GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

the Budget, House of Representatives

September 2000 U.S. INTERNATIONAL 

BROADCASTING 

Strategic Planning and 

Performance 

Management System 

Could Be Improved

GAO/NSIAD-00-222

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Map of Press Freedom 28

Appendix II: U.S. International Broadcasting Transmission 

Modes and Operations 29

Appendix III: Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Board’s 

Language Service Review Process 32

Appendix IV: Information on Board and British Broadcasting

Corporation Operations 34

Appendix V: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38

Appendix VI: Comments From the Broadcasting Board of

Governors 40

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 46

Tables Table 1: The Board’s Priority/Impact Matrix 14

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

July 2000 17

Table 3: Broadcasting Board of Governors’ Performance Plan,

Fiscal Year 2001 19

Table 4: Criteria Supporting the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ 

Language Service Review 32

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

Operations 35

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

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

Figure 3: U.S. International Broadcasting Language Service 

Overlap 15

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

Abbreviations

BBC British Broadcasting Corporation
Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting
Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-285837 Letr

September 27, 2000

The Honorable John R. Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasters include the Voice of America, 

Worldnet Television and Film Service, Radio/TV Marti, Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia.1

 These broadcast entities 

support 84 discrete “language services” such as Radio Free Asia’s Mandarin 

service to China and Radio/TV Marti’s Spanish language broadcasts to 

Cuba.2

 While each broadcast entity has a unique mission, a central theme in 

all U.S. international broadcasting is to provide underserved populations 

with balanced news coverage in areas where a free and open press does not 

exist or has not been firmly established. The open exchange of information 

and ideas, in turn, is designed to serve the interests of the United States by 

promoting international peace and stability. 

Congress passed the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 

(title III of P.L. 103-236) with the goal of reorganizing and consolidating U.S. 

international broadcast efforts in light of the end of the Cold War and 

administration efforts to meet deficit reduction targets. The act established 

a bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors (the Board) to oversee and 

coordinate the efforts of all nonmilitary international broadcasting.3

 The 

act also created an International Broadcasting Bureau to carry out all 

nonmilitary broadcasting activity, with the exception of Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, both of which report directly to 

the Board as federally funded grantees.

1

 We refer to these five organizations as “broadcast entities” throughout this report.

2

 This figure includes duplicate language services run by both the Voice of America and 

other U.S. broadcasters. It also includes the Voice of America’s English language services.

3

 The Board is composed of nine voting members. Eight members are appointed by the 

President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for 3-year terms. The ninth member is the 

Secretary of State. Throughout this report, we use the term “the Board” to refer to actions 

taken by the Board and the broadcast entities reporting to the Board.
B-285837

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

In addition to these changes, the act also contains specific funding 

limitations and cost-cutting expectations, including the following:

• The total amount of grants made by the Board for the operating costs of 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was not to exceed $75 million for any 

fiscal year after fiscal year 1995.

• The Board was not to make any grant to Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty unless Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s headquarters are in a 

location that ensures economy, operational effectiveness, and 

accountability to the Board.

• Duplication of language services and technical operations between 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the International Broadcasting 

Bureau (which includes the Voice of America) were to be reduced to a 

level deemed appropriate by the Board.

• The Board was to conduct an annual assessment of language services.4

Under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998

(P.L. 105-277), the Board was removed from the U.S. Information Agency 

and established as an independent federal entity on October 1, 1999. As an 

independent entity, the Board now is fully responsible for developing a 

strategic planning and performance management system that is responsive 

to both the 1994 act and the Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993 (P.L. 103-62). 

As agreed with your office, this report examines whether the Board

(1) responded to the specific funding limitations and cost-cutting 

expectations regarding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s operations,

(2) implemented an annual language service review process, and (3) 

instituted a strategic planning and performance management system. As 

requested, we also provide information on U.S. international broadcasting 

and the British Broadcasting Corporation (see app. IV). Details about our 

scope and methodology are presented in appendix V.

Results in Brief The Board met its mandates under the 1994 U.S. International Broadcasting 

Act to reduce Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s annual budget by 

lowering its budget from $208 million in fiscal year 1994 to approximately 

4

 Most U.S. broadcasts are delivered in the language of the target audience. As a result, U.S. 

international broadcasting is organized around language services that are sometimes 

duplicated across broadcast entities.
B-285837

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

$71 million in fiscal year 1996. It did this by taking several actions including 

relocating its operation from Munich, Germany, to Prague, Czech Republic, 

and significantly reducing staff. The Board realized additional savings by 

eliminating several hundred hours of broadcast overlap between Radio 

Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of America; eliminating and 

modifying a limited number of language services; consolidating 

transmission operations under the International Broadcasting Bureau; and 

deploying digital sound recording and editing technology, which has 

increased Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s staff efficiency and 

effectiveness.

The Board completed a comprehensive language service review in January 

2000 that sought to systematically evaluate U.S. international broadcast 

priorities and program impact. The Board intends to use this information to 

strategically reallocate approximately $4.5 million in language service 

funds from emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to several 

African countries and selected countries in other regions. According to the 

Board, it intends to continue to use the annual language service review 

process to strategically analyze broadcast priorities, program funding, and 

resource allocations. In addition, the Board intends to use the language 

service review next year to look at program duplication between the Voice 

of America and surrogate language services, such as broadcasts to 

countries of the former Soviet Union, and to determine whether this 

overlap effectively serves U.S. interests on a country-by-country basis. 

Currently, the Board has not decided whether it will review the overlap of 

overseas news-gathering resources among U.S. broadcast entities.

The Board has not yet established an effective strategic planning and 

performance management system that incorporates Results Act planning, 

the annual language service review process, and the program reviews of 

individual language services conducted by the International Broadcasting 

Bureau (on behalf of the Voice of America and Radio/TV Marti) and the 

surrogate broadcasters. The Board’s fiscal year 2001 performance plan is 

deficient because of missing or imprecise performance goals or indicators 

and a lack of key implementation strategies and related resource 

requirements that detail the key issues facing the Board. Finally, the Board 

has not established a standard program review approach, which would 

help ensure that consistent and meaningful measures of program quality 

are developed across broadcast entities. It has also not incorporated 

specific audience size and composition (that is, mass versus elite listeners) 

targets into the program review process, which would help ensure that 
B-285837

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

program reviews culminate in a written report that identifies the specific 

actions needed to achieve agreed-upon performance goals.

We make several recommendations in this report directed at improving the 

Board’s strategic planning and performance management system. Specific 

recommendations address each of the three component parts of this 

system—Results Act planning, the annual language service review, and the 

program reviews of language services that individual broadcast entities 

conduct. The Board agreed with these recommendations and noted that 

implementing action has already begun.

Background The Board is responsible for overseeing a complex broadcast environment 

which spans 5 broadcast entities with varying missions, 84 discrete 

language services, changing consumer habits and preferences, and a 

technology environment that presents constant new challenges and 

opportunities. The Board currently oversees a staff of almost 3,200 and a 

worldwide network of leased communication satellite services and 38 

owned or leased transmission stations. The Board oversees the broadcast 

of almost 2,000 hours of original (not rebroadcasts) broadcast material 

each week. The Board estimates that the Voice of America’s broadcasts 

alone reach a worldwide listening audience of 91 million people each week. 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts reach an estimated 16 million 

listeners each week. Radio Free Asia and Radio/TV Marti have difficulty 

obtaining reliable audience estimates due to the closed nature of target 

broadcast countries.5

 These audiences are reached through a variety of 

means, including direct radio and television broadcasts from U.S.-owned or 

-leased transmitters, local rebroadcasters (known as affiliates) who carry 

U.S. international broadcasting content on their stations, and the Internet.

The U.S. international broadcasting budget for fiscal year 2000 is about 

$420 million.6

 The Board, the Voice of America, Radio/TV Marti, and 

Worldnet are federal entities and receive funding directly from Congress. 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia operate as 

5

 Worldnet has primarily been used for public diplomacy-related broadcasts, and the Board 

has not commissioned audience share analyses. 

6

 The fiscal year 2000 budget for international broadcasting represents, in inflation-adjusted 

terms, a reduction of approximately 33 percent since fiscal year 1994 .
B-285837

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

independent, nonprofit corporations and are funded by grants from the 

Board. 

