a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Comittee on 

Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

February 2004 U.S. INTERNATIONAL 

BROADCASTING

Enhanced Measure of 

Local Media 

Conditions Would 

Facilitate Decisions to 

Terminate Language 

Services

GAO-04-374
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-374.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jess Ford at 

(202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-374, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Foreign 

Relations, U.S. Senate 

February 2004

U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING 

Enhanced Measure of Local Media 

Conditions Would Facilitate Decisions to 

Terminate Language Services 

The Board identifies language service reductions and eliminations through 

its annual language service review process and follow-up consultations with 

the State Department and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The 

language service review process provides an analytical framework for 

making such decisions based on a number of decision criteria. The principal 

criteria used by the Board are language priority and language service impact. 

Other decision criteria considered by the Board include whether overlapping 

language services broadcast to the same target areas. Final resource 

allocation decisions and proposals are made after the Board consults with 

the State Department on foreign policy considerations and with OMB on 

budget-related issues. 

The Board’s current measure of press freedom does not adequately address 

the congressional concern that RFE/RL language service should not be 

terminated until a domestic media exists that provides accurate, balanced, 

and comprehensive news and information to a national audience. The Board 

evaluates local media conditions primarily through an annual survey of press 

freedom conducted by the media watch group Freedom House. This press 

freedom rating, along with some adjustments made by the Board, constitutes 

one of seven factors used to develop a priority list of broadcast languages. 

While the Board’s press freedom measure addresses the issue of press 

freedom, it does not specifically measure whether domestic media provide 

news that is accurate, balanced, and comprehensive. GAO’s analysis of 

relevant data sources and discussions with agency officials indicate that 

among the services targeted for elimination, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania 

stand out as having the most unstable media environments. 

Ranking Factors for Prioritizing Broadcast Language Services 

In its fiscal year 2004 budget 

request to Congress, the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors 

(the Board) proposed the 

elimination of 17 Central and 

Eastern European language 

services managed by the Voice of 

America and Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) in 

order to free resources for higherpriority initiatives such as the war 

on terrorism. GAO was asked to 

examine (1) how the Board 

determines which language 

services should be proposed for 

reduction or termination and (2) 

the extent to which local media 

conditions are considered before a 

termination proposal is made. In 

addition, GAO’s report provides 

summary analysis and conclusions 

relating to the media conditions in 

three countries impacted by the 

Board’s language service 

termination decisions. 

GAO recommends that the Board 

modify its language service review 

process to include an assessment 

of whether the domestic media in 

target countries provides accurate, 

balanced, and comprehensive news 

and information to the national 

audience. 
Page i GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Candidates for Reduction and Possible Termination Are Identified 

through Language Service Review Process and External 

Consultations 6

Board’s Press Freedom Measure Does Not Address Media 

Responsibility or Professionalism 12

Media Conditions in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania Raise 

Concerns 14

Conclusions 19

Recommendations for Executive Action 19

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 19

Scope and Methodology 20

Appendixes

Appendix I: Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language Service Review 

Process 22

Language Priority 22

Language Service Impact 24

Priority/Impact Matrix 25

Appendix II: Language Service Budget and Program Data 27

Appendix III: Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors 31

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 34

GAO Contact 34

Staff Acknowledgments 34

Tables Table 1: Targeted Language Service Eliminations 11

Table 2: Press Watch Group Excerpts from Calendar Year 2003 

Annual Country Reports 16

Table 3: Language Service Review Evaluation Factors 23

Table 4: Language Service Impact Factors 25

Table 5: 2002 Priority/Impact Matrix 26

Table 6: Budget, Staffing, Priority, Impact, and Transmission Hours 

Data for Language Services Targeted for Elimination 

(fiscal years 2000-2003) 27
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Figures

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately.

Figure 1: U.S. International Broadcasting Chart 5

Figure 2: Language Service Review and Resource Reallocation 

Process 9

Abbreviations

EMU European Multimedia Unit

IBB International Broadcasting Bureau

IREX International Research and Exchanges Board

MSI Media Sustainability Index

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

OMB Office of Management and Budget

RFA Radio Free Asia

RFE/RL Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

VOA Voice of America
Page 1 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

February 26, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar

Chairman

Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In its fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress, the Broadcasting Board 

of Governors (the Board) proposed the elimination of 17 Central and 

Eastern European language services affecting Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech 

Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, 

and Slovenia. The language services targeted for termination, which 

include 10 Voice of America (VOA) and 7 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 

services (RFE/RL), as well as other reductions, are estimated to generate 

savings of up to $8.8 million for fiscal year 2004 and recurring annual 

savings of about $12.1 million that could be redirected to higher-priority 

initiatives.1

 With passage of the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, House and Senate conferees adopted the Board’s 

proposal to terminate service to those Central and Eastern European 

nations that have been invited to become new members states of the 

European Union or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and 

have received a Freedom House press freedom rating equal to that of the 

United States. Conferees expressed the expectation that broadcast 

services in Romanian and Croatian should continue.2

 They also established 

an expectation that the Board will continue to monitor press freedom 

conditions in the region and around the world and will advise the 

Committees on Appropriations regarding any changes to language service 

priorities.

You expressed interest in the process the Board used to make language 

service elimination decisions and whether the process was applied to the 

1

Estimated savings include reductions to VOA Armenian and Ukrainian and modifications to 

RFE/RL Armenian, Georgian, Serbian, and Ukrainian language services.

2

According to a senior Board official, the agency intends to eliminate VOA’s service to 

Romania, while retaining RFE/RL’s Romanian service to Moldova and very limited news 

feeds and service to a reduced number of affiliates in Romania. The Board intends to 

eliminate RFE/RL’s Croatian service to the Balkans region while retaining VOA’s Croatian 

service to Croatia. 
Page 2 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

17 language services targeted for termination. You also asked if the Board’s 

review process included an adequate review of local media conditions, 

which can enable and support the development of democratic societies. As 

agreed with your staff, this report examines (1) how the Board determines 

which language services are candidates for reduction or elimination and (2) 

the extent to which the Board evaluates local media conditions in making 

such decisions. In addition, we provide summary information on media 

conditions in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania, which appear to be 

particularly underdeveloped. 

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed documentation on language 

service reductions and eliminations over the past 4 years and discussed the 

Board’s decision-making process with individual Board members, senior 

Board planners, senior managers and language service chiefs from VOA 

and RFE/RL, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and State 

Department officials, media experts at the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID), and a number of private sector researchers and 

media development experts including Freedom House, InterNews, 

InterMedia, and the International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX). 

Our analysis included a review of the approach the Board uses to assess 

language service priority and impact, with a particular focus on its measure 

of press freedom to see if local media conditions were adequately assessed. 

