Testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Justice, State, and the 

Judiciary; Committee on Appropriations; 

House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST 

Thursday, April 1, 2004 U.S. INTERNATIONAL 

BROADCASTING 

Challenges Facing the 

Broadcasting Board of 

Governors 

Statement of Jess T. Ford, Director 

International Affairs and Trade 

GAO-04-627T 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-627T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at 

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

Highlights of GAO-04-627T, a testimony

before the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Justice, State, and the Judiciary; 

Committee on Appropriations; House of 

Representatives 

Thursday, April 1, 2004

U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

Challenges Facing the Broadcasting 

Board of Governors 

The Broadcasting Board of Governors has responded to a disparate 

organizational structure and marketing challenges by developing a new 

strategic approach to broadcasting which, among other things, emphasizes 

reaching large audiences through modern broadcasting techniques. The 

existence of five separate broadcast entities has led to overlapping language 

services, duplication of program content, redundant newsgathering and 

support services, and difficulties coordinating broadcast efforts. The 

Board’s new approach seeks to overcome these problems by treating all 

broadcast entities as part of a “single system” it oversees to ensure that 

broadcast content meets the needs of individual markets. Other challenges 

include a lack of target audiences within broadcast markets, outmoded 

program formats and styles, poor signal delivery in many areas, and low 

audience awareness in several major markets. The Board’s approach calls 

for new initiatives (such as Radio Sawa broadcasts to the Middle East) and 

existing language services to systematically address these deficiencies. 

To streamline its operations, the Board has used its annual language service 

review to address such issues as how resources should be allocated among 

language services on the basis of their priority and impact, what degree of 

overlap should exist among services, and whether services should be 

eliminated because they have fulfilled their broadcast mission. Since 1999, 

the Board has identified more than $50 million in actual or potential savings 

through this process. 

In response to our recommendations on the Board’s strategic planning and 

performance management efforts, the Board revised its strategic plan to 

make reaching large audiences in strategic markets the centerpiece of its 

performance reporting system. The Board also added broadcaster 

credibility and audience awareness to its array of performance measures and 

plans to add a measure of whether VOA is meeting its mandated mission. 

The terrorist attacks of September 

11, 2001, were a dramatic reminder 

of the importance of cultivating a 

better understanding of the United 

States and our policies with 

overseas audiences. U.S. public 

diplomacy activities include the 

efforts of the Broadcasting Board 

of Governors, which oversees all 

nonmilitary U.S. international 

broadcasting by the Voice of 

America (VOA) and several other 

broadcast entities. Such 

broadcasting helps promote a 

better understanding of the United 

States and serves U.S. interests by 

providing overseas audiences with 

accurate and objective news about 

the United States and the world. 

GAO has issued three reports over 

the past 4 years examining the 

organizational, marketing, 

resource, and performance 

reporting challenges faced by the 

Board. Our recommendations to 

the Board have included the need 

to address the long-standing issue 

of overlapping language services 

(that is, where two services 

broadcast in the same language to 

the same audience) and to 

strengthen the Board’s strategic 

planning and performance by 

placing a greater emphasis on 

results. The Board has taken 

significant steps to respond to 

these and other recommendations.
Page 1 GAO-04-627T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to provide an overview of the three reports 

we have issued over the past 4 years on the operations of the Broadcasting 

Board of Governors. 1,2,3

 These reports have examined a number of 

organizational, marketing, resource, and performance management 

challenges facing U.S. international broadcasting. Our two most recent 

reports have addressed the Board’s principal response to these 

challenges—a new 5-year strategic approach to international broadcasting 

known as “Marrying the Mission to the Market,” which emphasizes the 

need to reach large audiences by applying modern broadcast techniques 

and strategically allocating resources to focus on high-priority broadcast 

markets. Early implementation of this strategy has focused on markets 

relevant to the war on terrorism, in particular the Middle East and central 

Asia. 