The Board’s current organizational structure is illustrated in figure 1. While 

this figure shows a reporting relationship from the Voice of America, 

Worldnet, and Radio/TV Marti to the Director of the International 

Broadcasting Bureau, these broadcast entities have a direct reporting 

relationship with the Board regarding all programming issues. The Acting 

Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau told us that his 

organization provides consolidated technical and support services to client 

broadcasters; however, programming decisions are handled by the 

respective broadcast entities and the Board. 

Figure 1: U.S. International Broadcasting Organization Chart

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

Engineering &

Technical Services

Voice of 

America Radio/TV Marti Other Support

Services

Radio Free Europe/

Radio Liberty

International Broadcasting

Bureau

Broadcasting Board of Governors Radio Free Asia

Worldnet
B-285837

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

As noted earlier, the central focus of U.S. international broadcasting is on 

reaching audiences that are underserved by their local media. According to 

Freedom House’s year 2000 survey of press freedom, most countries rated 

as “not free” are located in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia (see app. I for a 

reproduction of Freedom House’s current world map of press freedom).7

While all five broadcast entities share the core mandate of reaching 

underserved populations, a key distinction among the entities is that the 

Voice of America and Worldnet broadcast to a global audience, while Radio 

Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio/TV Marti serve as 

“surrogate” broadcasters in their respective regions and substitute for local 

media in countries where a free and open press is deemed not to exist or 

has not been fully established.8

In addition to adhering to a global mission for U.S. broadcasting, each 

broadcast entity has its own broadcast mission. As described in public 

documents and by Board officials, the Voice of America provides accurate 

and credible international, regional, and country-specific news to a global 

audience, with a particular emphasis on supplying information relating to 

the United States. However, in Africa where the Voice of America serves a 

surrogate role, greater emphasis is given to news of local interest. The 

Voice of America meets its mandate to broadcast the U.S. position on 

various foreign policy matters by including the views of U.S. officials in its 

regular programs and through daily editorials that are identified as 

representing the views of the U.S. government. It also broadcasts a number 

of public affairs programs which focus on discussions of U.S. policy by 

policymakers and experts. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty focuses on 

providing regional and local news to emerging democracies in Central 

Europe and the former Soviet Union, and to Iran and Iraq. Radio Free Asia 

and Radio/TV Marti concentrate on providing news of local interest to 

audiences in Asia and Cuba, respectively, who generally do not have access 

to a free and open press. Figure 2 shows the regional coverage of the Voice 

of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and 

Radio/TV Marti. 

7

 Freedom House is a bipartisan, nonprofit group that is partly funded by the

U.S. government. 

8

 Congress created two additional surrogate services in 1998—Radio Free Iraq and Radio 

Free Iran—which are funded and administered under the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 

grant.
B-285837

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Figure 2: U.S. Broadcast Entities’ Worldwide Coverage

Note: This map shows transmission stations which are owned and operated by the International 

Broadcasting Bureau and does not include related technical infrastructure such as leased transmission 

facilities, communication satellites, or Internet operations.

Source: Office of Strategic Planning, International Broadcasting Bureau.

Shortwave broadcasting has dominated the history of U.S. international 

broadcasting for over 50 years. Over the past decade, however, the range of 

media options available to many listeners around the world has expanded 

to include local AM/FM programming, television, and the Internet. This 

diversified media environment has greatly increased the complexity of the 

Voice of America

Radio Free Europe/Radio

Liberty & Voice of America

Transmission stations

Delano, California

Radio Free Asia &

Voice of America

Radio/TV Marti &

Voice of America

Belize

Radio/TV Marti

Greenville,

North Carolina

Greece

Kavala

Rhodes

Playa de Pals, Spain

Morocco

Sao Tome

Botswana

Kuwait

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Bangkok

Udorn Philippines

Poro

Tinang

Saipan/Tinian

Germany

Holzkirchen

Ismaning

Lamperthem

Biblis
B-285837

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

strategic decisions the Board faces. These transmission modes and certain 

issues surrounding their use are described in appendix II.

Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty 

Funding Cap and 

Cost-cutting 

Expectations Have 

Been Met

The Board responded to the $75-million funding cap placed on Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty and related cost-cutting expectations by relocating to 

virtually rent-free quarters in Prague, Czech Republic; reducing staff; and 

forming local broadcast partnerships in two cases.9

 The Board achieved 

further savings by consolidating Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and 

Voice of America broadcast schedules, consolidating Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America transmission operations under 

the International Broadcasting Bureau, and implementing digital sound 

recording and editing technology in Prague. 

One key cost-cutting action that has not been implemented was the original 

expectation in the 1994 act that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty would 

receive private rather than public funding after the end of calendar year 

1999. Based on the results of analysis that the Board conducted, the Board 

concluded that privatization was not a feasible option due to the lack of 

tangible business assets (such as transmission facilities or broadcast 

frequencies) of interest to commercial buyers.10 The Foreign Relations 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (sec. 503 of App. G of

P. L. 106-113) amended the original expectation regarding privatization to 

require that broadcast operations to a given country should be phased out 

when there is clear evidence that democratic rule has been established and 

that balanced, accurate, and comprehensive news and information is 

widely available.

In line with congressional expectations, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 

reduced its budget from $208 million in fiscal year 1994 to approximately 

$71 million in fiscal year 1996 by taking the following actions.11

9

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

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

Relations, United States Senate.

11 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s fiscal year 2000 budget is approximately $68 million.
B-285837

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

• In 1995, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty relocated its headquarters 

from Munich, Germany, to quarters in Prague, Czech Republic, provided 

by the Czech Republic as a public service. 

• In conjunction with the move to Prague, Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty reduced its total staffing by almost 1,200 individuals, or almost 

75 percent of its workforce.

• Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America officials 

coordinated their respective broadcast schedules and eliminated over 

300 weekly broadcast hours in overlapping and duplicative 

programming. 

• The Polish and Czech language services were reconstituted as separate, 

nonprofit corporations.12

• Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty transmission facilities were turned 

over to the International Broadcasting Bureau in 1995 in connection 

with the consolidation of engineering and technical operations under 

the Bureau. Prior to this consolidation, Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty controlled a network of six transmission stations located in 

Germany, Portugal, and Spain. The two stations in Portugal were closed 

as a result of the consolidation. International Broadcasting Bureau 

officials estimate that the consolidation of engineering and technical 

operations initially resulted in more than $32 million in annual recurring 

savings and that current annual savings have grown to more than $50 

million.13

• A digital sound recording and editing platform was installed in 

connection with the move to Prague. This technology, under appropriate 

circumstances, allows one individual to produce a radio broadcast that 

previously would have required the services of an announcer, a 

producer, and a sound technician using the analog recording and editing 

technology that had been used in Munich. One Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty official noted that approximately 75 percent of the station’s 

output lent itself to the streamlined mode of production enabled by 

digital technology. 

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

13 Other changes were made involving Voice of America transmission operations, and the 

International Broadcasting Bureau later assumed responsibility for managing Radio Free 

Asia’s transmission needs. Radio/TV Marti remains something of a special case because it 

receives separate funding for its transmission operations. Specifically, Radio/TV Marti 

operates its own AM transmission facilities in Marathon, Florida, and an aerostat in Cudjoe 

Key, Florida, for television transmissions. Shortwave transmissions, however, are provided 

by the International Broadcasting Bureau from its transmission stations in Greenville, North 

Carolina, and Delano, California. 
B-285837

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

First Language Service 

Review Used to 

Strategically Align 

Resources

The Board completed its first annual language service review in January 

2000 and plans to use the results of this review to strategically reallocate 

approximately $4.5 million in program funds across broadcast regions on 

the basis of priority and impact ratings assigned to each language service.14

The priority ratings reflected a number of factors, including the language 

service’s contribution to furthering U.S. strategic interests, audience size, 

and other variables. The language service’s impact was based on the mass 

audience size and the number of “elite” (that is, government and other 

influential decisionmakers) listeners reached. The Board plans to use next 

year’s language service review to examine the issue of duplication in 

program content among the Voice of America and surrogate language 

services. We also found overlap in overseas news-gathering resources 

among broadcast entities. This is a potentially important duplication issue 

that the Board has not reviewed. We raised a similar issue in our 1996 

report reviewing potential budget reduction options.15

Board officials explained that a comprehensive language service review 

was not completed until January 2000 because the Board lacked adequate 

audience research on the number and type of listeners for such a review. 

Starting in 1997, the Board increased the budget devoted to audience 

research and in 1999 tasked the International Broadcasting Bureau’s Office 

of Strategic Planning with developing a comprehensive set of program and 

performance data to be used as the basis for the comprehensive review of 

language services.