Results in Brief The Board makes decisions about which language services to reduce or 

eliminate based on the results of its language service review process and 

follow-up consultations with the State Department and OMB. Beginning 

with its annual language service review, the Board evaluates each of its 

language services using an analytical framework that incorporates as many 

objective decision criteria as possible to help guide such decisions. 

Ranked priority and impact lists are developed using such measures as U.S. 

strategic interest in the countries where the service is broadcast, press 

freedom, political freedom, geopolitical instability, and population size. 

Other decision criteria considered by the Board include whether 

overlapping language services exist in the targeted countries and the 

potential impact a reduction or elimination could have on the Board’s 

ability to meet surge capacity requirements in times of crisis. Lowerpriority or lower-impact services become candidates for cuts or 

elimination, usually to fund higher-priority or new initiatives. Final 

resource reallocation decisions are made after the Board’s proposed 

adjustments are coordinated with the State Department and OMB. In the 

case of the 17 language services targeted for elimination, the Board used 
Page 3 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

this analytical framework to determine that these services should be 

terminated to free funds for higher-priority initiatives, such as the war on 

terrorism. 

The Board evaluates local media conditions primarily through a yearly 

survey of press freedom conditions that considers a number of factors but 

does not adequately measure whether the press is responsible and 

professional. Currently, the Board relies mostly on the annual press 

freedom survey conducted by a nonprofit group called Freedom House. 

This survey examines the extent to which the legal, political, and economic 

environment in each country supports press freedom. However, it does not 

address whether national media provide accurate, balanced, and 

comprehensive news and information, factors that Congress has stipulated 

it expects the Board to consider before terminating RFE/RL language 

services. 

Our analysis indicates that among the services targeted for elimination by 

the Board, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania stand out as having the most 

unstable media environments. This conclusion is based on published press 

freedom data and analyses from various sources; USAID and State 

Department media development efforts in these countries; and comments 

from Board, VOA, and RFE/RL officials regarding the relative importance 

of the broadcast operations targeted for elimination. 

This report makes a recommendation to the Chairman of the Broadcasting 

Board that the Board enhance its measure of local media conditions, which 

would improve its language service review process and facilitate decisions 

to terminate language services. The Board generally agreed with our 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation. We have reprinted the Board’s 

comments in appendix III.

Background The Broadcasting Board of Governors oversees the efforts of all 

nonmilitary international broadcasting, which reaches an estimated 

audience of more than 100 million people each week in more than 125 

markets worldwide. The Board manages the operations of the 

International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB),3

 VOA, WorldNet Television, the 

Middle East Television Network (which consists of Alhurra—the Board’s 

3

IBB provides transmission services for all Board broadcasts and support services to VOA, 

WorldNet, and Radio/TV Marti.
Page 4 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

new Arabic language television station—and Radio Sawa), Radio Farda, 

Radio/TV Marti, RFE/RL, and Radio Free Asia (RFA) with an annual budget 

of over half a billion dollars. The latter three organizations function as 

“surrogate” broadcasters, designed to temporarily replace the local media 

of countries where a free and open press does not exist and to promote 

democratic values and institutions by disseminating factual information 

and ideas. 

Each broadcast entity is organized around a collection of language services 

that produces program content. In some countries, more than one entity 

broadcasts in the same language. These “overlapping” services are 

designed to meet the distinct missions of each broadcast entity. Figure 1 

illustrates the Board’s current organizational structure.
Page 5 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Figure 1: U.S. International Broadcasting Chart

Given the temporary nature of the surrogate services, Congress has 

outlined broad sunset provisions for each service. The U.S. International 

Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended,4

 contains a sense of Congress5

4

Title III of P.L. 103-236, as amended by P.L. 106-113, Appendix G, Section 503. 

5

A “sense of Congress” is not legally binding on an agency as is the case with legislation 

signed by the President. Although a sense of Congress has no force in law, agencies 

typically monitor such provisions closely since Congress can change an informal 

expectation into a statutory provision if agencies ignore congressional guidance.
Page 6 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

statement that RFE/RL should continue to broadcast to the peoples of 

Central Europe, Eurasia, and the Persian Gulf until such time as a 

particular nation has (1) clearly demonstrated the successful establishment 

and consolidation of democratic rule and (2) firmly established a widely 

accessible domestic media that provides accurate, balanced, and 

comprehensive news and information to the national audience. When a 

particular nation meets both of these conditions, RFE/RL should phase out 

broadcasting to that nation.

Congress has not stipulated that similar press freedom conditions should 

exist prior to the termination of RFA or Radio/TV Marti. However, sunset 

provisions or provisions for termination have been established for each of 

these entities. In RFA’s case, the Broadcasting Act states that the Board 

may not make any grants for operating RFA after September 30, 2009.6

 In 

Radio/TV Marti’s case, Congress has stated that broadcast operations 

should be terminated when a democratically elected government takes 

power in Cuba.7

 VOA, charged with clearly presenting and discussing U.S. 

policies, has no sunset provision. 

Candidates for 

Reduction and Possible 

Termination Are 

Identified through 

Language Service 

Review Process and 

External Consultations

The Board uses the results of its language service review and external 

consultations with the State Department and OMB to identify candidates 

for reduction and possible termination. The language service review 

process considers a number of factors to help guide such decisions. One 

key consideration is the position of a language service within the language 

service priority/impact framework developed by the Board. The Board’s 

language service review process also involves external consultations with 

the State Department and OMB to ensure that its tentative resource 

reallocation decisions are consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives 

and the administration’s budget priorities. Language service review has 

generally led to a reduction in the size of language services to fund higherpriority broadcast initiatives. For example, between 1999 and 2002, the 

Board reallocated about $19.7 million in program funds from more than 25 

language services as a result of this process. Although the Board’s 2002 

language service review process culminated in a decision to reallocate $8 

million internally to fund priority needs in Iran, through discussions with 

OMB, the Board later decided to propose the elimination of 17 of its lowest6

See 22 U.S.C. 6208(f). 

7

See 22 U.S.C. 6037(c), 6063(c)(3).
Page 7 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

priority language services8 to free resources for priority areas such as the 

war on terrorism.9

Language Service Review 

Triggers Resource 

Reallocation Decisions

The Broadcasting Act of 1994, passed in the aftermath of the Cold War, 

embodies the expectation that the newly created Broadcasting Board of 

Governors will take stock of changing political environments and their 

impacts on U.S. international broadcasting priorities. The act calls for the 

Board “to review, evaluate, and determine, at least annually, after 

consultation with the Secretary of State, the addition or deletion of 

language services.” 10 The Board’s annual language service review process 

directly responds to this congressional mandate, which it has interpreted to 

allow the expansion and reduction of language services as well as outright 

additions and deletions. 