Drawing from our published reports as well as recent testimony on U.S. 

public diplomacy,4

 I will talk today about (1) organizational and marketing 

obstacles and the Board’s efforts to overcome them, (2) what the Board 

has done to manage its limited resources, and (3) the status of Board 

efforts to develop meaningful performance goals and measures. I will also 

discuss our recommendations to the Board and the status of its response 

to them. As part of our work to prepare for this testimony, we met with 

Board staff to obtain updated program data and current information on the 

steps the Board has taken to respond to our recommendations. The 

reports used for this testimony were conducted in accordance with 

government auditing standards. 

 1

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). 

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, 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). 

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. International Broadcasting: Enhanced Measure of 

Local Media Conditions Would Facilitate Decisions to Terminate Language Services, 

GAO-04-374 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2004). 

4

U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department and the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Efforts in the Middle East but Face 

Significant Challenges, GAO-04-435T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2004). 
Page 2 GAO-04-627T 

The Broadcasting Board of Governors faces a number of challenges, key 

among them is how to achieve large audiences in priority markets while 

dealing with (1) a disparate organizational structure consisting of five 

broadcast entities and a mix of federal and grantee organizations managed 

by a part-time Board, and (2) a collection of outdated and noncompetitive 

language services that have failed to respond to current market conditions. 

The disparate structure of U.S. international broadcasting has led to 

overlapping language services, duplication of program content, redundant 

newsgathering and support services, and difficulties coordinating 

broadcast efforts. Marketing challenges include the use of outmoded 

program formats and styles, the general lack of target audiences within 

broadcast markets, poor signal delivery in many areas, and low audience 

awareness in several major markets. The Board’s new strategic approach 

addresses these issues by treating broadcast entities as content providers 

within a “single system” that the Board oversees to ensure that broadcast 

content meets the discreet needs of the individual markets using modern 

broadcasting techniques. Recent Board initiatives such as Radio Sawa 

broadcasts to the Middle East and Radio Farda broadcasts to Iran 

illustrate the Board’s willingness both to serve as the content manager for 

U.S. international broadcasting and to adopt a market-based approach 

designed to attract large listening audiences. Although we have not 

validated available research data, the Board claims that the application of 

its new strategic approach has led to dramatic increases in audience 

listening rates in markets of key strategic interest to the United States. 

Triggered by a desire to better manage its limited resources, the Board has 

used its annual language service review process to identify and reallocate 

cost savings to fund higher priority needs. The process is used to address 

such complex resource issues as how funds should be allocated among 

services based on their priority and impact, how many broadcast services 

should be carried in total, what degree of overlap and content duplication 

should exist among services, and whether services should be eliminated 

because they have fulfilled their broadcast mission. Since 1999, the Board 

has identified more than $50 million in actual or potential savings through 

the language service review process. From 1999 through 2002, the 

language service review process resulted in the reallocation of about $19.7 

million from lower priority or impact language services to higher priority 

broadcast needs. In response to our recommendation, the Board updated 

its review process to include a specific analysis of overlapping language 

Summary 
Page 3 GAO-04-627T 

services.5 In its 2003 review, the Board identified $12.4 million in fiscal 

year 2004 and 2005 transmission cost savings and language service overlap 

reductions that could be reallocated to higher priority needs. Finally, the 

Board has used its language service review process as a vehicle for 

identifying which language services should be eliminated. For example, 

based on its review process, the Board’s fiscal year 2004 budget request to 

Congress recommended the elimination of 17 Central and Eastern 

European language services managed by Voice of America (VOA) and 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) saving a projected $20.9 

million for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. While the Board is to be 

commended for making a difficult decision in this case, our February 2004 

report did note that the language service review process lacks an adequate 

measure of whether domestic media provide accurate, balanced, and 

comprehensive news and information to national audiences—a condition 

that the Congress expressed should be met before RFE/RL language 

services are terminated.6

In response to our recommendations on the Board’s strategic planning and 

performance management efforts, the Board revised its strategic plan to 

make the goal of reaching large audiences in strategic markets the 

centerpiece of its performance reporting system. Also in response to our 

recommendations, the Board added broadcaster credibility and audience 

awareness to its array of performance measures and plans to add a 

measure of whether VOA is meeting its mission. These steps will help the 

Board answer questions about the effectiveness of initiatives such as 

Radio Sawa and Alhurra (the two entities comprising the Middle East 

Television Network) in reaching mass audiences and elites in the Middle 

East, whether foreign publics perceive U.S. broadcast services as being 

independent of American foreign policy, and whether VOA is effectively 

promoting the image of the United States and educating foreign audiences 

about U.S. practices and policies. 