Evaluation Process Used to 

Make Resource Allocation 

Decisions

Board members assigned priority and impact (audience) ratings to each 

language service as a basis for reallocating resources. The evaluation 

criteria used for the priority ratings included potential audience size, U.S. 

strategic interests, press freedom, economic freedom, and political 

14 Although the Board included Radio Free Asia in its review, these language services were 

not part of the budget reallocation deliberations because they are relatively new, and 

gathering requisite evaluation data is difficult. However, the Board did note that as reliable 

data become available, Radio Free Asia will figure equally in the review process. Another 

exception in this review cycle includes the Voice of America’s Worldwide English service. 

The Board did assess the priority of the Voice of America’s English-language broadcasts, 

but, with the exception of Voice of America English to Africa, did not undertake an in-depth 

review of Voice of America worldwide English services.

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

(GAO/NSIAD-96-179, Sept. 23, 1996).
B-285837

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

freedom. For example, a service’s contributions to furthering U.S. strategic 

interests was scored on the basis of inputs received from a variety of 

sources, including the White House, the National Security Council, the 

State Department, and applicable congressional Committees. For the 

impact ratings, the Board focused on audience size and composition as key 

performance measures. The Board also evaluated other data, such as the 

language service’s program quality, operating budget, broadcast hours, 

signal strength, and affiliate stations, to identify approaches for increasing 

listening rates in selected countries. Audience data were based on research 

conducted by the International Broadcasting Bureau’s Office of Audience 

Research and the InterMedia Survey Institute, which provided data on both 

audience size and elite listening rates. Appendix III contains further details 

on the criteria and related processes used to support the Board’s language 

service review process.

The Board used the language service evaluation criteria to develop 

priority/impact ratings for 69 of the Board’s 84 language services.16 As 

shown in table 1, the Board used these ratings to develop a matrix that 

identified higher priority/higher impact services, higher priority/lower 

impact services, lower priority/higher impact services, and lower 

priority/lower impact services. The Board intends to use this information to 

strategically reallocate approximately $4.5 million in language service 

funds from emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to several 

African countries and selected countries in other regions. The review 

resulted in 21 language service reduction recommendations, 15 

recommended service enhancements, and a call for the further review of 

seven low-performing and five duplicate language services. 

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

language service impact. 
B-285837

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Table 1: The Board’s Priority/Impact Matrix

Note: The Board requested that we not list the specific languages in each quadrant due to the sensitive 

nature of this information. 

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Language services rated as higher priority were concentrated in countries 

with a large potential listening audience; low press, political, and economic 

freedom; and high strategic interest to the United States. Higher and lower 

impact scores were determined on the basis of percentage weekly listening 

rates for both mass and elite audiences. Services with listening rates below 

5 percent for mass listeners and 15 percent for elite listeners were rated as 

having lower impact. Services that ranked above this threshold were rated 

as having higher impact. 

Review of Program Content 

Duplication Planned for 

Next Year

According to the Board, next year’s language review will include an 

assessment of overlapping language services among the five U.S. broadcast 

entities. Board officials told us that the strategy of duplicating language 

services has been designed to allow U.S. international broadcast entities to 

achieve their respective missions by offering different program content in 

the same language. Nonetheless, the Board said in a written evaluation of 

this year’s language service review that it is essential that the Board revisit 

the respective roles of the broadcasting services in light of evolving foreign 

policy and geopolitical and budget realities in the new century. The Board 

intends to use the language service review next year to look at program 

duplication between the Voice of America and surrogate language services, 

such as broadcasts to countries of the former Soviet Union, and to 

determine whether this overlap effectively serves U.S. interests on a 

country-by-country basis.

Figure 3 shows those languages where both the Voice of America and a 

surrogate service broadcast in the same language. 

Higher priority/higher impact 

(15 languages)

Higher priority/lower impact

(23 languages)

Lower priority/higher impact

(20 languages)

Lower priority/lower impact

(11 languages)
B-285837

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

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

Source: Office of Strategic Planning, International Broadcasting Bureau.

Review of Duplicate 

Overseas News Gathering 

Operations not Planned

While the Board intends to review the issue of program content duplication 

next year, it does not expect to explicitly review the duplicate news 

resources maintained by broadcast entities overseas. The Voice of America, 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia each maintain field 

offices and freelance journalists in their respective regions. Voice of 

America resources overlap with those deployed by Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia in their respective regions. For 

example, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has a combined total of about 

Spanish

Bulgarian

Czech

Estonian

Latvian

Lithuanian

Romanian

Slovak

American

Republics

Mid-East

South Asia

Former Soviet Union

Pacific

Arabic

Farsi

Armenian

Azerbaijani

Georgian

Russian

Ukrainian

Uzbek

Voice of America and Radio/TV Marti

Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Voice of America and Radio Free Asia

Europe

Burmese

Cantonese

Khmer

Korean

Lao

Mandarin

Tibetan

Vietnamese
B-285837

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

700 bureau staff and freelance journalists covering its broadcast area. The 

Voice of America has a combined staff of about 150 in the same region. In 

addition to the issue of overlap, broadcasting officials noted that 

news-gathering resources are not shared across broadcast entities. For 

example, one Voice of America language Division Director noted that news 

feeds from Voice of America overseas bureaus are not shared with Radio 

Free Asia and that Radio Free Asia news feeds are not shared with the 

Voice of America. The Division Director said “They do their work, and we 

do ours.” A Radio/TV Marti employee noted that neither the Voice of 

America nor Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty share relevant news items of 

interest to Radio/TV Marti listeners. As an example, news from Russia is 

not directly available to the station, because Radio/TV Marti does not have 

overseas bureaus or freelance journalists. 

We reported on a similar issue in our 1996 report on budget reduction 

options for the U.S. Information Agency.17 In our report, we noted areas 

where elimination of existing overlap could yield management 

improvements and cost reductions. One area we highlighted was the 

potential for further consolidation of overseas news bureaus and other 

broadcasting assets. Our report cited the overlap in news-gathering 

resources deployed by the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty in Moscow as an example of a potential area for consolidation.

Table 2 provides details on the number of bureaus, bureau staff, and 

freelance journalists deployed by each broadcast entity along with related 

fiscal year 2000 funding data. 

17 U.S. Information Agency: Options for Addressing Possible Budget Reductions.
B-285837

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

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

a

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

Source: Office of Strategic Planning, International Broadcasting Bureau.

The need to manage overseas resources effectively is heightened by the 

fact that several broadcasting officials commented they do not have 

adequate news-gathering resources and that product quality has suffered as 

a result. For example, a Radio/TV Marti official told us that a lack of 

resources has prevented the station from sending journalists to domestic 

locations outside of the Miami area and overseas to report on news stories 

of interest to the Cuban people. A Radio Free Asia language Director noted 

that her service has only $500 a month to pay for reports from freelance 

journalists that cost $50 to $100 per report. She noted that this level of 

funding is not sufficient to produce original and up-to-date programming. 

Radio Free Asia officials have since told us that freelance budgets have 

been adjusted to fully fund all language services’ projected requirements 

for the remainder of fiscal year 2000. 

Strategic Planning and 

Performance 

Management Process 

Still Under 

Development

The Board has not yet developed a strategic planning and performance 

management system that provides a high level of assurance that resources 

are being used in the most effective manner possible. The key components 

of this system are Results Act planning, the annual language service review, 

and the program reviews of individual language services. The Board’s fiscal 

year 2001 Results Act performance plan is deficient because of missing or 

imprecise performance goals and indicators and a lack of key 

Broadcast entity Coverage

Number of

bureaus Bureau staff Freelance journalists

Operating

budget (fiscal

year 2000)

Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty

East/Central Europe, the 

Former Soviet Union, Iran, 

and Iraq

24a 182 536 $7,227,000

Voice of America East/Central Europe and 

the Former Soviet Union

4 12 142 $1,914,336

Radio Free Asia Far East 8 14 287 $3,214,787

Voice of America Far East 4 14 87 $2,164,295

Voice of America Africa, Near East and 

North Africa, and South 

Central Asia

8 24 170 $1,926,928

Voice of America Latin America 2 8 90 $354,951
B-285837

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

implementation strategies and related resource requirements. In addition, 

the lack of a standard program review approach and audience goals for 

individual language services limits the usefulness of the program reviews 

that the broadcast entities conduct to assess the content and presentation 

of their individual language service programs. 

As a newly independent federal entity, the Board has full responsibility for 

implementing its strategic planning and performance management system. 