The Board’s language review process begins with an assessment of its 

language priorities and the impact of its language services. Over the past 

several years, the Board has developed a complex system for assigning 

priority and impact ratings to broadcast languages and services, 

respectively.11 The Board has attempted to create an analytical framework 

that incorporates as many objective decision criteria as possible to help 

guide reallocation decisions. Seven component indexes are constructed to 

determine the Board’s language priorities: U.S. interests, population size, 

political/civil freedom, press freedom, economic freedom, geopolitical 

instability, and human development. These components are weighted on a 

scale of up to 10 points. U.S. strategic interests and population size may be 

given a score of up to 10 points each; political/civil freedom and press 

freedom up to 7 points each; and economic freedom, geopolitical 

instability, and human development up to 5 points each. The Board 

8

The Greek and Thai language services were removed from the list of lowest-ranked 

services due to practical concerns that terminating services might result in the withdrawal 

of transmission rights in each of these countries.

9

Board officials noted that these terminations proposals were generally preceded by several 

years of program cuts as media conditions in the region stabilized. As shown in appendix II, 

most VOA and RFE/RL services targeted for elimination have had their budgets reduced 

since 2000. 

10See 22 U.S.C. 6204(a)(4).

11Each of the Board’s 65 broadcast languages receives a priority score. An impact score is 

assigned to most of the Board’s 97 language services where data is available.
Page 8 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

considers additional factors to arrive at an impact score for each language 

service, including audience size, program quality, transmission 

effectiveness, number and quality of broadcast affiliates, and production 

and transmission costs. Appendix I provides a detailed description of each 

evaluation factor, information on data sources, and a discussion of the 

methodology used to weight and assign priority and impact scores.

The position of a language service within the Board’s language service 

priority/impact matrix serves as a focal point for subsequent discussions on 

language service enhancements and offsetting reductions or eliminations 

that are used to pay for these enhancements. The Board views lowerpriority languages or lower-impact services as potential candidates for 

elimination or reductions. In addition to language service priority and 

impact scores, the Board considers a number of additional criteria in 

making tentative resource reallocation decisions. These factors include 

broadcast service overlap, significant mismatches between current funding 

levels and language priorities, the potential impact that a program 

reduction or elimination could have on the Board’s ability to meet surge 

broadcast requirements in a crisis situation, and whether the same level of 

impact can be achieved at a lower cost.

Figure 2 illustrates key components of the process including external 

consultations with the State Department and OMB.
Page 9 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Figure 2: Language Service Review and Resource Reallocation Process
Page 10 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

External groups have evaluated the Board’s language service review 

process, and improvements have been made to the system. For example, 

the Board periodically submits its process to external review and validation 

by international broadcasting experts from academia and the field. In 

addition, the Board adopted a prior GAO recommendation that it institute a 

standardized approach to conducting program quality assessments as part 

of its language service impact rating process.12 Board officials told us that 

other improvements are planned, including linking the language service 

review process more closely to the budget process, incorporating 

stakeholder input earlier in the decision-making process, and further 

refining the language priority index to include a more detailed assessment 

of local economic conditions and corruption.

Millions of Dollars 

Reallocated, but Few 

Terminations Proposed 

Prior to 2002

The resource reallocation process followed by the Board has generally led 

to a reduction in the size of language services to fund higher-priority 

broadcast initiatives and services. Since initiating the language service 

review process in 1999, the Board has completed three rounds of language 

service reviews, the most recent ending in 2002.13 From 1999 to 2002, the 

Board has reduced the scope of operations of more than 25 language 

services and reallocated about $19.7 million in funds, with the majority 

redirected toward central Asia and the Middle East. For example, the 

Board created and fully funded its $8 million Radio Farda service to Iran 

during its 2002 language service review and partially funded the Radio 

Sawa service to the Middle East in its 2001 review. In total, the Board has 

eliminated three language services since the language service review 

process was initiated.14

12The issue of program quality measurement and language service review is discussed in 

greater detail in U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. International Broadcasting: Strategic 

Planning and Performance Management System Could Be Improved, GAO/NSIAD-00-222

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2000). The Board’s strategic planning and performance 

management system is discussed in detail in U.S. International Broadcasting: New 

Strategic Approach Focuses on Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program 

Objectives, GAO-03-772 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003).

13The Board is in the process of finalizing its 2003 language service review recommendations 

and findings.

14VOA Portuguese to Brazil was eliminated as a direct result of language service review. 

VOA’s Arabic service (with the exception of a minimally staffed Web site) and RFE/RL’s 

Persian service were reconstituted as Radio Sawa and Radio Farda, respectively. 
Page 11 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Decision to Terminate 

Services Follows 2002 

Review

While the Board’s 2002 language service review process culminated in a 

decision to reallocate $8 million, Board officials told us that through 

discussions with OMB the Board decided that its lower-priority services 

should be considered for elimination in order to free additional resources 

for other higher-priority initiatives. While the primary basis for selecting 

services for termination was language priority, Board officials noted that 

they did consider the other decision criteria incorporated in the language 

service review process. For example, the Board recommended that VOA’s 

Croatian service continue broadcasting while eliminating an “overlapping” 

service offered by RFE/RL. In the case of Romania, the Board proposed the 

elimination of both VOA and RFE/RL’s service to Romania but decided to 

retain a Romanian language broadcast service to Moldova.

As shown in table 1, a total of 10 VOA and 7 RFE/RL language services—

affecting 11 countries—have been targeted for elimination. Appendix II 

provides detailed information on the budget, staffing, priority, impact, and 

transmission hour trends for the 17 services targeted for termination. 

Table 1: Targeted Language Service Eliminations

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

a

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Romanian language service to Moldova will be retained, along 

with very limited news feeds and service to a reduced number of affiliates in Romania.

Language Voice of America Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Bulgarian Eliminate Eliminate

Croatian Retain Eliminate

Czech Eliminate No service

Estonian Eliminate Eliminate

Hungarian Eliminate No service

Latvian Eliminate Eliminate

Lithuanian Eliminate Eliminate

Polish Eliminate No service

Romanian Eliminate Eliminatea

Slovak Eliminate Eliminate

Slovene Eliminate No service
Page 12 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Board’s Press Freedom 

Measure Does Not 

Address Media 

Responsibility or 

Professionalism

The Board’s measure of press freedom evaluates a number of factors but 

does not measure whether the press acts responsibly and professionally. 

The Board’s press freedom measure index relies heavily on Freedom 

House’s press freedom index, which focuses on free speech issues, the 

plurality of news sources, whether media are economically independent 

from the government, and whether supporting institutions and laws 

function in the professional interest of the press. The Freedom House 

index is used and respected by media groups around the world. However, it 

does not assess whether domestic media provide accurate, balanced, and 

comprehensive news and information. 