 5

Overlap exists when a VOA and a surrogate service, such as RFE/RL, broadcast in the 

same language to the same target audience. Some degree of overlap is appropriate given 

the varying missions of U.S. broadcast entities. However, in its new strategic plan, the 

Board identified a 40 percent overlap in its language services as excessive. 

6

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 member states of the European 

Union or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and have received a Freedom 

House (a non-profit group reporting on economic, political, and press freedom issues 

around the world) rating equal to that of the United States. Conferees expressed the 

expectation that broadcast services would continue in Romanian and Croatian. 
Page 4 GAO-04-627T 

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), VOA, the Middle East Television 

Network (Alhurra and Radio Sawa), RFE/RL, and Radio Free Asia (RFA). 

In addition to serving as a reliable source of news and information, VOA is 

responsible for presenting U.S. policies through a variety of means 

including officially labeled government editorials. Radio/TV Marti, 

RFE/RL, and RFA were created by Congress to function as “surrogate” 

broadcasters, designed to temporarily replace the local media of countries 

where a free and open press does not exist. Created by the Bush 

Administration and the Board, the Middle East Television Network draws 

its mission from the core purpose of U.S. international broadcasting, 

which is to promote and sustain freedom by broadcasting accurate and 

objective news and information about the United States and the world to 

audiences overseas.7

In addition to the stand-alone entities that make up U.S. international 

broadcasting, Congress and the Board have created other broadcast 

organizations to meet specific program objectives. Congress created Radio 

Free Iraq, Radio Free Iran, and Radio Free Afghanistan and incorporated 

these services into RFE/RL’s operations. Under its new strategic approach 

to broadcasting, the Board and the Bush Administration created Radio 

Sawa, the Afghanistan Radio Network (ARN), Radio Farda, and Alhurra to 

replace poorly performing services, more effectively combine existing 

services, and create new broadcast entities where needed. Figure 1 

illustrates the Board’s current organizational structure. 

 7

The U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994 states that U.S. international broadcasting 

efforts should, among other things, be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives 

of the United States; provide a balanced and comprehensive projection of U.S. thought and 

institutions; and provide accurate and objective news and information about developments 

in significant regions of the world. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-04-627T 

Figure 1: Organizational Structure of U.S. International Broadcasting 

VOA, RFE/RL, and RFA are 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. Currently, 

42 of the Board’s 74 language services (or 57 percent) target the same 

audiences in the same languages. While some degree of overlap is to be 

expected given the varying missions of the broadcast entities, the Board 

has concluded that this level of overlap requires ongoing analysis and 

scrutiny. 

The Board’s budget for fiscal year 2003 was approximately $552 million, 

with nearly half of its resources used to cover transmission, technical 

support, Board and IBB management staff salaries, and other support 

costs. Among the broadcast entities, funds are roughly equally divided 

among VOA and the four other U.S. broadcasting entities. Figure 2 

provides a breakout of the Board’s fiscal year 2003 budget. 
Page 6 GAO-04-627T 

Figure 2: Broadcasting Board of Governors Funding, Fiscal Year 2003 

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors. 

Our reviews of U.S. international broadcasting reveal that the Board faces 

the challenges of operating a mix of broadcast entities with varying 

missions and structures in an environment that provides significant 

marketing obstacles. As we reported in July 2003, the Board has adopted a 

new approach to broadcasting that is designed to overcome several of 

these challenges. The Board’s key organizational challenge is the disparate 

mix of broadcast entities it is tasked with managing.8

 To address this 

problem, the Board has adopted a “single system” approach to 

broadcasting whereby broadcast entities are viewed as content providers 

and the Board assumes a central role in tailoring this content to meet the 

demands of individual markets. The Board also faces marketing challenges 

that include the lack of a unique reason for listeners to tune in, the general 

 8

Our July 2003 report discusses additional organizational issues, including the potential 

need for a Chief Executive Officer or Chief Operating Officer to handle day-to-day 

operations for the Board and whether VOA and Radio/TV Marti should be reconstituted as 

grantees to put them on the same footing as other U.S. broadcast entities. 