A key component of such a system is Results Act planning. Under the 

Results Act, executive agencies are required to prepare 5-year strategic 

plans that set the general direction for their efforts. Agencies then develop 

annual performance plans that establish the connections between

long-term strategic goals outlined in the strategic plan and the day-to-day 

activities of program managers and staff. Finally, the act requires that each 

agency produce an annual performance report on the extent to which it is 

meeting its annual performance goals and the actions needed to achieve or 

modify those goals that have not been met.18 Board officials pointed out 

that they have made considerable progress in implementing a strategic 

planning and performance management system and that they submitted a 

performance report in March 2000 as required. 

Missing Performance 

Elements and Imprecise 

Measures of Audience Size 

and Composition Weaken 

the Board’s Performance 

Plan

The Board’s fiscal year 2001 performance plan includes two strategic 

objectives that are not supported by accompanying performance goals and 

indicators. First, the performance plan lists encouraging the development 

of a free and independent media as a strategic objective. This reflects one 

of the objectives embodied in the 1994 Broadcasting Act that calls for the 

training and technical support for independent indigenous media through 

government agencies or private U.S. entities. The second strategic 

objective lacking supporting performance goals and indicators relates to 

the Board’s need for comprehensive and up-to-date audience research data. 

Again, the 1994 Broadcasting Act stipulates that U.S. international 

broadcasting efforts should be based on reliable audience research data. 

The Board recognizes that its performance plan has some limitations and 

has formed a Results Act indicators review team to address them. 

18 We used GAO’s performance plan evaluation guide to assess the Board’s annual 

performance plan. See The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual 

Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20, Apr. 1998). 
B-285837

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Table 3 provides an overview of the Board’s fiscal year 2001 performance 

plan that was included with the agency’s fiscal year 2001 budget submission 

to Congress. This performance plan supports the Board’s stated mission of 

using U.S. international broadcasting to encourage the development and 

growth of democratic values in support of the diplomatic, humanitarian, 

and economic goals of the United States. The array of programs and 

accurate information that U.S. international broadcasting strives to provide 

foreign audiences worldwide are intended to help people understand 

democratic ideals, civil governance, free market economics and trade, and 

respect for the rule of law. Within this context, while a number of 

performance goals and indicators are used to assess the extent to which 

U.S. international broadcasting is achieving its mission, Board officials told 

us that audience size is the most important performance goal and 

indicator.19 Table 3 shows the strategic objectives and the performance 

goals and indicators contained in the Board’s fiscal year 2001 performance 

plan.

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

19 Board and Radio Free Asia officials have noted that audience size is not an adequate 

indicator for Radio Free Asia because Radio Free Asia is relatively new and unknown, its 

signal is often jammed, and it is very difficult to measure audience size in its target 

countries.

Strategic objective Performance goal Performance indicator

Provide audiences comprehensive, 

accurate, and objective news and 

information.

Percent of services that broadcast entities score as 

“good or better.” 

Program quality.a

Represent American society and culture 

in a balanced and comprehensive way.b

Percent of services that broadcast entities score as 

“good or better.” 

Program quality. 

Present the policies of the United States 

clearly and effectively, along with 

responsible discussion and opinions of 

those policies.b

Percent of services that broadcast entities score as 

“good or better.” 

Program quality.

Reach audiences in the languages, 

media, and program formats that are 

most appropriate.c

Global and regional audience targets. Regular listening/viewing audience.

Samed Target number of affiliates. Count of local affiliates.

Same Target signal strength average for U.S. broadcasting as 

a whole.

Signal strength.
B-285837

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Note: Program quality, regular listening/viewing audiences, and local affiliate performance goals were 

not established for all broadcast entities. For example, audience targets were not established for 

Worldnet, Radio/TV Marti, and Radio Free Asia, given present difficulties associated with collecting 

meaningful audience size data for each of these entities. 

a Program quality is measured in connection with the program reviews conducted by the International 

Broadcasting Bureau, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. Program quality 

assessments examine such issues as program balance and objectivity and production values such as 

timing and use of musical bridges. See appendix III for additional details.

b

 Because Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia are surrogate broadcasters, these 

two objectives do not apply to them.

c

 “Most appropriate” includes considerations of efficiency and effectiveness of delivery to those 

audiences.

d

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

Source: Office of Strategic Planning, International Broadcasting Bureau.

Of the performance goals and indicators shown in table 3, Board officials 

have identified audience size as the most important performance goal and 

indicator for assessing to what extent U.S. international broadcasting is 

achieving its mission. Audience size provides an indicator of how many 

people around the world are tuning in to information intended to help them 

understand democratic ideals, civil governance, and the rule of law. 

However, the Board uses only global audience size estimates by broadcast 

entity to set performance goals and track performance. For example, the 

fiscal year 2001 performance plan lists the Voice of America’s current 

listening audience at 91 million and sets a performance target of 92 million 

for fiscal year 2001. A January 1999 memo provided instructions on 

preparing submissions to the fiscal year 2001 performance plan; it invited 

units to suggest potential program enhancements and provide a memo 

describing the impact these enhancements would have on such 

performance measures as audience size. The instructions also called for a 

description of how the actual impact of such program enhancements would 

be measured. However, this guidance did not discuss the systematic 

establishment of specific audience targets by language service or the 

Same Target satellite performance standard for U.S. 

broadcasting as a whole.

Satellite Effectiveness Index.

Same Target costs for running International Broadcasting 

Bureau transmission stations.

Transmission network expenses.

Same Internet goal under development. Internet performance indicator 

(under development).

Encourage development of a free and 

independent media.

No performance goal. No indicator.

Utilize comprehensive and accurate 

research to understand audiences.

No performance goal. No indicator.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Strategic objective Performance goal Performance indicator
B-285837

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

method for monitoring such targets to provide meaningful performance 

data (such as the number of language services achieving target 

performance levels each year) for inclusion in the Board’s annual 

performance plan. 

The Board acknowledges in its performance plan that changes in estimated 

global listening audiences from year to year do not necessarily indicate a 

“genuine” increase in listeners because better survey techniques may 

simply have identified additional listeners not included in earlier estimates. 

In addition, the International Broadcasting Bureau’s Office of Research 

reported that the Voice of America’s global estimate should be taken only 

as a rough indication of the number of listeners, with a potentially wide 

margin of error.20 The report further noted that “most of Voice of America’s 

audience is heavily concentrated in a small number of countries; as a result, 

exclusive reliance on the global estimate as a measure of effectiveness may 

obscure important changes that occur from year to year at the regional or 

country level.” Radio Free Asia officials have pointed out that Radio Free 

Asia is relatively new and has no effective means to advertise its services in 

the closed target countries. Further, these officials said that it is very 

difficult to obtain reliable audience size estimates. Thus, the officials 

believed that audience size would not be an adequate measure of Radio 

Free Asia’s performance at this time.

A second problem with this key performance indicator is that the 

performance plan makes no distinction between mass versus elite (that is, 

government and other influential decisionmakers) audiences and only 

references mass listening audiences in its strategic objectives and 

performance goals. The distinction between these two basic audiences has 

major implications for the Board with regard to setting strategic objectives 

and performance goals, establishing and refining broadcast strategies, and 

allocating resources in the most effective manner possible. A senior Voice 

of America official told us that the agency’s biggest challenge is analyzing 

its programming language by language and determining what matches the 

needs of the various audiences the Voice of America is trying to reach. The 

target audience can also change over time. For example, the Voice of 

America’s audience in Africa has typically been made up of an elite group of 

40- to 50-year-old males in political or civil service leadership positions. 

20 Research Memorandum: Voice of America’s Global Audience, Office of Research, 

International Broadcasting Bureau (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1999).
B-285837

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Now, one official told us, the African language services need to attract 

more of a mass audience in order to reach future leaders.

Lack of Implementation 

Strategies and Resource 

Requirements Obscure the 

Board’s Planned Actions

According to the Results Act, agency performance plans should describe 

the operational processes, skills, technology, and other resources an 

agency will need to achieve its performance goals. The plans should 

describe both the agency’s existing strategies and resources and any 

significant changes to them. We found that the Board’s fiscal year 2001 plan 

does not discuss such strategies or resource requirements for its ongoing 

initiatives. For example, the plan does not include a discussion of the 

Board’s Internet deployment plan. This is a concern, given the complex 

issues the Board faces as it attempts to integrate the Internet with the more 

traditional radio and television distribution efforts of five discrete 

broadcast entities in an era of rapid political and technological changes and 

shifting consumer demands and preferences.