Board’s Press Freedom 

Measure Relies Heavily on 

Freedom House Data

The Board largely depends on Freedom House’s annual press freedom 

index of local media conditions to help to prioritize services during 

language service review. To arrive at a numerical evaluation of the overall 

level of press freedom for a particular country, Freedom House examines 

three broad categories—the legal environment, political influences, and 

economic pressures. Over the years, the Board has made selected 

enhancements to its press freedom measure to account for several factors 

that Freedom House’s index does not consider. It reviews reports issued by 

the Committee to Protect Journalists and by Reporters Without Borders to 

account for cases involving the killing, injury, or imprisonment of 

journalists. It also reviews narrative country reports from Freedom House’s 

annual press freedom survey to account for the relative unavailability of 

broadcast news in a particular country. If necessary, the Board makes 

adjustments to a country’s press freedom score if these additional reports 

show negative trends in any of these areas. Finally, the Board also uses its 

geopolitical instability index, another measure for assigning language 

priorities, to account for trends in press freedom over time. 

Measure Does Not Assess 

Provision of Accurate, 

Balanced, Comprehensive 

News

While the Freedom House press freedom index is used and respected by 

media groups around the world, neither it nor the Board’s press freedom 

index incorporates an assessment of whether domestic media provide 

accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information. This is a 

significant omission in the Board’s index, given the sense of Congress that 

RFE/RL’s broadcast operations should not be terminated until a country’s 

domestic media provides this level of coverage to the national audience. 

Board officials acknowledged that their existing press freedom measure 

could be updated to include information on media responsibility and 

professional quality. However, they noted that practical obstacles would 
Page 13 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

need to be addressed, such as how to define such terms as “accurate” and 

“balanced” and whether such information can reasonably be developed to 

cover the Board’s worldwide operations. 

We found that the Media Sustainability Index (MSI), developed by IREX, is 

intended to provide a more in-depth measure of local media conditions 

than the Board’s. The MSI was developed at USAID’s request to supplement 

the press freedom measures issued by groups such as Freedom House and 

Reporters Without Borders and help guide its media development program 

decisions.15 The MSI examines 38 separate media indicators grouped under 

five broad assessment categories: free speech, professional journalism, 

plurality of news sources, business management, and supporting 

institutions. Several indicators tracked in the MSI correlate closely with 

the Board’s broadcasting mission and the sense of Congress statement 

regarding the termination of RFE/RL services. For example, under the 

professional journalism category, the MSI considers whether reporting is 

fair, objective, and well sourced. It also considers whether journalists 

follow recognized and accepted ethical standards and whether 

entertainment programming has eclipsed news and information 

programming. None of these measures of press responsibility and 

professional quality is covered by the Freedom House index.16 

15IREX designed a more comprehensive measure of whether a sustainable media—

characterized by all of the factors that shape a modern independent media—existed in 

target areas to gauge a country’s progress in media development.

16Freedom House’s press freedom index primarily overlaps with the free speech component 

of the MSI, with only limited coverage in the other four categories.
Page 14 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

The MSI covers 20 markets in Europe and Eurasia and, according to 

USAID, its preparation costs approximately $70,000 each year.17 The Board 

currently has broadcast operations in all of the countries covered by the 

MSI. While this set represents only a fraction of the Board’s broadcast 

operations, use of the MSI could provide a starting point for collecting 

information on a few of the countries impacted by the Board’s language 

service termination decisions.18 In addition, the MSI could provide 

potential insights for the Board in developing its own methodology for 

evaluating the responsibility of domestic media outlets and whether 

journalists meet accepted professional standards of quality.19 Despite the 

potential use of the MSI to help evaluate and guide the Board’s media 

measurement efforts, we did not independently validate the accuracy of 

this measure or assess the cost/benefit implications of applying this 

measurement approach to the Board’s operations. 

Media Conditions in 

Bulgaria, Croatia, and 

Romania Raise 

Concerns

The Board’s 2002 priority ranking of languages indicates that Bulgarian, 

Croatian, and Romanian stand apart from the other languages targeted for 

termination by a significant point gap. This gap was largely attributed to 

comparatively worse press freedom, political freedom, and economic 

freedom scores in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania, and elevated U.S. 

strategic interest scores that suggest particular caution should be exercised 

with regard to terminating broadcast services in these three languages. 

Our review of available data outside of the Board’s ranking confirms that 

media conditions are less stable in these countries compared to the other 

countries affected by the Board’s language service termination decisions. 

We base this conclusion on (1) published press freedom data and analyses 

from various sources; (2) USAID and State Department media development 

funding efforts; and (3) comments from the Board, VOA, and RFE/RL 

17IREX is currently discussing the potential of private funding to expand the scope of the 

MSI.

18Three of the 20 markets covered by the MSI are also on the list of countries affected by the 

Board’s proposed language service terminations—Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania.

19Freedom House’s Nations in Transit studies, which assess the level of progress toward 

democratization and rule of law in 27 Central European, Eastern European, and former 

Soviet Union countries, provide an additional framework for assessing local media. Since 

2000, the study has annually evaluated 10 contributing factors for independent media, 

including the legal framework and present state of press freedom, harassment of journalists, 

editorial independence, the emergence of a financially viable private press, and Internet 

access for private citizens.
Page 15 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

regarding the relative importance of the broadcast operations targeted for 

elimination. 

Borderline Press Conditions 

in Bulgaria, Croatia, and 

Romania Suggested by 

Various Data Sources 

Recent press freedom ratings, various studies and reports, and comments 

from agency officials suggest that media conditions are not fully stable in 

Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania. 

Press Freedom Ratings Freedom House rated press conditions as only “partly free” in Croatia and 

Romania. Bulgaria was rated as “free;” however, it was assigned a score of 

30—just one point short of the cut point for labeling a country’s press 

situation as “partly free.” The other services targeted for elimination fell 

comfortably above this cut point, with “free” scores ranging from 17 to 23. 

The latest press freedom ranking from the group Reporters Without 

Borders showed that Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania ranked below the 

other countries affected by the Board’s language service termination 

decisions. Bulgaria tied for 34th place, Romania tied for 59th place, and 

Croatia tied for 69th place out of a total of 166 countries. 

IREX’s Media Sustainability Index shows that local media in Bulgaria, 

Croatia, and Romania have not yet achieved sustainability in any of the five 

categories the index tracks—free speech, professional journalism, plurality 

of news sources, business management, and supporting institutions. While 

this index was developed to meet USAID’s specific program needs, these 

media sustainability ratings provide additional context for evaluating the 

Board’s termination proposals.