Disparate Structure 

and Outmoded 

Broadcast Approach 

Hamper Efforts to 

Reach Large 

Audiences in Strategic 

Markets 
Page 7 GAO-04-627T 

lack of target audiences within broadcast markets, and poor to fair signal 

quality for many of the broadcast services. Recent Board initiatives such 

as Radio Sawa and Alhurra have addressed these deficiencies in priority 

markets and the Board has required that all broadcast services, to the 

extent feasible, address these issues as well. 

The Board’s major organizational challenge is the need to further 

consolidate and streamline its operations to better leverage existing 

resources and generate greater program impact in priority markets. 

According to the Board’s strategic plan, “the diversity of the Broadcasting 

Board of Governors—diverse organizations with different missions, 

different frameworks, and different constituencies—makes it a challenge 

to bring all the separate parts together in a more effective whole.” As 

noted in our 2003 report, senior program managers and outside experts 

with whom we spoke supported considering the option of consolidating 

U.S. international broadcasting efforts into a single entity. 

The Board intends to create a unified broadcasting system by treating the 

component parts of U.S. international broadcasting as a single system. 

Under this approach, VOA and other U.S. broadcast entities are viewed as 

content providers and the Board’s role is to bring this content together to 

form new services or entities as needed. The single system approach to 

managing the Board’s diversity requires that the Board actively manage 

resources across broadcast entities to achieve common broadcast goals. A 

good example of this strategy in action is Radio Farda, which combined 

VOA and RFE/RL broadcast content to produce a new broadcast product 

for the Iranian market. In the case of Radio Sawa, the Board replaced 

VOA’s poorly performing Arabic service with a new broadcast entity. The 

Board’s experience with implementing Radio Sawa suggests that it can be 

difficult to make disparate broadcast entities work toward a common 

purpose. For example, Board members and senior planners told us they 

encountered some difficulties attempting to work with officials to launch 

Radio Sawa within VOA’s structure and were later forced to constitute 

Radio Sawa as a separate grantee organization. While this move was 

needed to achieve the Board’s strategic objectives, it also contributes to 

the further fragmentation of U.S. international broadcasting. 

The Board’s strategic plan comments openly on the marketing challenges 

facing U.S. international broadcasters, including that many language 

services lack a unique reason for listeners or viewers to tune in; few 

language services have identified their target audience—a key first step in 

Disparate Structure of 

Broadcast Operations 

Remains an Ongoing 

Challenge 

New Initiatives Address 

Marketing Challenges 
Page 8 GAO-04-627T 

developing a broadcast strategy; many language services have outmoded 

formats and programs with an antiquated, even Cold War, sound and style; 

and three-quarters of transmitted hours have poor or fair signal quality. 

Consistent with its “Marrying the Mission to the Market” philosophy, the 

Board has sought to address these deficiencies in key markets with new 

initiatives in Afghanistan, Iran, and the Middle East that support the war 

on terrorism. The first project under the new approach, Radio Sawa 

(recently added to the new Middle East Television Network), was 

launched in March 2002 using many of the modern, market-tested 

broadcasting techniques and practices prescribed in its strategic plan, 

including identifying a target audience, researching the best way to attract 

the target audience, and delivering programming in a contemporary and 

appealing format to the Middle East. The Board’s other recent initiatives 

also have adhered to this new approach by being tailored to the specific 

circumstances of each target market. These initiatives include the 

Afghanistan Radio Network, Radio Farda service to Iran, and the Alhurra 

satellite service to the Middle East. Table 1 describes the Board’s recent 

projects supporting the war on terrorism. 
Page 9 GAO-04-627T 

Table 1: The Board’s Recent Initiatives that Support the War on Terrorism 

Initiative Launch date Project description 

Radio Sawa 

(recently added to the Middle East 

Television Network) 

March 2002 A modern Arabic-language network that broadcasts music, news, and 

information to 17-28 year olds in the Middle East via a combination of FM, 

medium wave, short wave, digital audio satellite, and Internet transmission 

resources. Separate streams are targeted to Iraq, Jordan and the West Bank, 

the Persian Gulf, Egypt, and Morocco. All five streams have a differentiated 

music program; however, the news is similar on the four non-Iraq streams. 