The lack of a discussion of the role and significance of the International 

Broadcasting Bureau’s deployment of digital production technology for the 

Voice of America is another concern. Under the title of the “Digital 

Broadcasting Program,” the digital production technology effort is being 

overseen by the Board. This $57-million effort to upgrade the Voice of 

America’s operations from an analog mode to a digital one will allow, in 

certain cases, a single staff member to perform the work previously 

assigned to an announcer, a producer, and a sound technician. Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia have already implemented 

digital production systems, and Radio/TV Marti expects to have its digital 

project completed by December 2001. However, according to a senior 

International Broadcasting Bureau official, the Digital Broadcasting 

Program, which was initiated in 1995, was supposed to be finished within a 

3- to 4-year time period predicated on the project’s receiving funding at the 

planned levels. Actual funding has been extended over a longer period of 

time, and a definitive end-point for the project remains to be established. 

The Board’s performance plan does not highlight the importance of this 

project to the Voice of America’s effectiveness, the specific strategies being 

followed to ensure successful implementation, the impact budget shortfalls 

will have on its completion, and the projected cost savings (in terms of 

long-term staffing needs, for example) to be derived from full 

implementation of the project.
B-285837

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Program Reviews not 

Standard Across Broadcast 

Entities

The usefulness of annual program reviews of individual language services 

is hampered by (1) a lack of consistency in how program quality scores—a 

key component of the program review process—are developed across 

broadcast entities and (2) the lack of audience size and composition 

targets, which would help focus language service planning efforts.21 The 

International Broadcasting Bureau conducts program reviews for the Voice 

of America and Radio/TV Marti, while Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 

and Radio Free Asia conduct their own reviews. Program reviews evaluate 

a number of factors, including audience size, signal strength, affiliates 

management, and program content and presentation. The latter factor is 

referred to as “program quality.” Program reviews culminate with a written 

report with recommendations for improving operations in one or more of 

the previously listed areas. 

Board officials acknowledge that there is variability in how program 

reviews are conducted across broadcast entities. Specifically, they noted 

that a consistent approach to evaluating program quality remains to be 

established. Program quality refers to content and presentation issues such 

as program balance and objectivity, program pacing, use of musical bridges 

between program segments, and the quality of the announcer’s voice. One 

key methodological difference that exists today is that some broadcast 

entities use external experts and in-country listening panels in assessing 

program quality, and others do not. For example, the International 

Broadcasting Bureau relies on internal personnel to develop program 

quality assessments. Voice of America language program directors 

generally noted that these assessments were not that rigorous and would 

benefit from input from outside experts, such as journalists and academic 

specialists. In contrast, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty does utilize 

external experts and in-country listening panels in its program quality 

review process. Funding permitting, Board officials noted that they 

21 Program quality scores are also incorporated in the Board’s annual language service 

review and Results Act planning. Program quality is used in the annual language service 

review to help assess why a particular language is not attracting a desired audience size. 

Program quality is used as a performance indicator in the Board’s annual performance plan 

to establish target program quality goals for the Voice of America, Radio/TV Marti, and 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
B-285837

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

eventually intend to move all program reviews toward a uniform process 

and methodology that incorporates the views of external experts and

in-country listening panels in assessing program quality.22

Finally, we noted that program reviews center on discussions of program 

operations and a general desire to improve language service performance 

without the benefit of focussing on specific performance targets such as 

audience size and composition. Board officials noted that performance 

targets for individual language services could be established at the Results 

Act and annual language service review levels and these targets could form 

the focal point for program reviews. Focused program reviews could, in 

turn, influence and modify the next iteration of performance targets 

established at the Results Act and annual language service review levels. 

Conclusions The Board has taken actions to fulfill the mandates and expectations 

contained in the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994. It has 

implemented the steps necessary to reduce Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty’s budget to below the $75 million ceiling established by Congress. 

The Board established a language service review process that is designed 

to realign budget resources strategically on an annual basis. Finally, the 

Board has developed a strategic planning and performance management 

system that consists of Results Act planning, the annual language service 

review, and the program reviews of individual language services. This 

system is intended to help ensure that U.S. international broadcasting 

resources are used in the most effective manner possible.

Despite the Board’s overall progress and its continuing efforts to further 

refine its strategic planning and performance management system, the 

broadcast entities could benefit from the closer integration of international 

broadcast missions and strategic objectives and more clearly defined 

performance goals and indicators as called for by the Results Act. For 

example, the Board’s global audience goal, in particular, is less useful as a 

key indicator of broadcast effectiveness than summary data on the success 

of language services in achieving individual audience size and composition 

targets. Further, the performance plan lacks an implementation strategy 

and related resource requirements for the Board’s key initiatives. 

22Radio Free Asia’s program review and program quality review processes are still evolving. 

However, these processes are trending toward adopting a review model which is similar to 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s.
B-285837

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Addressing these strategic planning issues could help ensure that resources 

are managed more effectively with more clearly defined results. 

The Board’s current plans for its next language services review do not 

include a plan to analyze the deployment of field news-gathering resources 

among the broadcast entities. Such an analysis could potentially identify 

areas of unnecessary overlap, which would allow them to redirect 

resources to areas needing more news coverage. A lack of adequate news 

coverage ultimately diminishes the quality of U.S. broadcast efforts and 

potentially affects the size and nature of the listening audience, a key 

performance indicator. 

Finally, annual program reviews conducted for individual language services 

do not employ a consistent approach to assessing program quality and do 

not focus on specific audience size and composition targets. A standard 

review approach, which incorporates both outside experts and in-country 

listening panels, would increase the overall value of program quality 

assessments and allow meaningful comparisons among individual language 

services and among broadcast entities. Improved program quality 

measures would also benefit the annual language service review process 

and the Board’s Results Act planning, each of which incorporate program 

quality as a performance measure. Establishing specific audience targets 

for each language service would enable program review teams to develop 

action plans listing the specific steps and resources needed to achieve any 

audience share and composition goals established at the Results Act level. 

These action plans and related resource discussions could be incorporated 

in both Results Act planning and the annual language service review 

process which is the Board’s primary vehicle for assessing the distribution 

of broadcasting resources. 

Recommendations To strengthen the Board’s management oversight and provide greater 

assurance that international broadcasting funds are being effectively 

expended, we recommend that the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

• include in the Board’s performance plan a clearer indication of how its 

broadcast missions, strategic objectives, performance goals, and 

performance indicators relate to each other; and establish audience and 

other goals, as appropriate, at the individual language service level;

• include implementation strategies and related resource requirements in 

its performance plan; 
B-285837

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

• analyze overseas news-gathering networks across its broadcast entities 

to determine if resources could be more effectively deployed; and

• institute a standardized approach to conducting program quality 

assessments and require that program reviews produce a detailed action 

plan that responds to specific audience size and composition targets 

established at the Results Act and annual language service review level.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation 

The Broadcasting Board of Governors provided written comments on a 

draft of this report. The Board stated that the report is fair and accurate, 

and the Board concurred with our recommendations. The Board said that 

some actions currently underway will serve to partially implement the 

recommendations and that it will implement additional actions in the 

future. For example, the Board has launched a review of its existing 

performance plan that will include drawing clearer linkages between 

broadcast missions, strategic objectives, and performance goals. The 

Board also intends to establish audience and other goals, as appropriate, at 

the individual language service level. The Board agreed with our 

recommendation that it analyze its overseas news-gathering network next 

year. However, the Board said that an analysis of its overseas

news-gathering resources would be more useful as a stand-alone analysis 

rather than as part of the annual language service review as we 

recommended. We recognize the need for such flexibility and modified our 

recommendation accordingly.

The Board expressed concern that the information we provided on U.S. 

international broadcasting and the British Broadcasting Corporation was 

unfair and presented a misleading picture of two very different 

organizations (see app. IV). The Board noted that U.S. international 

broadcasting has been charged with a far more complex mission, which 

includes conveying the views of the U.S. government and functioning as a 

surrogate broadcaster in areas where gaining access to target audiences is 

difficult. The Board added that caution was needed when comparing total 

operating costs, listening audience size, the number of language services, 

and the implied cost per listener, due to the significant differences between 

the two organizations. To address the Board’s concerns, we modified the 

introduction to appendix IV. We also adjusted U.S. budget data to remove 

television production and transmission costs which are not included in the 

British Broadcasting Corporation budget figure. However, we believe that 

providing information on the world’s top two international broadcasters is 

useful and serves to illustrate both the similarities and differences in how 

these two organizations conduct their business. Further, discussions with 
B-285837

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

U.S. broadcast staff and our review of internal documents indicate that the 

Board considers the British Broadcasting Corporation to be a key 

competitor and closely tracks its activities in selected broadcast markets 

around the world. 

