE)

Supports freedom of the press and freedom of information by providing training for 

journalists and technicians, setting up radio stations, and monitoring freedom of information 

in the media. OSCE also assists and advises governmental authorities as well as print and 

electronic media in their endeavour to reform the media sector. 

Open Society Institute and Soros 

Foundations Network

Concentrates on projects addressing issues of democratic media legislation, monitoring 

violations of media freedom, protecting journalists, establishing self-regulation systems and 

strong independent professional organizations, and raising the professionalism of 

journalists and media managers. 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and 

Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Provides training to journalists and technical media staff to strengthen independent media, 

establishes independent printing plants and print distribution networks, and develops public 

service broadcasting— including the establishment of a regulatory framework and support 

for TV productions and co-productions. 

United Nations Development Programme 

(UNDP)

Promotes global access to information by strengthening the legal and regulatory 

environment for freedom and pluralism information, supporting capacity strengthening, 

networking, and elevation of standards of media at national and local levels; raising 

awareness on rights to official access to information; and developing communication 

mechanisms for vulnerable groups. 

World Bank Supports civil society with direct funding support—often provided in partnership with other 

international aid donors—to back programs such as information technology access and 

human rights. 
Page 35 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Appendix III

State Department and USAID Goals Related to 

Independent Media ApendxiI

Table 5: Goals Related to Select Independent Media Development Programs from Current State Mission Performance Plans 

Country Strategic goals Performance goals, strategies, and media-related tactics

Croatia Democratic systems 

and practices/

democracy and 

human rights

Goal: Croatia completes democratic transition away from its socialist and authoritarian past and 

puts in place democratic institutions needed for integration into the Euro-Atlantic institutions. 

Strategy: Support transparent and accountable democratic systems, full integration of minorities 

into national and local political structures, combat trafficking in persons, and improve the climate 

for independent media.

Media-related tactic: Promote independent media through exchange and training programs to 

expose Croatian journalists and editors to U.S. practices.

Ukraine Democratic systems 

and practices/

democracy and 

human rights

Goal: Ukraine meets Euro-Atlantic standards of democratic practice and human rights. 

Strategy 1: Support the capacity of the citizenry to engage effectively in promoting its rights and 

interests for a more democratic Ukraine.

Media-related tactic: Foster the growth of NGOs that promote and defend human rights, 

religious freedom, and media freedom.

Strategy 2: Encourage Ukrainian government institutions to become more effective, transparent, 

and accountable to the citizens within an overall rule of law framework.

Media-related tactic: Develop and maintain a wide range of contacts in government, academia, 

media, think tanks, and the international community to advocate effectively and monitor 

progress, both in the government and in society as a whole.

International public 

opinion/public 

diplomacy and public 

affairs

Goal: Public Opinion in Ukraine moves towards U.S./Western values.

Strategy: Strengthen the capacity of Ukrainian media and civic organizations to present a 

balanced view of domestic and international events.

Media-related tactics: Employ bilateral engagements, including sustained high-level 

demarches, in support of a free press, access to information, and journalists’ rights to freely 

exercise their profession; coordinate with the European Union and G-7 and other key countries, 

donors, and institutions on matters including assistance, policy, and demarches; support 

grassroots media initiatives such as expansion of Internet access by regional media, substantive 

newspaper supplements, and TV documentaries through embassy, AID, NGO, and foundation 

projects; provide technical assistance for projects that strengthen independent media, journalist 

advocacy, and managerial capacity of independent media; finance legal assistance for 

journalists and media outlets to improve the legal and regulatory framework for media, including 

access to information.

BosniaHerzegovinaDemocratic systems 

and practices/

democracy and 

human rights

Goal: Bosnia-Herzegovina is an accountable, transparent democracy with a robust civil society 

and respect for human rights.

Strategy: Increase citizen participation in political/social decision making, particularly in public 

sector reform. Media outlets provide useful information to citizens as basis for making informed 

judgments and identify areas where public pressure can be usefully applied. 

Media-related tactics: Assist viable private sector broadcast and print media to provide a broad 

range of objective programming; provide technical assistance and political support to the 

Bosnian Communications Regulatory Agency (RAK), Press Council, Association of Electronic 

Media, journalist associations, and media training providers; support domestic production.

International public 

opinion/public 

diplomacy and public 

affairs

Strategy: Influence public opinion and explain U.S. positions on global issues including the war 

on terrorism, Iraq, and the Middle East; stress democratic and economic themes related to 

European and Euro-Atlantic integration, rule of law, trafficking in persons, development of an 

independent and professional media, and private sector growth. 
Appendix III

State Department and USAID Goals Related 

to Independent Media 

Page 36 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Kyrgyzstand Democratic systems 

and practices/

democracy and 

human rights

Goal: Encourage the growth of an active and informed civil society in the Kyrgyz Republic; help 

build independent media that report objectively and freely; encourage strong democratic 

institutions including an independent parliament and independent judiciary; support active 

independent political parties, rule of law, respect for human rights, and free and fair and 

transparent elections.

Strategy: Increase the quality, quantity, and accessibility of information available to Kyrgyz 

citizens.

Media-related tactics: Work with government officials to press for reform of media and libel 

laws and for decrease in pressure against independent media; support independent media 

through programs to provide independent printing facilities, legal counsel, institutional support to 

journalists’ associations, and training in new media technology; support journalists’ professional 

associations and their capacity to monitor and document press freedom infringements and 

advocate on these issues with the government; monitor violations of press freedom and report 

on policy and trends affecting media; teach objective journalism and management skills to 

increase media outlets’ professional and economic viability; support programs that encourage 

political dialogue and debate, such as discussion clubs and TV/radio talk shows, and ensure that 

remote areas also have access to such programs; increase the accessibility to diverse forms of 

information about political, economic, and social issues for all citizens; support spread of Internet 

access throughout the country.

Haiti Stable conditions in 

fragile or failing 

states/

counterterrorism

Goal: Support the transition of Haiti in the context of a long-term effort to strengthen democratic 

practices, invest in people through education and training, and economic development.

Strategy: Use of all mission resources effectively to strengthen democratic institutions and 

practices, promote the rule of law and good governance, and strengthen civil liberties.

Media-related tactics: Strengthen the independent press; strengthen media independence and 

community radio networks.

Georgia Democratic systems 

and practices/

democracy and 

human rights

Goal: Georgia’s democratic reforms are consolidated, resulting in adherence to the rule of law, 

improved government transparency and accountability, reduced corruption and broad public 

participation in political life.

Strategy: Foster the development of an increasingly vibrant civil society. Assist in building a 

vibrant and diverse civil society, including political parties, independent and responsible media, 

and constituency-based NGO coalitions to advocate for reforms in Georgia, and to partner with 

the new government in carrying out key reforms.

Media-related tactics: Increase journalistic professionalism through U.S. and locally based 

assistance for print and broadcast media.

Egypt American values 

respected 

abroad/public 

diplomacy and public 

affairs

Goal: U.S. core values advanced in Egypt through the Middle East Partnership Initiative and 

public diplomacy programs.

Strategy: Foster pluralism and democracy in Egypt.

Media-related tactic: Initiate new program to support journalism training on free, fair, and 

accurate reporting through both classroom work and internships with U.S. news media.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Country Strategic goals Performance goals, strategies, and media-related tactics
Appendix III

State Department and USAID Goals Related 

to Independent Media 

Page 37 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Source: State Department.

Indonesia Democratic systems 

and practices

Goal: Indonesia consolidates political reforms, addresses the causes of separatist and ethnic 

crises, and enhances protections for vulnerable populations.

Strategy: Help transform Indonesia’s civilian governmental institutions—including the 

parliament, ministries, and judicial sector—into efficient, democratically functioning entities.

Media-related tactic: Professionalize media through exchange and training programs.

Mutual understanding Goal: Increase understanding for American values, policies, and initiatives to create a receptive 

environment in Indonesia. 

Strategy 1: Conduct a variety of exchanges to increase mutual understanding and build trust 

between American and Indonesia people and institutions.

Media-related tactic: U.S. Fulbright lecturers, students, and researchers outreach on the topic 

of free and responsible media. 

Strategy 2: Ensure the basic human values embraced by Americans are respected and 

understood by the Indonesia public and institutions.

Media-related tactic: Provide Small Democracy Grants to bolster free and independent media.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Country Strategic goals Performance goals, strategies, and media-related tactics
Appendix III

State Department and USAID Goals Related 

to Independent Media 

Page 38 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Table 6: Objectives for Select Independent Media Development Programs from Current USAID Country Strategiesa

Case study 

country Strategic objectives Performance objectives and objectives for activities

Ukraine Citizens increasingly engaged in 

promoting their interests and 

rights for a more democratic 

market-oriented state

Performance objective: Availability of quality information increased.

Croatia More effective citizen participation 

and improved governance

Performance objectives: Sustainable and balanced commercial media; journalists’ 

professional standards improved; management and business capacity of media 

organizations strengthened.

BosniaHerzegovinaA more participatory, inclusive 

democratic society

Performance objectives: Increased citizen participation in political and social 

decision making; viable private-sector broadcast and print media provide a broad 

range of objective programming.

Georgia More effective, responsible, and 

accountable local governance

Performance objectives: Independent media highlights citizens’ concerns and 

informs communities on key issues.

Objectives for activities: Increased media professionalism to provide objective 

information at both the national and local level; better business management of local 

media outlets and increased financial management; improved legal and regulatory 

framework that supports free speech and access to information.

Kyrgyzstan Strengthened democratic culture 

among citizens and target 

institutions

Performance objectives: Increased availability of information on civic rights and 

domestic public issues; increased news programming and improved financial and 

management systems in targeted media entities.

Haiti Genuinely inclusive democratic 

governance attained

Performance objective: Civil society organizations positively influence policies.

Indonesia Effective democratic and 

decentralized governance

(Independent media development 

is considered a cross-cutting 

issue)

Performance objectives: Expanding participatory, effective and accountable local 

governance.

Objectives for activities: Civil society organizations and other stakeholders such 

as universities, religious-based organizations, business associations, labor 

associations, and the media develop the capacity to effectively participate in local 

decision-making and advocacy processes.

Performance objectives: Consolidating the reform agenda.

Objectives for activities: Unions and press councils provide policy advice and 

advocate on behalf of media legislation, undertaking litigation to seek compliance 

with media laws and regulations, and the provision of legal aid and services in the 

defense of journalists and the media industry; work with civil society organizations 

to support the laws that give media freedom; support media initiatives that promote 

transparency and freedom of information.

Performance objectives: Addressing conflict and encouraging pluralism.

Objectives for activities: Media Coverage in conflict areas becomes objective and 

noninflammatory; support program that gives information to the tsunami affected 

area.

Mali Increase pubic access to quality 

development information in 

targeted areas

Performance objectives: Regulatory and policy environment responsive to public 

interest.

Performance objectives: Policies and procedures proposed for adoption.

Performance objectives: Improved quality of development information; enhanced 

institutional capacity to produce development information.
Appendix III

State Department and USAID Goals Related 

to Independent Media 

Page 39 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Source: USAID.

a

Strategic objectives and performance objectives (also called intermediate results) are included that 

we judged to be related to mission independent media development efforts.

Egypt Initiatives in governance and 

participation strengthened

Performance objectives: Establish and ensure media freedom and freedom of 

information.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Case study 

country Strategic objectives Performance objectives and objectives for activities
Page 40 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of State ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of State 

Page 41 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad
Page 42 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Appendix V

Comments from the U.S. Agency for 

International Development ApendxiV
Page 43 GAO-05-803 Independent Media Development Abroad

Appendix VI

GAO Contact and Staff and AcknowledgmentsApendxiVI

GAO Contact Jess T. Ford, (202) 512-4268

Staff 

Acknowledgments

Diana Glod, Melissa Pickworth, Julia A. Roberts, and Joe Carney made key 

contributions to this report. Martin de Alteriis, Ernie Jackson, Amanda K. 

Miller, and Valerie J. Caracelli provided technical assistance. 

(320306)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548