Radio Sawa broadcasts 10 to 15 minutes of news each hour. 

Afghanistan Radio Network August 2002 Afghanistan Radio Network is a coordinated stream of VOA Dari and Pashto 

and RFE/RL’s Radio Free Afghanistan radio programming. The network 

targets the broad Afghani population and currently broadcasts 24 hours,7 

days a week on FM and the Internet. It broadcasts 12 hours in Dari and 12 

hours in Pashto daily. It features hourly regional and global news and 

information coverage as well as reports on issues such as health, education, 

politics, human rights, women’s rights, and economic reconstruction. 

Radio Farda December 2002 Radio Farda combines the efforts of VOA and RFE/RL into a single service 

managed by RFE/RL. Radio Farda targets its broadcasts to the under-30 

youth in Iran. It broadcasts a combination of popular Persian and Western 

music and a total of 8 hours of news and information content daily, focusing 

on regional coverage and developments relating to Iran. News updates are 

given at least twice an hour, with longer news programming in the morning 

and evening. It broadcasts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via medium wave, 

digital audio satellite, and the Internet, as well as 21 hours a day via short 

wave. 

Alhurra 

(part of the Middle East Television 

Network) 

February 2004 With a focus on attracting large audiences in the Middle East, the Alhurra 

satellite TV channel provides news, current affairs, and entertainment 

programming on a 24 hours, 7 days a week basis. Programming focuses on 

news and information, including hourly news updates, daily hour-long 

newscasts, and current affairs talk shows. The channel also broadcasts 

information or educational shows on subjects including health and fitness, 

entertainment, sports, and science and technology. 

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors. 

Although we have not validated available research data, the Board claims 

that implementation of these marketing improvements has led to dramatic 

increases in audience listening rates. For example, the Board notes that 

Radio Sawa is now the number one international broadcaster in the Middle 

East, with a weekly audience of over 30 percent of the target audience in 

countries where it is broadcast on FM. In addition to these new initiatives, 

the Board has tasked all language services with adopting the tenets of its 

new approach, such as identifying a target audience and improving signal 

quality, to the maximum extent possible within existing budget 

constraints. 
Page 10 GAO-04-627T 

The Board manages its limited resources through its annual language 

service review process which is used to address such issues as how 

resources should be allocated among services based on their priority and 

impact, how many broadcast services should be carried in total, what 

degree of overlap and content duplication9

 should exist among services, 

and whether services should be eliminated because they have fulfilled 

their broadcast mission. This process responds to the congressional 

mandate that the Board periodically review the need to add and delete 

language services. The Board has interpreted this mandate to include the 

expansion and reduction of language services. Since 1999, the Board has 

identified more than $50 million in actual or potential savings through the 

language service review process by moving resources from lower to higher 

priority services, by eliminating language services, and by reducing 

language service overlap and transmission costs. 

As noted in our July 2003 report, the Board’s strategic plan concludes that 

if U.S. international broadcasting is to become a vital component of U.S. 

foreign policy, it must focus on a clear set of broadcast priorities. The plan 

notes that trying to do too much at the same time fractures this focus, 

extends the span of control beyond management capabilities, and siphons 

off precious resources. As discussed in our report, the Board determined 

that current efforts to support its broadcast languages are “unsustainable” 

with current resources given its desire to increase impact in high priority 

markets. Our survey of senior program managers revealed that a majority 

supported significantly reducing the total number of language services and 

the overlap in services between VOA and the surrogate broadcasters. We 

found that 18 of 24 respondents said that too many language services are 

offered. When asked how many countries should have more than one U.S. 

international broadcaster providing service in the same language, 23 of 28 

respondents said this should occur in only a few countries or no countries 

at all. 