The comments provided by the Board are reprinted in appendix VI. The 

Board also provided technical comments in attachment B, which we have 

incorporated in the report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Marc B. Nathanson, 

Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors; and to interested 

congressional committees. Copies will also be made available to others 

upon request. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call 

me at (202) 512-4268. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are 

listed in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford

Associate Director 

International Relations and Trade Issues
Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix I

Map of Press Freedom ApApenednxidexiIs

The core mandate of U.S. international broadcasting is to reach audiences 

in countries where a fair and open press does not exist or has not been fully 

established. The Board’s primary basis for assessing the status of press 

freedom around the world is the annual survey of press freedom conducted 

by an organization called Freedom House, which is partly supported by 

U.S. grant funds. As shown in figure 4, Freedom House’s most recent survey 

shows that the most severely underserved audiences are concentrated in 

Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. 

Figure 4: Freedom House Survey of Press Freedom, 2000 

Note: To allow vivid contrasts among press freedom categories, country outlines could not be shown 

for several countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. 

Source: Freedom House.

Free

Partly Free

Not Free
Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix II

U.S. International Broadcasting Transmission 

Modes and Operations ApendxiI

U.S. international broadcasting operates within the context of a complex 

and evolving transmission environment. Each of the key broadcast 

methods the United States uses is described in the following section and in 

more detail in an August 1999 International Broadcasting Bureau study.1

Shortwave − This transmission mode utilizes the reflective properties of 

the ionosphere to carry an analog radio signal to listeners typically up to 

4,200 miles away or even farther under some circumstances. In many 

situations the quality of shortwave transmissions can be comparable to that 

of AM/FM broadcasts. However, over long distances, where shortwave is so 

valuable, transmission quality can vary considerably. Despite its 

drawbacks, shortwave remains the primary transmission medium (and 

sometimes the only option) for international broadcasters seeking to reach 

target populations where press freedom is completely or largely restricted. 

One problem with shortwave broadcasts is that countries, such as China, 

Vietnam, and Cuba, attempt to block U.S. broadcast signals. To counteract 

these jamming activities, international broadcasters use very powerful 

transmitters, operating from multiple locations, on multiple frequencies. 

This increases the costs of shortwave broadcasting relative to most other 

transmission mediums but it still remains an economical medium for 

reaching large areas. Shortwave broadcasting is currently carried on a 

network of 22 U.S.-owned and 16 leased transmission facilities. However, 

U.S.-owned transmitters in the Philippines and Thailand currently cannot 

be used for Radio Free Asia broadcasts because of host government 

prohibitions.

The future of shortwave radio could be significantly affected by the 

development of digital shortwave, which offers several advantages over the 

current analog form of shortwave transmission. Digital shortwave is 

capable of producing AM quality audio, which does not degrade over long 

distances. Digital shortwave receivers (which are not yet commercially 

available) can be programmed to lock on to a station name as opposed to a 

specific broadcasting frequency. This development could have major 

implications for countries such as China and Cuba, which actively jam 

current shortwave transmissions. Under a digital system, it may be possible 

to scramble frequencies to frustrate jammers while not affecting listeners, 

whose preset stations would be available at a touch of a button. However, 

the International Broadcasting Bureau noted that it is unclear whether 

1 Broadcasting into the Millennium: Transmission Strategies and Outlook for the 

International Broadcasting Bureau, (International Broadcasting Bureau, Aug. 1999).
Appendix II

U.S. International Broadcasting 

Transmission Modes and Operations

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

these potential anti-jamming features will be available in mass-market 

products.

Transnational AM (medium-wave) broadcasts − Broadcasting from 

U.S.-owned or -leased transmission facilities, AM broadcasts can reach 

target audiences up to 900 miles away or even farther under some 

circumstances. One advantage of AM broadcasting is the enormous 

number of listeners with AM/FM receivers. As is the case with shortwave 

transmissions, one drawback of medium-wave transmissions is that they 

can be jammed by hostile governments.

AM/FM Radio Affiliates -- Radio affiliates are local AM/FM or television 

stations that rebroadcast U.S.-produced program content. Some affiliates 

are paid to carry this content, and others are not. FM signals provide the 

highest sound quality, but they are limited to a line-of-sight broadcast range 

typically of about 25 to 75 miles depending on the height of the transmitting 

antenna and other local conditions. The Board currently has more than 

1,300 radio affiliates, with the largest concentration of affiliates in Central 

Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Latin America. For example, the 

Board has 516 radio affiliates in Latin America. In contrast, it has only 54 

radio affiliates in Africa.

Paid Leases and Licenses − Paid leases and licenses are another form of 

local rebroadcasting. A lease is an agreement with a local station or 

network for a specific allocation of airtime for a specific cost. The Board 

currently has 24 AM/FM leases worldwide. Licenses are granted by a 

national authority to broadcasters for the use of a dedicated AM or FM 

frequency to broadcast locally using their own equipment. However, in 

most cases, national regulations require that the license be issued in the 

name of a local entity. According to a 1999 International Broadcasting 

Bureau document on transmission strategies, the Voice of America has 

traditionally placed its emphasis on building its network of AM/FM 

affiliates, while other international broadcasters, such as Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and Radio 

France International, have invested substantially in local leases and 

licenses.

Television via Local Affiliates − Most U.S.-produced television content 

is broadcast through local cable and land-based broadcast affiliates. 

According to Board officials, television has become the predominant media 

choice for viewers in several key areas, including Russia and China. The 
Appendix II

U.S. International Broadcasting 

Transmission Modes and Operations

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Board reports that it has almost 500 television cable/terrestrial affiliates 

concentrated in the former Soviet Union and Latin America. 

Television content for U.S. international broadcasting has traditionally 

been provided by the Worldnet Television and Film Service, which is the 

official television broadcast arm of the U.S. government. According to the 

Board, it has transferred the public diplomacy portion of Worldnet to the 

State Department under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act 

of 1998. (P.L. 105-277). The Board has submitted a reprogramming request 

to Congress to transfer Worldnet’s remaining resources (totaling 

$20.5 million in fiscal year 2000 funding) to Voice of America TV.

Satellite Radio and Television − This medium relies on direct satellite 

transmission to relatively expensive analog or digital receivers or private 

satellite dishes. While not appropriate for reaching mass audiences, this 

option does offer the opportunity to reach “elite” listeners who are the key 

decisionmakers U.S. international broadcasters would like to reach in 

target countries. 

Internet Webcasting and E-mail Delivery – The Internet offers the first 

truly interactive medium for delivering text, audio, and video streams to 

users’ personal computers.2

 The use of e-mail also provides broadcasters 

with the ability to send text messages to subscriber lists with the contents 

of U.S. audio broadcasts. U.S. broadcast entities have also established a 

presence on the Internet, and the Voice of America, Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia have initiated e-mail subscriber 

programs. Again, the Internet is currently not poised to deliver information 

to mass audiences around the globe; however, it represents another key 

delivery option for reaching elite listeners. While Internet webcasting is not 

susceptible to jamming, it is susceptible to blocking at entry portals by 

hostile governments.

2

 Current developments in Internet broadcasting suggest that Internet usage will expand 

from its present base of personal computers to handheld devices such as cell phones and 

other Internet appliances. An International Broadcasting Bureau team is investigating 

Internet content and transmission schemes compatible with handheld devices, and Radio 

Free Asia and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are jointly experimenting with new Internet 

technologies. These developments have significant implications for reaching listeners who 

cannot afford their own personal computer.
Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III

Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Board’s 

Language Service Review Process ApendxiI

Table 4 provides a brief overview of the criteria and related processes used 

to support the Board’s language service review process. Audience listening 

rate is the key variable used to assess the impact a language service is 

having. However, the Board used additional impact criteria, such as 

program quality and transmission effectiveness, to help identify potential 

solutions to low audience listening rates.

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

Criteria Description

U.S. strategic interests Board staff assign a quantitative “strategic interests” score to each language on the basis of a 

number of inputs. Board staff consult U.S. foreign affairs officials and printed documents such as 

the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook, Department of Commerce statistics, 

information from nongovernmental organizations, and in-house regional and country experts. 