Studies and Reports A review of the annual country reports prepared by Freedom House, 

Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to Protect Journalists 

reveals a pattern of ongoing problems with the press in Bulgaria, Croatia, 

and Romania. Table 2 provides sample excerpts from these reports.
Page 16 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Table 2: Press Watch Group Excerpts from Calendar Year 2003 Annual Country Reports 

Sources: Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to Protect Journalists.

A review of Freedom House’s Nations in Transit 2003 study illustrated a 

worsening (comparing 2002 to 2003 data) in the scores for independent 

media development in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania. Freedom House 

noted that questionable court decisions against journalists, newspapers, 

magazines, and publishers continue to have a chilling effect on reporting in 

Croatia and that unprofessional, false, and inflammatory reporting is 

occurring. It also reported that in Bulgaria, electronic media are not still 

fully free of state influence and interference and that the government has 

tried to use its power to grant broadcast licenses as a lure to influence the 

electronic media. Freedom House also noted that Romania’s legislative 

framework for independent media, partly inherited from the Communist 

period, fails to meet European standards.

Country Freedom House Reporters Without Borders Committee to Protect Journalists

Bulgaria “Although the press remains lively and 

diverse, press freedom declined for a 

second year as a result of continued 

government efforts to influence state and 

private media.” 

“New press laws are having trouble 

being accepted and controversy 

continues about the appointments 

of heads of public media.”

“Regulation of the state media remains 

politicized.... Politically motivated libel 

lawsuits and violent attacks continued 

to discourage reporters from covering 

sensitive issues, such as corruption.”

Croatia “While the government has substantially 

expanded the boundaries of press 

freedom in recent years, the events of 

2002 demonstrated mixed progress.” 

“Since the Tudjman era (1991-99) 

ended, great strides have been 

made in press freedom, especially 

legally, but several provisions in the 

law about insults, defamation, 

access to information, and 

protection of state and military 

secrets continue to restrict 

journalists.” 

“Although Croatia has been invited to 

join the European Union in 2004, 

powerful far-right opposition, bitter 

rivalries in the ruling reformist coalition, 

and a judiciary in need of reform 

continue to frustrate the country’s lively 

and influential press.”

Romania “Press freedom declined slightly in 2002 

as a result of new legislation on access to 

information and continued political 

influence over state media.” 

“New laws curbing freedom to 

inform the public and to be informed 

were passed in 2002. Pressure 

from the authorities increased, 

reducing the chances of expressing 

political opposition or criticism that 

might give a ‘bad image’ of the 

country at a time when Romania is 

negotiating to join NATO and the 

European Union.”

“Government officials, wary of any 

media coverage that could potentially 

threaten the country’s efforts to join 

NATO and the European Union, used 

threats and intimidation to promote 

docile reporting—resulting in increased 

self-censorship in 2002.”
Page 17 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

In a recent GAO report on NATO enlargement, we found many of the same 

trends for the media in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania.20 For example, we 

found that constitutional guarantees for civil liberties may be limited in 

practice in Bulgaria, including the guarantees of freedom of the media, and 

that the effectiveness of efforts to address these issues was questioned. We 

also noted that the 2001 International Helsinki Federation for Human 

Rights21 reported assaults against journalists in Bulgaria and continuing 

undue governmental influence over the media, especially the electronic 

media. In Romania, we found that legal provisions raised concerns about 

possible limits to freedom of expression and the media. For example, 

while the constitution provides for freedom of expression and the media, it 

prohibits “defamation of the country” and “offense to authority.” In 

addition, we noted that Human Rights Watch22 reported in 2002 that 

authorities in Romania used these kinds of constitutional curbs on free 

expression to interfere with journalists’ work. 

USAID and State 

Department Media 

Development Programs Still 

Active in Bulgaria, Croatia, 

and Romania

Ongoing media development efforts by USAID and the State Department 

suggest that local media conditions are still considered unstable in 

Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania.23 USAID officials said they continue to 

fund media development projects in Bulgaria and Croatia. Similarly, State 

Department officials noted that its media development efforts continue in 

each of these countries. According to State Department country experts, 

Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania represent marginal candidates for 

elimination compared with the other countries affected by the Board’s 

language service termination decisions. State Department officials noted 

that Croatia has not yet been invited to join NATO or the European Union. 

Bulgaria and Romania are being considered for membership in the 

20See U.S. General Accounting Office, NATO Enlargement: Report Is Responsive to Senate 

Requirements, but Additional Information Could Be Useful, GAO-03-255 (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 15, 2002).

21The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights is a self-governing group of 

nongovernmental, not-for-profit organizations that works to protect human rights 

throughout Europe, North America, and the central Asian republics formed from the 

territories of the former Soviet Union.

22Human Rights Watch is an international nongovernmental organization that monitors the 

protection of civil liberties and human rights around the world.

23Media development efforts are part of U.S. assistance to Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, 

and the Caucasus region, which signify U.S. commitment to support the transition of former 

Communist nations to democracies. 
Page 18 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

European Union in 2007, while the other affected countries have been 

invited to join the European Union in 2004. State officials noted that both 

NATO and European Union admission processes consider the status of 

press freedom and civil society as part of their evaluation criteria.

Agency Officials Question 

Selected Eliminations

While senior Board officials generally concurred on the need to cut 

language services to fund higher-priority broadcast needs, several officials 

questioned the advisability of eliminating the Bulgarian, Croatian, or 

Romanian services at this time. For example, the Board Chairman told us 

he had “second thoughts” about the proposal to eliminate the Bulgarian 

service on the basis of a recent report by the Pew Research Center for the 

People and the Press on Bulgarian public opinion regarding freedom and 

democracy issues.24 The Chairman was concerned about public apathy 

regarding basic democratic rights and principles and questioned whether 

now is the best time to discontinue U.S. broadcast efforts. In another case, 

a senior Board planner noted that the Board did have concerns about the 

proposal to eliminate services to Bulgaria and Romania, given the status of 

press freedom and civil society development in these countries. 

Senior VOA managers were not opposed to the elimination of the targeted 

VOA language services (that is, the Estonian service and the nine services 

consolidated in VOA’s European Multimedia Unit, or EMU).25 This attitude 

appeared to reflect recognition that these services largely represented a 

Cold War legacy and that they are streaming only about 15 minutes a day of 

content to EMU’s Web site. RFE/RL managers were more insistent about 

the need to continue their broadcast operations, which are better staffed 

and more robust than VOA’s. However, RFE/RL managers conceded that a 

priority order existed with regard to the need to retain language services, 

with the Baltic services rated as lowest priority; the Slovak service in the 

middle; and the Bulgarian, Croatian, and Romanian services representing 

the highest-priority need. Program officials also pointed out that the 

Croatian service is an integral part of a multilanguage South Slavic service 

that reaches audiences dispersed across the region including in such 

countries as Serbia. 

24The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Views of a Changing World

(Washington, D.C.: June 2003).

25EMU consolidates the Bulgarian, Czech, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Romanian, 

Slovak, and Slovene services.
Page 19 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Conclusions Language service reduction and elimination decisions are made on the 

basis of the Board’s language service review process and follow-up 

consultations with the State Department and OMB. The Board has strived 

to create an analytical framework that incorporates as many objective 

decision criteria as possible to help guide such decisions. Lowerpriority/lower-impact services are candidates for cuts or elimination 

generally to fund higher-priority services and other enhancements. The 

Board used its language priority data and other evaluation factors to 

propose the elimination of 17 VOA and RFE/RL language services in order 

to reallocate funds to other needs. A closer look at the Board’s press 

freedom measure revealed that it did not fully take into account whether a 

country’s domestic media provides accurate, balanced, and comprehensive 

news and information to the national audience before RFE/RL services are 

terminated. An improved press freedom measure could both influence the 

relative priority ranking of all language services and help provide a specific 

basis for determining whether local press freedom conditions conform to a 

sense of Congress provision regarding when RFE/RL language services 

should be terminated. Such information is currently developed by IREX for 

some of the Board’s broadcast countries. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To improve the language service review process and facilitate future 

termination decisions, we recommend that the Chairman of the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors modify the current process to include an 

assessment of whether domestic media provide accurate, balanced, and 

comprehensive news and information to national audiences. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

The Broadcasting Board of Governors provided written comments on a 

draft of this report. The Board concurred with our report 

recommendation26 but noted concerns with our report title, our use of the 

term “expectation of Congress” to describe the criteria supporting the need 

to develop an improved measure of domestic media conditions, and the 

lack of current information regarding congressional action taken on the 17 

language services targeted for elimination. In response to these comments, 

26We removed a second report recommendation that the Board review its proposed language 

terminations in light of the information discussed in our report. As noted in the Board’s 

comments, final funding action taken by Congress regarding the proposed terminations 

overtook this recommendation.
Page 20 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

we revised the title to better focus on our primary concern, that is that the 

Board develop an enhanced measure of local media conditions. We 

replaced the term “expectation of Congress” with “congressional concern” 

and “sense of Congress” throughout the report and added a footnote to 

explain the latter term. Finally, we updated our report to incorporate the 

latest action taken by Congress with regard to the 17 language services 

targeted for elimination. Other technical changes obtained in discussion 

with the Board were incorporated in our report where appropriate. The 

comments provided by the Board are reprinted in appendix III.

Scope and 

Methodology

To examine how the Board uses its language service review process to 

determine which language services are candidates for elimination, we 

interviewed senior Board planners and reviewed available documentation 

and analyses prepared for each of the Board’s four language service 

reviews held since 1999. We conducted a general review of the 

methodology used by the Board to develop language service priority and 

impact rankings. While we did not validate this process, we analyzed its 

data outputs, interviewed Board officials and outside experts, and 

considered reviews and critiques of the methodology—including a 2000 

review by three independent sources.

To determine the extent to which local media conditions are evaluated 

during the language service review process, we examined the methodology 

and data sources used by the Board to assess and rate press freedom 

conditions on a country-by-country basis. We discussed the Board’s 

methodology and data sources with senior Board planners and with 

officials from VOA, RFE/RL, USAID, the State Department, and private 

sector entities (InterMedia, Freedom House, and IREX). In addition, we 

compared the Board’s press freedom measure to IREX’s Media 

Sustainability Index. However, we did not validate the accuracy of this 

index or assess the cost/benefit implications of applying IREX’s approach 

to assessing local media conditions to the Board’s operations.

To obtain country-specific information on media and civil society 

conditions on each of the countries affected by the Board’s targeted 

language cuts, we collected pertinent rating data and reports from 

Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to Protect 

Journalists. We also interviewed each of the VOA and RFE/RL language 

service chiefs in charge of the 17 services targeted for elimination and 

reviewed written program information provided by these individuals. 

Finally, we discussed local media and civil society conditions with agency 
Page 21 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

managers, USAID media development experts, State Department country 

experts, and private sector entities.

We conducted our work from July 2003 through December 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

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

Congress. We are also sending copies of this report to the Chairman of the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors and to the Secretary of State. We will 

make copies available to other parties upon request. In addition, this 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

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

on (202) 512-4128. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are 

listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 22 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix I

Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language Apendxies

Service Review Process ApendxiI

The Broadcasting Board of Governor’s (the Board) language service review 

process incorporates a range of evaluation criteria to evaluate the priority 

and impact of its language services. These evaluation criteria provide the 

analytical basis for Board decisions regarding language service 

enhancements, reductions, and eliminations. 

Language Priority Table 3 provides details on the seven component measures used to 

determine language priority: U.S. interests, population size, political/civil 

freedom, press freedom, economic freedom, geopolitical instability, and 

human development. Board officials have indicated that they believe that 

the combination of these indexes reflects both the short- and long-term 

foreign policy objectives of the United States, as well as the mission of U.S. 

international broadcasting. Information for the indexes is gathered for the 

countries impacted by the Board’s language broadcasts from many public 

sources, including Freedom House, the Wall Street Journal, the Heritage 

Foundation, and the United Nations Development Program. U.S. strategic 

interests and geopolitical instability are scored in-house using information 

gathered from the State Department.

To develop priority scores for individual broadcast languages, the Board 

first determines the various countries targeted by that language. For each 

index, the Board then compiles information for the country (or set of 

countries) targeted by that broadcast language.1

 The component indexes 

are added together to form a summary score for each language, and all 65 

of the Board’s languages are then ranked against each other. The maximum 

summary score that can be assigned to any language is 49, and the 

minimum score is 7. 

Board officials told us that after they assign priority scores to individual 

languages, a Language Service Review Committee, broadcasting entity 

management, and the full Board review the resulting Language Priorities 

Index List2

 for accuracy and reach agreement on the relative rankings of 

1

If more than one target country applies to a language, indexes may be weighted by 

estimates of the number of language-speaking adults in each country. Because of the 

complexities involved with assigning weights, in most cases multiple-country languages 

reflect the values for the worst-case country. 

2

The Language Priorities Index List is classified: it is shared only with the Board, Board staff, 

and broadcasting entity heads and their immediate staffs.
Appendix I

Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language 

Service Review Process

Page 23 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

broadcast languages. Board officials then divide the list into two segments, 

indicating which languages have higher or lower priority.3

 

Table 3: Language Service Review Evaluation Factors

3

A Board staff member indicated that there are no explicit criteria used for determining 

where the cut point between higher versus lower priority is made. Rather, this 

determination is based on staff judgment and individual country circumstances. 