The Board’s annual language service review process serves as the Board’s 

principal tool for managing these complex resource questions. This 

process has evolved into an intensive program and budget review that 

 9

Content duplication occurs when VOA and another U.S. broadcast entity provide the same 

type of information to the same audience. Board analysis shows that VOA carries more 

information about America than the surrogates and surrogates carry more local news than 

VOA. However, there are areas of overlap in content since each broadcast entity carries 

news about America and international, regional, and local events. 

Language Service 

Review Used to 

Reallocate Millions to 

Higher Priority 

Broadcast Needs 

Review Process Used to 

Address Complex 

Resource Issues 
Page 11 GAO-04-627T 

culminates with ranked priority and impact listings for each of the Board’s 

74 language services. These ranked lists become the basis for proposed 

language service reductions or eliminations and provide the Board with an 

analytical basis for making such determinations using measures of U.S. 

strategic interests, audience size, press freedom, and a host of other 

factors. Since the first language service review process began in 1999 and 

up through 2002, the Board has reduced the scope of operations of over 25 

language services based on their priority and impact rankings and 

reallocated about $19.7 million to help fund higher priority broadcast 

needs such as Radio Sawa and Radio Farda. 

As discussed in our February 2004 report, a clear example of the language 

service review process in action was the Board’s recent proposal to 

eliminate 17 Central and Eastern European language services which 

served to reduce the overall number of language services and eliminate 

several overlapping services where the Board believed each broadcast 

entities mission had been completed. This decision resulted in nonrecurring budget savings of about $8.8 million for fiscal year 2004 and 

recurring annual savings of about $12.1 million. Our only criticism of this 

decision was that the Board’s language service review process did not 

include a measure of press freedom that gauges whether the press acts 

responsibly and professionally.10 This is a significant omission in the 

Board’s current measure, given the congressional concern that RFE/RL’s 

broadcast operations not be terminated until a country’s domestic media 

meet this condition.11 Board officials acknowledged that their existing 

press freedom measure could be updated to include information on media 

responsibility and professional quality, and work is under way to develop a 

more comprehensive measure for the Board’s 2004 language service 

review. 

 10The Board’s current 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. 

11See Title III of P.L. 103-236, as amended by P.L. 106-113, Appendix G, Section 503. 
Page 12 GAO-04-627T 

In our September 2000 report, we cited the Board’s concerns about 

overlapping language services and its plans to address this issue in 

subsequent iterations of the language service review process. In our July 

2003 report we again raised the issue of language service overlap and 

content duplication between VOA and the surrogates. We also noted that 

while the Board’s strategic plan identified overlap as a challenge, it failed 

to answer questions about when it is appropriate to broadcast VOA and 

surrogate programming in the same language. 

The Board has responded to our observations and recommendations by 

incorporating a review of overlapping services in its language service 

review process for 2003. The Board developed several approaches to 

dealing with overlap. For example, services can be “merged” by having one 

service subsume another (as was the case Radio Farda). A second 

approach is to run alternating services as is the case with the Afghanistan 

Radio Network, which runs VOA and RFE/RL programming on a single 

broadcast stream. Another approach is to simply terminate one or both 

overlapping services. All of the Board’s overlapping services were 

assessed with these different approaches in mind. As a result of this 

analysis, the Board identified an estimated $4.9 million in fiscal year 2004 

and 2005 savings from overlap services that could be redirected to higher 

priority broadcasting needs, such as expanded Persian language television 

for Iran and expanded Urdu language radio for Pakistan.12

Mr. Chairman, the Board has revised its strategic planning and 

performance management system to respond to the recommendations in 

our July 2003 report aimed at improving the measurement of its results. In 

that report, we recommended that the Board’s new strategic plan include a 

goal designed to gauge progress toward reaching significant audiences in 

markets of strategic interest to the United States. Our report also 

recommended that the Board establish key performance indicators 

relating to the perceived credibility of U.S. broadcasters, whether 

audiences are aware of U.S. broadcast offerings in their area, and whether 

 12The Board also identified an estimated $7.5 million in fiscal year 2004 and 2005 savings 

from transmission reductions during its 2003 language service review. 