Adult population size The Board bases potential audience size on population statistics drawn from a private group 

called the Population Reference Bureau, which produces updated adult country population 

statistics each year. The size of a country is important not only for potential audience size but also 

for regional influence.

Press freedom Because of the Board’s unique concern about press freedom, it uses the Annual Press Freedom 

Survey conducted by the Freedom House organization to gauge the development of free media 

environments around the world. In addition, the Board uses information from the Committee for 

the Protection of Journalists and other similar sources to develop a final score. 

Political freedom The Board developed a political freedom rating for each country on the basis of Freedom House’s 

Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. 

Economic freedom The Board uses the Heritage Foundation’s annual survey of economic freedom.

Audience listening rate Audience research seeks to gauge the regular weekly listening audience for each of the Board’s 

84 language services. The Board conducts studies on a cyclical basis, with the goal of updating 

audience numbers for each service every year and conducting qualitative research where 

appropriate. For the most part, this goal has been met, with the exception of closed societies such 

as China or Cuba where more ad hoc measures such as émigré or visitor surveys must be used 

to gauge audience size. Data are collected for both mass and elite listeners, and the Board 

assesses both target groups in assigning a final audience score to each language service. 

Program quality Currently, the International Broadcasting Bureau (on behalf of the Voice of America and Radio/TV 

Marti), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia take different approaches to 

measuring program quality. Program quality addresses such issues as whether program content 

is fair and balanced, and a number of presentation issues including program pacing, use of 

musical bridges, and the appeal of the announcer’s voice. 

In the case of the International Broadcasting Bureau, program quality is assessed using only 

internal staff. In contrast, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty involves outside experts and incountry listening panels in its assessments of program quality. While Radio Free Asia is still 

developing its procedures for assessing program quality, it is moving toward the Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty assessment model. 
Appendix III

Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Board’s 

Language Service Review Process

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Source: Office of Strategic Planning, International Broadcasting Bureau.

Transmission effectiveness Signal quality determines whether radio signals are being received clearly by the intended 

audiences. Short- and medium-wave signal strength is measured and compiled twice each year 

for almost all language services. This information is collected through a worldwide network of 

monitoring stations managed by the International Broadcasting Bureau that periodically sample 

and record the audio quality of U.S. international broadcasts. The signal quality of individual 

language services is rated on a five-point scale.

The Board also has a separate satellite transmission effectiveness rating, which seeks to gauge 

the ability of the International Broadcasting Bureau’s satellite distribution network to provide 

quality radio and TV signal delivery to affiliates and private satellite dish owners. This index 

examines the signal reception of small antennae, the size of the target country’s television 

population, the number of channels available on the satellite, the signal strength of the satellite, 

the satellite’s capability to cover multiple time zones, and the ability of the satellite to serve as both 

a radio and a TV program feed within the overall network, especially during “prime time.” 

Information for this index is collected by the International Broadcasting Bureau’s Office of 

Engineering and Technical Services, which uses it for decision-making in satellite leasing and 

related activities with the intent of improving transmission services over time. 

Affiliates database The Board maintains an affiliates database for the Voice of America and is currently inputting data 

for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 

Broadcast hours The number of original broadcast hours produced by each language service is obtained from 

program logs that each language service maintains. Original broadcast hours are currently 

defined to include no more than 70 percent repeat material.

Production and transmission costs The Board compiles annual production and transmission costs for each language service, cost 

per listener ratio, and related budget information. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Criteria Description
Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix IV

Information on Board and British 

Broadcasting Corporation Operations ApendxiIV

The British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) World Service has adopted a 

model for international broadcasting that differs in several key respects 

from the approach U.S. broadcasters use. Three of the most significant 

differences between the Board and the BBC are mission, organizational 

structure, and future operations. 

• The central mission of U.S. international broadcasting is geared toward 

reaching audiences that are underserved by available media voices. As a 

result, the United States does not broadcast to fully democratic nations 

such as Canada, the United Kingdom, or Germany. In contrast, the BBC’s 

mission is much broader and includes reaching listeners in markets 

around the world, including media-rich countries such as the United 

States.

• The organization of U.S. international broadcasting has evolved along 

the lines of “official” and “surrogate” broadcast entities. This division 

has led to the creation of five separate broadcast entities with varying 

missions, budget resources, and operating styles. The BBC has only one 

World Service, which, according to BBC officials, varies broadcast 

content on a country-by-country basis in response to market research 

and audience demands.

• Finally, U.S. international broadcasting and certain component 

operations are either subject to sunset provisions or are required to 

phase out over a period of time. In contrast, the World Service is not 

subject to sunset. In the case of U.S. international broadcasting, an 

original sunset provision in the 1994 International Broadcasting Act 

generally required the Board to cease funding Radio Free Asia after 

September 30, 1998. The act was amended in 1999 to provide for explicit 

sunset of funding for Radio Free Asia after September 30, 2009.1

Congress has also specified conditions under which Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasting should be phased out in a particular 

country. Radio TV/Marti is required to be terminated upon transmittal by 

the President to appropriate congressional Committees of a 

determination that a democratically elected government is in power in 

Cuba.2

 Even the Voice of America’s goal to serve audiences deprived of 

full access to an open and free press suggests a diminishing role over 

time as the long-sought goal of global press freedom is eventually 

achieved.

1

 22 U.S.C. §6208(g).

2

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

Information on Board and British 

Broadcasting Corporation Operations

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Information on U.S. international broadcasting and BBC World Service 

operations is provided in table 5. The table is designed to provide summary 

data on U.S. and BBC broadcast operations and the table notes should be 

read carefully to understand the data on total budget costs, listening 

audience, and number of language services. This numerical data is not 

sufficient to draw conclusions about the relative efficiency and 

effectiveness of the two organizations. Additional factors such as the 

relative costs of reaching different target audiences, the different mixes of 

broadcast technology, and the nature of operating overheads would need to 

considered to arrive at valid conclusions. 

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

U.S. International Broadcasting BBC World Service

Year founded 1942 1932

Annual budget (fiscal year 

2000)

$367 milliona $255 milliona

Listening audience $107 millionb $151 million 

Number of language 

services

84c 43

Organizational structure • General and specific policy guidance on U.S. 

strategic interests provided by Congress, White 

House, National Security Council, and the State 

Department. Several broadcast languages have 

broadcast mandates from Congress.

• Part-time governing board charged with directing 

and overseeing U.S. broadcasting. Board is also 

responsible for overall strategic planning.

• Broadcast entities include governmental agencies 

(Voice of America, Worldnet, and Radio/TV Marti) 

and grantees providing surrogate broadcast 

services (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and 

Radio Free Asia).

• British Foreign Office provides a list of broadcast 

languages and number of broadcast hours in each 

language.

• A full-time BBC Director General and part-time 

governing board provide strategic guidance and 

oversight for the BBC World Service.

• The World Service has a Chief Executive Officer 

and a senior management team that directs daily 

operations and develops strategic planning 

documents for review by the BBC’s governing board 

and the Director General.

• Regional language groups report to the Chief 

Executive Officer, who has the authority to 

reallocate resources, implement program changes, 

etc.

• BBC World Service is organized as a corporation 

that receives an annual grant-in-aid from the British 

government.
Appendix IV

Information on Board and British 

Broadcasting Corporation Operations

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Broadcasting mission • To broadcast unbiased information of international, 

regional, and local significance to audiences with 

unserved needs, with the goal of stimulating the 

development of democratic values and institutions 

around the world. These developments are linked to 

increasing world peace and stability, which is in the 

interest of the United States.

• Broadcast missions for individual entities 

emphasize a particular news focus and target 

audience.

• Primary mission is to be the world’s best known and 

most respected voice in international broadcasting, 

thereby bringing benefit to Britain.

• To become the world’s reference point for 

information.

Sunset provisions • Radio Free Asia has an explicit sunset for its 

operations.

• Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty operations are 

expected to phase out eventually.

• Radio/TV Marti is required to terminate operations 

when a democratically elected government takes 

power in Cuba.

• The Voice of America does not have an explicit 

sunset date for its operations. However, the core 

mission of U.S. international broadcasting to reach 

the “underserved” suggests a diminished role for 

the Voice of America over time.

No sunset provision.

Performance management 

system

Requirements under the1993 Results Act, annual 

language service review, and program reviews.

The BBC has adopted the “balanced scorecard” 

approach to performance management. This 

approach relies on the collection and analysis of 

detailed performance data in four areas (customer, 

finance, business processes, and learning and 

growth).

Target audience Masses and elites The World Service segments its audience into four 

distinct groups according to their information needs.

Editorial policy Voice of America and Radio/TV Marti are required to 

carry daily U.S. government editorials.

BBC World Service charter explicitly prohibits 

government editorials.

Program content News of America, international news, regional news, 

and local news. Relative mix of content varies among 

U.S. broadcasters. For example, Voice of America 

generally carries less local content than a surrogate 

broadcaster. However, in Africa, Voice of America 

local content is relatively high since it serves as a 

surrogate broadcaster to several African nations.

International news, regional news, and local news. 

Relative mix of content adjusted on a country-bycountry basis based on the BBC’s target audience 

goals and listener preferences. 

Views on competition In areas of language duplication, some agency 

officials cited other U.S. broadcasters as key 

competitors. More broadly, agency officials indicated 

that they view other international broadcasters, most 

notably the BBC, as their competition. 

The BBC broadly defines its competition as including 

information providers from a wide spectrum, 

including other international broadcasters, Cable 

News Network, Internet portal providers such as 

Yahoo, etc. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

U.S. International Broadcasting BBC World Service
Appendix IV

Information on Board and British 

Broadcasting Corporation Operations

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

a

 U.S. budget figures adjusted to remove approximately $53 million in television production costs for 

Worldnet, Voice of America TV, and TV Marti. This adjustment was made to reflect the fact that 

television production costs are not included in the World Service budget figure because international 

television broadcast operations are handled by a separate BBC entity called BBC World. Both budget 

figures include support services such as central news services, English language programming, and 

computer services. In the case of U.S. broadcasting, these support services are provided internally. In 

the case of the World Service, these support services are supplied under contract from the BBC. 

b

 The U.S. audience figure includes audience counts for Voice of America and Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty, which overlap to a certain degree. The U.S. figure does not include the 

estimated listening total for Radio Free Asia or Radio/TV Marti due to the difficulty of conducting 

audience research studies in closed societies. Finally, the figure does not include estimated Worldnet 

listening totals, which the Board believes cannot be accurately measured for a number of reasons. 

c Figure includes 24 “duplicative” services run by the Voice of America and surrogate broadcasters. 

Many of these languages services were established in response to congressional mandates.

Source: GAO analysis.

Transmission operations • International Broadcasting Bureau manages a 

network of 38 U.S.-owned and -leased 

shortwave/medium-wave transmission facilities.

• International Broadcasting Bureau manages a 

worldwide network of leased satellite links.

• International Broadcasting Bureau delivers program 

content to a network of almost 2,000 radio and TV 

affiliates worldwide.

The BBC privatized its transmission resources in 

1997 and formed a private corporation, called Merlin 

Communications, to handle its worldwide 

communication needs including satellite 

communications, shortwave/medium-wave 

transmissions, and affiliate management. Under the 

privatization effort, the BBC sold its domestic 

transmission facilities to Merlin while retaining legal 

ownership of its overseas transmission facilities due 

to local arrangements that were made with the BBC 

and not Merlin.

(Continued From Previous Page)

U.S. International Broadcasting BBC World Service
Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix V

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApendxiV

The Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget requested that we 

examine whether the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors (1) responded 

to the specific mandates regarding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s 

operations, (2) implemented an annual language service review process, 

and (3) instituted a strategic planning and performance management 

system. He also asked us to provide information on U.S. international 

Broadcasting and British Broadcasting Corporation operations. 

To assess whether the Board has responded to the specific cost-cutting 

mandates and expectations established in the 1994 International 

Broadcasting Act, we examined the Board’s transmission consolidation 

efforts, the history of consolidation activities in connection with Radio 

Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s move from Munich to Prague, the Board’s 

efforts to privatize Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s operations by fiscal 

year 1999, and the Board’s efforts to adopt digital production technology 

for each broadcast entity. We met with Board, International Broadcasting 

Bureau, Voice of America, Worldnet Television and Film Service, Radio 

Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia senior officials in 

Washington, D.C., to discuss these issues and review applicable 

documentation. This documentation included the Board’s report on 

Congress’s earlier mandate to privatize Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s 

operations and additional documentation on the Board’s transmission 

consolidation efforts, the relocation from Munich to Prague, and the Digital 

Broadcasting Program being implemented by the International 

Broadcasting Bureau on behalf of the Voice of America. We also met with 

Radio/TV Marti officials in Miami, Florida, and Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty officials in Prague to review their respective streamlining and costcutting activities.

To assess whether the Board implemented a language service review 

process, we met with International Broadcasting Bureau planning staff in 

Washington, D.C., to determine the process, evaluation criteria, and 

outcome of this year’s language service review. We reviewed the Board’s 

February 2000 reports on this process and the linkage between these 

documents and the Board’s reallocation decisions.
Appendix V

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

To assess whether the Board has instituted a strategic planning and 

performance management system, we obtained and reviewed copies of all 

relevant Results Act planning documents, including the Board’s 5-year 

strategic plan dated December 1997; annual performance plans for fiscal 

years 1999, 2000, and 2001; and the Board’s March 2000 annual 

performance report. We compared the Board’s fiscal year 2001 

performance plan against GAO’s guide for evaluating agency annual 

performance plans.1

 We also met with Board staff to discuss the Board’s 

latest efforts to update its Results Act planning documents.

In order to prepare a comparison of Board and BBC World Service 

operations, we interviewed BBC officials in London and collected and 

analyzed relevant documents including World Service strategic plans, 

marketing and audience research information, and data relating to the 

BBC’s performance management system. 

We conducted our review from December 1999 to August 2000 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

1 The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans

(GAO/GGD-10.1.20, Apr. 1998).
Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix VI

Comments From the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors ApendxiVI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the end 

of this appendix.
Appendix VI

Comments From the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Now table 4.
Appendix VI

Comments From the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Now on p. 34.

Now on pp. 34-37

See comment 2.

See comment 1.
Appendix VI

Comments From the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

See comment 3.

See comment 4.
Appendix VI

Comments From the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

The following are GAO’s comments on the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors’ letter dated September 13, 2000. 

GAO’s Comments 1. We agree that U.S. international broadcasters and the BBC World 

Service have different roles. However, the fact that U.S. international 

broadcasters have multiple and more complex missions does not 

obviate the value of examining the BBC’s operations relative to U.S. 

international broadcasting. The Board acknowledges the value of 

tracking and evaluating the activities of competitors by maintaining an 

on-line database to capture this information. The database includes 

country-by-country audience data that shows how U.S. international 

broadcasters are doing relative to other major international 

broadcasters, with a particular focus on the BBC. The Board’s database 

also summarizes this information into seven regional groups to help 

identify broader performance trends. For example, with regard to the 

35 countries in Africa targeted by the Voice of America and the BBC, 

the Board’s database shows that the BBC has a higher audience share 

than the Voice of America in 25 countries, the Voice of America has a 

higher audience share in 8 countries, and the two organizations are tied 

for listeners in two countries. 

2. The number of language services shown in table 5 in appendix IV is 

footnoted to indicate that 24 of the U.S. language services are duplicate 

language services run by the Voice of America and surrogate 

broadcasters. We revised the applicable table note to point out that 

many of the Board’s language services have been mandated by 

Congress. 

3. We revised the table to show a total funding figure of $367 million for 

U.S. international broadcasting. This figure was calculated by 

deducting $53 million in television production and transmission costs 

from a total U.S. funding figure of $420 million for fiscal year 2000. We 

made this change to reflect that the BBC funding figure does not 

include television costs.

4. We agree that simply dividing the number of total listeners by total 

broadcast costs does not provide meaningful comparative information 

in the absence of a more detailed understanding of why costs differ 

between the two organizations. Explanatory factors might include the 

relative costs of reaching different target audiences, different mixes of 

broadcast technology, and the relative efficiency and effectiveness of 
Appendix VI

Comments From the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

each organization. We revised the introduction to table 5 to emphasize 

that our table is designed to provide summary data on U.S. and BBC 

broadcast operations. We also incorporated the Board’s concern that 

readers should avoid making a cost-per-listener comparison between 

U.S. and BBC international broadcasting.
Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-00-222 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix VII

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contacts Jess T. Ford (202) 512-4268

Lawrence L. Suda (202) 512-5380

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Michael ten Kate, Wyley Neal, 

Ernie Jackson, and Rona Mendelsohn made key contributions to this 

report.

(711468) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

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

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00