Factor Scale Description

U.S. interests 1-10 The Board’s language priority index takes into account U.S Department of State commentary on U.S. 

interests. The U.S. interests index is scaled according to the methodology introduced in the 

publication America’s National Interests. 

Data sources: Scored by the Board based on The Commission on America’s National Interests 

(Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard 

University; the RAND Corporation; and the Nixon Center) America’s National Interests: A Report from 

the Commission on America’s National Interests, 2000 

(http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/monographs/nationalinterests.htm); Central Intelligence 

Agency’s (CIA) annual World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook); State 

Department and U.S. Agency for International Development briefings and strategic plans; and 

National Defense University’s annual Strategic Assessment 

(http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Strategic%20Assessments/pubs_SAs.htm).

Population size 1-10 The Board’s population index is the estimated adult population that (1) is the intended audience 

(speaks the broadcast language) and (2) has the ability to listen to the broadcasts. The lowest 

intended audience is approximately 800,000 (Tibetan), and the largest is 725 million (Mandarin).

Data sources: Population Reference Bureau’s annual World Population Data Sheet 

(http://www.prb.org); International Broadcasting Bureau Office of Research; CIA’s annual World 

Factbook; Ethnologue: Languages of the World (http://www.ethnologue.com/web.asp).

Political/civil 

freedom

1-7 Freedom House’s freedom index is used as the sole basis for the score. This index assesses two 

broad categories: political rights and civil liberties. Political rights enable people to participate freely 

in the political process. Civil rights include the freedom to develop opinions, institutions, and personal 

autonomy without interference from the state.

Data source: Freedom House’s annual Freedom in the World survey 

(http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/index.htm). 

Press freedom 1-7 Freedom House’s press freedom index is used as the base score. This index takes into account free 

speech issues, plurality of news sources, whether local media are economically independent from the 

government, and whether supporting institutions and laws function in the professional interest of the 

press. The index is modified for (1) killing/injury/imprisonment of journalists during the survey year 

(0.5 points may be added) and/or (2) relative unavailability of broadcast news (0.5 points may be 

added).

Data sources: Scored by the Board based on Freedom House’s annual Press Freedom in the World 

survey (http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/pressurvey.htm); Committee to Protect Journalists’ 

annual Attacks on the Press report (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press).
Appendix I

Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language 

Service Review Process

Page 24 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Language Service 

Impact

Table 4 provides a brief overview of the Board’s measures of language 

service impact considered during language service review. To determine 

the relative impact of language services, Board officials obtain information 

on average weekly audience size and elite audience reach from InterMedia, 

the Board’s research contractor, and the International Broadcasting 

Bureau’s Office of Audience Research. The Language Service Review 

Committee also holds regional meetings with the broadcasting entities to 

discuss additional language service impact considerations such as program 

quality, in-country awareness, local media access and use, and cost per 

listener. Board officials assign the language services into higher- versus 

lower-impact categories. Services obtaining greater than or equal to 5 

percent average weekly audience and/or 15 percent “elite” (i.e., 

government and other influential decision makers) audience reach are 

considered higher impact. 

Economic freedom 1-5 The Heritage Foundation’s economic freedom index is used as the base score. This index is an 

annual survey of the world’s economies that evaluates countries on various economic indicators and 

ranks countries against each other. Indicators include such things as trade policy, foreign investment, 

regulation, and black markets.

Data source: Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal’s annual Index of Economic Freedom 

(http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index).

Geopolitical 

instability

1-5 The Board’s instability index has three purposes: (1) to capture short- and long-term trends in 

freedom to augment the freedom indexes: (2) to encompass events since the freedom surveys were 

conducted; and (3) to highlight regional, internal, and diplomatic conflicts that may be growing large or 

violent and may require surge broadcasting. 

Data sources: Scored by the Board based on Transparency International’s annual Corruption 

Perception Index (http://www.transparency.org); CIA’s annual World Factbook; National Defense 

University’s annual Strategic Assessment; Freedom House’s annual Freedom in the World and Press 

Freedom in the World surveys; Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal’s annual Index of 

Economic Freedom; Committee to Protect Journalists’ annual Attacks on the Press report.

Human 

development 

1-5 The human development index provides information about the actual living standards of intended 

audiences in target countries. The index is a combination of (1) life expectancy rate; (2) gross 

domestic product per capita; (3) literacy rate; and (4) combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross 

school enrollment rate. The index contributes a humanitarian element to the language priorities index 

as well as more evidence about the probability that residents can regularly receive and understand or 

develop an interest in news and current events information. 

Data source: United Nations’ annual Human Development Report (http://www.undp.org/hdr2003).

(Continued From Previous Page)

Factor Scale Description
Appendix I

Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language 

Service Review Process

Page 25 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Table 4: Language Service Impact Factors

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Priority/Impact Matrix To assist the Board in conducting its review of requested enhancements 

and reductions, a matrix is developed using the Board’s higher/lower 

priority and higher/lower impact determinations. All language services are 

assigned to one of the four categories shown in table 5.4

 Language services 

rated as lower impact or lower priority may become potential targets for 

elimination or budget reductions. 

Factor Description

Average weekly 

audience 

The percentage of the adult population listening at least once a 

week.

Elite audience The percentage of the adult “elite” population listening at least 

once a week.

Cost per listener Budget divided by average weekly audience.

Budget Budget includes direct production and transmission costs but not 

overhead or TV satellite costs.

Program quality Numerical score derived from ratings given in program review. 

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. Scores can range from poor to 

excellent.

Signal quality IBB monitoring stations score services for short-wave and crossborder medium-wave signal quality. Scores can range from no 

signal to excellent.

In-country 

awareness

Percentage of the adult population that can recognize the station 

name.

Original weekly 

hours

Number of original weekly programming hours produced each 

week.

Affiliates A count of both TV and radio affiliates classified by impact as well 

as contractual quality. High impact occurs with national or major 

regional coverage in prime time on the best media. High 

contractual quality occurs when there is full control of the leased 

transmitter or frequency.

Media access and 

use 

Percentages of the adult population that own various media, can 

access it, or use it on a daily basis.

4

Some language services are excluded from the matrix if data are insufficient to judge 

impact.
Appendix I

Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language 

Service Review Process

Page 26 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Table 5: 2002 Priority/Impact Matrix

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Higher priority/higher impact

(14 language services in 2002)

Higher priority/lower impact

(27 language services in 2002)

Lower priority/higher impact 

(24 language services in 2002)

Lower priority/lower impact

(17 language services in 2002)
Page 27 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix II

Language Service Budget and Program Data ApendxiI

Table 6 provides a brief overview of the budget, staffing, priority, impact, 

and transmission hour trends for each language affected by the Board’s 

fiscal year 2004 budget reduction proposal. In general, the budget, staff 

size, and transmission hours for Voice of America (VOA) language services 

in question have been declining, with the exception of two services that 

have increased budgets since fiscal year 2000—VOA Estonian and VOA 

Croatian. Most VOA services faced significant cuts in fiscal year 2001 or 

2002, as they were incorporated into a VOA European Multimedia Unit 

(EMU) designed to achieve cost efficiencies. Most of the Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) services in question have not faced the 

same level of cuts in staff size as VOA. Three of RFE/RL’s language services 

have increased in staff size since fiscal year 2000-–RFE/RL Estonian, 

RFE/RL Croatian, and RFE/RL Lithuanian. 

Table 6: Budget, Staffing, Priority, Impact, and Transmission Hours Data for Language Services Targeted for Elimination (fiscal 

years 2000-2003) 

Dollars in thousands

Broadcast 

language 

2000 2001 2002 2003a

VOA RFE/RL VOAb RFE/RL VOAc RFE/RL VOA RFE/RL

Bulgarian

Budget level $542 $1,791 $537 $1,289 $365 $1,125 $278 $1,164

Staffing level 6 9 3 9 3 8 3 8

Total weekly hours 3.5 45 1.25 32.32 1.25 32.32 1.25 35.15

Impact rating Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

Language priority Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available
Appendix II

Language Service Budget and Program Data

Page 28 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Croatiand

Budget level 721 2,327 724 3,574 814 3,878 902 4,172

Staffing level 7 29 8 33 8 30 8 30

Total weekly hours 14 75 10.5 107.92 10.5 92.67 10.5 98

Impact rating Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

Language priority Higher Higher Higher Higher Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

Czeche

Budget level 747 530 408 600 273 630 288 0

Staffing level 9 0 3 0 3 0 3 0

Total weekly hours 12 70 1.25 91 1.75 91 1.75 0

Impact rating Lower Not 

available

Lower Higher Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

Language priority Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

Estonian

Budget level 291 833 315 739 340 823 362 856

Staffing level 4 6 4 6 4 7 4 7

Total weekly hours 3.75 9 3.75 15.75 3.75 9.92 3.75 9.92

Impact rating Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Not 

available

Not 

available

Language priority Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

Hungarianf

Budget level 1103 0 554 0 287 0 294 0

Staffing level 11 0 3 0 3 0 3 0

Total weekly hours 9 0 1.25 0 1.83 0 1.83 0

Impact rating Lower N/A Lower N/A Lower N/A Not 

available

Not 

available

Language priority 

rating

Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

Broadcast 

language 

2000 2001 2002 2003a

VOA RFE/RL VOAb RFE/RL VOAc RFE/RL VOA RFE/RL
Appendix II

Language Service Budget and Program Data

Page 29 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Latvian

Budget level 395 992 182 819 186 807 190 853

Staffing level 5 7 2 7 2 7 2 7

Total weekly hours 5 14 0.80 7.58 0.83 8.42 2.08 8.42

Impact rating Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Not 

available

Not 

available

Language priority Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

Lithuanian

Budget level 466 841 267 811 165 884 169 870

Staffing level 6 7 2 7 2 7 2 7

Total weekly hours 5 16 0.80 19.25 0.83 17.55 0.83 18.07

Impact rating Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Not 

available

Not 

available

Language priority Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

Polishg

Budget level 1560 0 565 0 303 0 308 0

Staffing level 18 0 3 0 3 0 3 0

Total weekly hours 15 0 1.25 0 1.75 0 1.75 0

Impact rating Lower N/A Lower N/A Higher N/A Not 

available

Not 

available

Language priority Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

Romanianh

Budget level 624 2,209 572 1,574 260 1,680 163 1,646

Staffing level 7 10 3 10 3 11 3 11

Total weekly hours 3.5 42 1.25 27.30 1.25 27.30 1.25 21.55

Impact rating Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Not 

available

Not 

available

Language priority Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

Broadcast 

language 

2000 2001 2002 2003a

VOA RFE/RL VOAb RFE/RL VOAc RFE/RL VOA RFE/RL
Appendix II

Language Service Budget and Program Data

Page 30 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

a

Budget, staffing, and transmission data for fiscal year 2003 are agency estimates.

b

In fiscal year 2001, VOA’s Czech, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, and Slovene services were 

merged into the EMU.

c

In fiscal year 2002, VOA’s Slovak, Bulgarian, and Romanian services were added into the EMU.

d

RFE/RL’s Croatian service serves the entire Balkan region as part of a regional initiative called the 

South Slavic Service. RFE/RL budget, staffing, and transmission data figures are for the entire South 

Slavic Service. Priority and impact ratings are for the entire South Slavic Service, with the exception of 

2002, where they are for the Croatian segment only.

e

RFE/RL’s Czech language service was privatized in 1994 at the discretion of RFE/RL management. 

However, RFE/RL continued to provide financial support to the private Czech station through 2002.

f

RFE/RL decided to end its Hungarian service in 1993.

g

RFE/RL ended its Polish service broadcasting at the end of 1997.

h

RFE/RL’s Romanian language service serves the countries of Romania and Moldova. RFE/RL 

budget, staffing, impact, and transmission figures are for the entire service. 

i

RFE/RL has never had a Slovenian language service.

Slovak

Budget level 514 1,307 513 1,002 342 813 281 892

Staffing level 6 8 3 8 3 7 3 6

Total weekly hours 7 28 1.25 24.03 1.83 11.75 1.83 14.55

Impact rating Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Not 

available

Not 

available

Language priority Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

Slovenei

Budget level 228 0 174 0 168 0 180 0

Staffing level 3 0 2 0 2 0 2 0

Total weekly hours 3.75 0 0.80 0 0.85 0 0.83 0

Impact rating Not 

available

N/A Higher N/A High N/A Not 

available

Not 

available

Language priority Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Not 

available

Not 

available

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

Broadcast 

language 

2000 2001 2002 2003a

VOA RFE/RL VOAb RFE/RL VOAc RFE/RL VOA RFE/RL
Page 31 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III

Comments from the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors ApendxiI
Appendix III

Comments from the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

Page 32 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting
Appendix III

Comments from the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

Page 33 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting
Page 34 GAO-04-374 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contact Diana Glod, (202) 512-8945

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the person named above, Michael ten Kate, Melissa 

Pickworth, and Janey Cohen made key contributions to this report. Martin 

De Alteriis and Ernie Jackson provided technical assistance.

(320218)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good 

government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 

reliability.

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web 

site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO email this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

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

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to

a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs 
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00