Overlapping Language 

Services Addressed 

Remains an Issue of 

Concern 

Strategic Planning 

and Performance 

Management System 

Revised to Place a 

Greater Focus on 

Results 
Page 13 GAO-04-627T 

VOA is achieving its mission of effectively explaining U.S. policies and 

practices to overseas audiences.13

In response to our recommendation for a goal that would measure 

progress in reaching large audiences in markets of strategic interest to the 

United States, the Board replaced the seven strategic goals in its plan with 

a single goal focused on this core objective.14 The goal is supported by a 

number of performance indicators (at the entity and language service 

level) that are designed to measure the reach of U.S. international 

broadcasting efforts and whether programming is delivered in the most 

effective manner possible. Weekly listening rates at the entity level and 

target audience numbers by language service provide key measures of the 

Board’s reach. Other program effectiveness measures include program 

quality, the number of broadcast affiliates, signal strength, Internet usage, 

and cost per listener. 

In response to our recommendation for a measure of broadcaster 

credibility to identify whether target audiences believe what they hear, the 

Board added such a measure to its performance management system. 

Reaching a large listening or viewing audience is of little use if audiences 

largely discount the news and information portions of broadcasts. Our 

survey of senior program managers and discussions with Board staff and 

outside groups all suggest the possibility that U.S. broadcasters (VOA in 

particular) suffer from a credibility problem with foreign audiences, who 

may view VOA and other broadcasters as biased sources of information. 

InterMedia, the Board’s audience research contractor, told us that it was 

working on a credibility index for another customer that could be adapted 

to meet the Board’s needs and, when segmented by language service, 

would reveal whether there are significant perception problems among 

 13This Board’s strategic planning and performance management system includes its 5-year 

strategic plan, Results Act reporting (annual performance plans and reports), the Office of 

Management and Budget’s new Program Assessment Rating Tool, the annual language 

service review process, and annual program reviews of individual language services. 

14We also reported that efforts to assess the effectiveness of the Board’s new approach to 

broadcasting may be hampered by the lack of details on how the Board intends to 

implement each of its program objectives. Our September 2000 and July 2003 reports both 

noted that the Board’s performance plans lacked specifics on implementation strategies, 

resource requirements, and project time frames. The Board acknowledged these 

deficiencies and said that major changes are slated for future planning efforts. 

Reaching Large Audiences 

in Key Markets 

Broadcaster Credibility 
Page 14 GAO-04-627T 

key target audiences. However, to develop a similar measure, Intermedia 

told us that the Board would need to add several questions to its national 

survey instruments. 

In response to our finding that the Board lacked a measure of audience 

awareness, the Board has added such a measure to its performance 

management system. We determined this measure would help the Board 

answer a key question of effectiveness: whether target audiences are even 

aware of U.S. international broadcasting programming available in their 

area. Board officials have stated that having this measure would help the 

Board understand a key factor in audience share rates and what could be 

done to address audience share deficiencies. We found that the Board 

could develop this measure since it already collects information on 

language service awareness levels in its audience research and in national 

surveys for internal use. 

Finally, in response to our finding that the Board lacked a measure of 

whether target audiences hear, understand, and retain information 

broadcast by VOA on American thought, institutions, and policies, Board 

officials we spoke with told us that they are currently developing this 

measure for inclusion in the Board’s performance management system. 

The unique value-added component of VOA’s broadcasting mission is its 

focus on issues and information concerning the United States, our system 

of government, and the rationale behind U.S. policy decisions. Tracking 

and reporting these data are important in determining whether VOA is 

accomplishing its mission. Officials from the Board’s research firm noted 

that developing a measure of this sort is feasible and requires developing 

appropriate quantitative and qualitative questions to include in the Board’s 

ongoing survey activities. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may 

have at this time. 

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call Jess Ford or 

Diana Glod at (202) 512-4128. Individuals making key contributions to this 

testimony included Janey Cohen, Rick Barrett, Melissa Pickworth, and 

Michael ten Kate. 

Audience Awareness 

VOA Mission Effectiveness 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

(320265) 
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. 
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 e-mail 

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 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs