BROADCASTING 

BOARD OF 

GOVERNORS

Additional Steps 

Needed to Address 

Overlap in 

International 

Broadcasting

Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2013

GAO-13-172

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-172, a report to 

congressional requesters

January 2013

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Additional Steps Needed to Address Overlap in 

International Broadcasting

Why GAO Did This Study

U.S. international broadcasting is 

intended to communicate directly with

audiences in countries with limited 

journalism alternatives and to inform, 

engage, and connect people around 

the world. BBG oversees two U.S. 

government entities—Voice of America 

and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting—

and three nonprofit grantees that act 

as surrogates for local media—Middle 

East Broadcasting Networks, Inc.;

Radio Free Asia; and Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty. In 2003, GAO 

found overlap among BBG’s language 

services. In its strategic plan for 2012-

2016, BBG recognizes the need to 

reduce language service overlap.

GAO was asked to review issues 

related to international broadcasting. 

This report examines the extent to 

which (1) BBG language services

overlap with one another and (2) BBG 

broadcasts in the same languages as

other international broadcasters. GAO 

reviewed laws, reports, and other 

documents related to U.S. international 

broadcasting; analyzed information on 

the BBG entities; and interviewed 

representatives of the five BBG entities

and international broadcasters. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that BBG 

systematically consider in its annual 

language service reviews (1) the cost 

and impact of overlap among BBG 

entities’ language services and (2) the 

activities of other international 

broadcasters. BBG agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations and reported taking 

initial steps to implement them.

What GAO Found

Nearly two-thirds of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) language 

services—offices that produce content for particular languages and regions—

overlap with another BBG service by providing programs to the same countries in 

the same languages. GAO identified 23 instances of overlap involving 43 of 

BBG’s 69 services. For example, in 8 instances involving 16 services, a Voice of 

America service and a Radio Free Asia service overlapped. Almost all 

overlapping services also broadcast on the same platform (i.e., radio or

television). BBG officials noted that some overlap may be helpful in providing 

news from various sources in countries of strategic interest to the United States; 

however, they acknowledged that overlap reduces the funding available for 

broadcasts that may have greater impact. BBG budget information indicates that

BBG spent approximately $149 million in fiscal year 2011 to maintain language

services broadcasting in the same countries and languages—nearly 20 percent 

of its total appropriations. However, BBG has not estimated the potential savings

and efficiencies from reducing unnecessary overlap. Further, BBG’s annual 

language service review—its primary means of prioritizing broadcast languages 

and planning resource allocations—does not systematically consider the cost

and impact of overlap. As a result, BBG may be missing opportunities to reduce 

overlap as appropriate, strengthen impact, and improve BBG entity coordination. 

Overlap of BBG Entities’ Language Services as of June 2012

More than half of BBG’s broadcast languages are used by other international 

broadcasters—U.S. commercial international broadcasters and other major 

democratic nations’ government-supported international broadcasters—although

these broadcasters’ objectives differ from BBG’s. The U.S. commercial 

broadcasters that GAO identified transmit in seven of the BBG languages and 

target different audiences, with for-profit aims. Other democratic nations’ 

broadcasters, including Germany’s Deutsche Welle and the United Kingdom’s 

BBC, transmit in 35 of the 59 BBG languages, although each broadcaster 

represents the unique perspectives and interests of its respective country. BBG’s 

annual language service review generally considers the broadcast alternatives 

available to targeted audiences by identifying the most significant broadcasters in 

each market BBG serves. However, the review process does not systematically 

identify the languages used and the countries served by other international 

broadcasters, and it does not assess the extent to which these broadcasters 

provide similar or complementary alternatives to BBG broadcasts. As a result, 

BBG risks missing additional opportunities to better allocate its resources. 

View GAO-13-172. For more information, 

contact Timothy J. DiNapoli at (202) 512-3665 

or dinapolit@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Letter 1 

Background 3

Many of BBG’s Language Services Overlap with Another BBG 

Service, but Annual Review Does Not Systematically Consider 

Overlap’s Cost or Impact 7

More Than Half of BBG Languages Are Used by Other International 

Broadcasters, but BBG Does Not Annually Review Other 

Broadcasters’ Efforts 12

Conclusions 17

Recommendations for Executive Action 17

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 18

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 20

Appendix II BBG Language Services 22

Appendix III Languages Used by BBG and Selected Other GovernmentSupported International Broadcasters as of 2012 25

Appendix IV Comments from BBG 27

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 30

Figures

Figure 1: Timeline of the Creation of BBG Entities 5

Figure 2: BBG Broadcast Entities’ Missions and Fiscal Year 2012 

Appropriations 6

Figure 3: Overlap of BBG Entities’ Language Services as of June 

2012 8

Figure 4: Broadcast Languages of BBG and Other Democratic 

Nations’ International Broadcasters as of 2012 14

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Abbreviations

AEF Audiovisuel Extérieur de la France

BBC British Broadcasting Corporation World Service

BBG Broadcasting Board of Governors

DG5 Directors General Five

DW Deutsche Welle

MBN Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc.

OCB Office of Cuba Broadcasting

RFA Radio Free Asia

RFE/ RL Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

RNW Radio Netherlands Worldwide

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

VOA Voice of America

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

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

January 29, 2013

The Honorable Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Ron Johnson

United States Senate

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel

Ranking Member

Committee on Foreign Affairs

House of Representatives

U.S. international broadcasting is intended to support U.S. public 

diplomacy efforts to communicate directly with audiences in countries with 

limited journalism alternatives. Since it was launched to provide 

information to foreign audiences during World War II, U.S. international 

broadcasting has grown considerably as Congress has created additional 

broadcasting entities to target new audiences. In fiscal year 2012, these 

entities broadcast in 59 languages through radio, television, the Internet, 

and mobile technology to an estimated weekly audience of 175 million 

people.1

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is an independent federal 

agency responsible for U.S.-government-sponsored civilian international 

broadcasting. BBG’s mission is to inform, engage, and connect people 

around the world in support of freedom and democracy. In fiscal year 

2012, BBG received $752 million in funding. BBG oversees two federal 

entities, the Voice of America (VOA) and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting 

(OCB). BBG also provides funding and oversight to three nonprofit 

grantees that act as surrogates for local media: Middle East Broadcasting 

Networks, Inc. (MBN); Radio Free Asia (RFA); and Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). Each of these entities includes language 

services—offices that produce content such as radio and television 

programs for particular languages and regions.

 

1

In this report, “broadcast” refers to the dissemination of information through any type of 

medium.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

In 2003, we found that BBG’s organizational structure and broadcast 

approach resulted in overlap among the language services.2 Our 2003 

report noted that the number of BBG language services had risen nearly 

20 percent over the previous 10 years. However, at that time, BBG had 

not determined the number of language services it could maintain 

effectively or the appropriate level of overlap among its language 

services. We found that resolving these questions would have significant 

resource implications for BBG and its ability to reach larger audiences in 

high-priority markets. In other work, we have found that agencies can 

often realize a range of benefits, such as decreased administrative 

burdens and cost savings, from addressing overlap and related issues.3

You asked us to review issues related to international broadcasting. This 

report examines the extent to which (1) BBG language services overlap 

with one another and (2) BBG broadcasts in the same languages as other 

international broadcasters. For the purposes of this report, “overlap” 

refers to instances in which two BBG entities broadcast in the same 

language and country.

BBG’s strategic plan for 2012-2016 identifies proposals for restructuring 

and streamlining the organization to optimize the use of resources.

To examine BBG language service overlap, we reviewed laws, reports, 

and other documents related to U.S. international broadcasting, including 

BBG’s strategic plan for 2012-2016 and its 2011 review of its language 

services. We also reviewed and analyzed information on the missions of 

the five BBG entities—VOA, OCB, MBN, RFA, and RFE/RL—and on their 

broadcast coverage, by country, language, and platform.4

 

2

GAO, U.S. International Broadcasting: New Strategic Approach Focuses on Reaching 

Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program Objectives, 

We interviewed 

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

for International Development (USAID), as well as experts from U.S. and 

international organizations. In addition, we interviewed officials from VOA, 

MBN, RFA, RFE/RL, and OCB. To examine the extent to which BBG 

GAO-03-772 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 15, 2003).

3

GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

4

We did not analyze the content of broadcast programs, overlap in BBG administrative 

and technical operations, or BBG management and administrative streamlining proposals.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

broadcasts in the same languages as other international broadcasters—

U.S. commercial international broadcasters and other major democratic 

nations’ government-supported international broadcasters5

We conducted this performance audit from February 2012 to January 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

—we reviewed 

information on the languages in which they broadcast and interviewed 

officials representing these broadcasters. See appendix I for more detail 

on our scope and methodology.

In accordance with the United States International Broadcasting Act of 

1994, as amended,6 BBG manages and oversees all U.S. civilian 

international broadcasting, including the federal entities VOA and OCB 

and the grantees MBN, RFA, and RFE/RL. Collectively, these entities 

include 69 language services that produce content in 59 languages for 

radio, television, the Internet, mobile devices, and social media in more 

than 100 countries.7

 

5

We determined that the government-supported international broadcasters for France, 

Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States, which are 

represented in an organization known as the Directors General Five (DG5), comprise the 

major government-supported broadcasters from democratic nations. Democratic 

broadcasters that are not members of the DG5 are not included in this review.

The International Broadcasting Bureau provides all 

support services to BBG, oversight over grantee operations, and 

transmission and distribution services to BBG entities.

6

22 U.S.C § 6201 et. seq.; Pub. L. No. 103-236, Title III,108 Stat. 382 (April 30, 1994), as 

amended.

7

The number of language services differs from the number of languages because each 

BBG entity maintains its own language services. In addition, some language services 

produce content in multiple languages.

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

BBG is managed by a nine-member part-time bipartisan Board of 

Governors.8 As an element of U.S. public diplomacy,9

Following specific foreign policy challenges over the last decade, 

Congress created the five broadcasting entities that compose BBG. In 

some instances, BBG entities were created or directed to broadcast in 

languages and countries where VOA was already present. BBG officials 

noted, for example:

BBG is to be 

responsive to U.S. foreign policy and national security priorities while 

maintaining editorial independence. All BBG entities are required to 

provide news and information that is consistently reliable, authoritative, 

accurate, objective, and comprehensive. VOA provides global, U.S., and 

local news, as well as information on U.S. policies, to people living in 

closed societies. OCB provides news and information to the people of 

Cuba. The role of the grantee broadcasters—MBN, RFA, and RFE/RL—is 

to operate as surrogates for the local media in countries where a free and 

open press does not exist.

• The International Broadcasting Act authorized RFA in 1994 to 

broadcast in seven Asian countries where VOA already broadcast.10

• In 2009, a House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations 

report and a Senate Committee on Appropriations report directed 

BBG to provide an increase in daily broadcast hours for VOA’s 

language service in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region (Deewa Radio) 

 

8

The Secretary of State serves as a member of the board and provides information and 

guidance on foreign policy issues to the board, as the Secretary deems appropriate (22 

U.S.C. § 6203(b); 22 U.S.C. § 6205(a)).The board is also required to consult with the 

Secretary of State in evaluating the addition or deletion of language services (22 U.S.C. 

§6204(a)(4)). The BBG board members also serve as members of the boards of MBN, 

RFA, and RFE/RL.

9

U.S. agencies involved in public diplomacy include the Department of State and the 

Department of Defense in addition to BBG. The Department of Defense communicates 

with foreign audiences as part of its communication activities. For more information about 

these activities, see GAO’s recent report: GAO, DOD Strategic Communication: 

Integrating Foreign Audience Perceptions into Policy Making, Plans, and Operations, 

GAO-12-612R (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2012). In addition, the U.S. Agency for 

International Development funds media development efforts to strengthen media sectors 

in a number of countries throughout the world. The activities of these agencies are outside 

the scope of this review.

10See U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994, Pub. L. No 103-236, Section 309, April 

30, 1994.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

while also calling for the establishment of an RFE/RL radio program 

(Radio Mashaal) in the region.11

Figure 1 shows the creation of BBG entities since 1942.

Figure 1: Timeline of the Creation of BBG Entities

Figure 2 describes each BBG entity’s mission and shows the amount of 

appropriated funds each entity received in fiscal year 2012.

 

11H.R. Rep. 111-105, at 46 (May 12, 2009), S. Rep 111-20, at 78 (May 14, 2009).
 

Page 6 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Figure 2: BBG Broadcast Entities’ Missions and Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriations

BBG annually conducts a language service review, as required by law, 

intended to help the agency make decisions regarding allocating 

resources to language services. In conducting the language service 

review, BBG considers foreign policy priorities, the domestic media 

environment in countries that receive BBG broadcasts, audience 

research, and the impact of BBG programming. BBG uses the review to 

determine which language services should be enhanced or added and 

which services to recommend for closure or reduced funding. From 2001 

through 2012, BBG eliminated 20 language services, including VOA’s 

Czech, Polish, and Slovak services and RFE/RL’s Czech and Slovak 

services. In its fiscal year 2009 through 2013 annual budget requests, 

BBG has proposed to eliminate additional language services, including 

two services that overlap with another service. In response to BBG’s 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

proposals, Congressional appropriations committees, which have 

jurisdiction over BBG funding, in some years have directed the 

continuation of the language services.

Nearly two-thirds of the BBG language services—that is, offices that 

produce content for particular languages and regions—overlap with 

another BBG service by providing programs to the same countries in the 

same languages. BBG’s 2012-2016 strategic plan identifies the need to 

reduce overlap among its language services. However, BBG’s annual 

language service reviews have not systematically considered the cost 

and impact of overlap.

We identified 23 instances of overlap, involving 43 of BBG’s 69 language 

services (62 percent), where two services provide programming to the 

same countries in the same languages. For example, in 8 instances 

involving 16 services, a VOA service and an RFA service overlapped. 

Figure 3 shows the extent of overlap among BBG language services as of 

June 2012. (See app. II for a detailed list of BBG language services.)

Many of BBG’s 

Language Services 

Overlap with Another 

BBG Service, but 

Annual Review Does 

Not Systematically 

Consider Overlap’s 

Cost or Impact

Nearly Two-Thirds of 

BBG’s Language Services 

Overlap with Another BBG 

Service
 

Page 8 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Figure 3: Overlap of BBG Entities’ Language Services as of June 2012

Of the 43 language services that overlap in terms of language and 

country, 91 percent (39 services) also overlap in terms of platform (i.e., 

radio or television).12

BBG officials noted some benefits of its overlapping language services, 

such as the availability of news from various sources in countries of 

strategic interest to the United States. In addition, BBG officials noted that 

in authorizing more than one entity to undertake international 

broadcasting, the statutory structure appears to envision that some 

overlap in activities may be necessary to achieve U.S. government 

objectives. However, these officials acknowledged that overlap among its 

language services reduces the funding available for other BBG 

broadcasts, including those that may have greater impact.

In almost all countries, the overlapping entities 

broadcast on the same platforms, while in others, such as Ukraine, 

RFE/RL broadcasts only by radio and VOA broadcasts only on television.

 

12Every BBG language service maintains a website.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

BBG officials emphasized that overlapping language services are 

sometimes distinguished by their broadcast hours or purpose and 

content.13

• Broadcast hours. BBG officials told us that overlapping language 

services generally coordinate with one another to broadcast at 

different hours of the day to ensure that audiences are able to access 

programs from both services. For example, VOA officials from the 

Farsi language service told us that VOA and RFE/RL collaborate to 

avoid overlap and do not broadcast on the radio simultaneously. BBG 

officials also said that overlapping services coordinate regarding their 

broadcast hours even if using different platforms.

• Purpose and content. BBG officials said that VOA and the grantee 

broadcasters have different purposes and that flexibility in their 

governing laws allows some overlapping content. The officials noted 

that according to those laws, VOA must represent the United States, 

presenting and explaining the country’s policies in addition to 

providing accurate news. In contrast, the grantee broadcasters, in 

their surrogate role, generally act as regional or local news providers, 

with less emphasis on international news and limited discussion of 

U.S. policies or interests. However, BBG officials noted that the 

entities’ mandates and missions allows for some flexibility related to 

programming content. For example, the International Broadcasting 

Act states that in order to be effective, VOA must win the attention 

and respect of listeners. According to BBG officials, to attract a larger 

audience and to provide fuller news coverage, some VOA language 

services produce not only news about the United States and the views 

of the U.S. government but also local news, which a BBG grantee 

might also broadcast in the same language and country.14

 

13We did not analyze broadcast hours or the content of BBG programs to quantify the 

extent of differentiation.

BBG 

officials stated that the roles of VOA and grantee broadcasters when 

both VOA and a grantee broadcast in a particular country and 

language are not clearly established. For example, it is not clear 

whether, in such cases, VOA should provide strictly U.S. and 

international news and the grantee should provide strictly local and 

14Where VOA is the only BBG entity broadcasting, including in Africa and Latin America, 

VOA serves as both the U.S. and surrogate broadcaster. In addition, grantee broadcasters 

sometimes assume the VOA role when VOA is not present in a country or language.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

regional news or whether the types of content they provide can, or 

should, overlap. BBG officials told us that this can lead to overlapping 

content. For example, officials from Deewa Radio (VOA) stated that 

they sometimes cover the same news stories, with similar content, as 

Radio Mashaal (RFE/RL) in the same region.

Although BBG has identified the need to reduce overlap among its 

broadcast entities’ language services, BBG has not systematically 

considered the cost or impact of such overlap as part of its annual 

language service review process. The International Broadcasting Act, as 

amended, directs BBG to consider issues related to overlap, such as 

duplication, among some language services.15 For example, the law 

requires that grant agreements to RFE/RL shall include a provision 

stating that duplication of language services and technical operations 

between RFE/RL and VOA should be reduced to the extent appropriate, 

as determined by BBG’s Board of Governors.16

In its strategic plan for 2012-2016, BBG addresses language service 

overlap and recognizes the need to streamline and improve coordination 

and efficiency. The plan states that BBG found that its language services 

overlapped significantly and that the agency could not easily manage its 

resources for highest impact and efficiency. In the plan, BBG states in 

general terms that it will end language services in countries that have 

more developed, independent media and that are no longer strategic 

priorities; however, the plan does not describe specific steps for achieving 

this goal. The plan also states that where there are two broadcast entities 

operating in a given country, they will cooperate—with shared bureaus, 

In addition, the law gives 

the board authority to identify areas in which broadcasting activities could 

be made more efficient and economical.

 

15BBG stated, in a legal memorandum provided to us, that the International Broadcasting 

Act contains mandates regarding duplication of certain specified activities, as well as 

authority to reduce overlapping programming and operations when appropriate. BBG 

officials said that in carrying out these overall requirements and authorities, they consider 

overlap and duplication more generally. However, BBG stated that the law does not 

require the agency to specifically eliminate all programming and operational overlap.

16The International Broadcasting Act, as amended, also required RFA to submit a onetime report to Congress on the extent to which similar broadcasting was being received by 

the target audience from other credible sources. The report, which was issued in 1999, 

discussed the differences in the purpose and content of RFA and VOA news broadcasts 

but did not assess the costs and impacts of overlap in language services. 

BBG Has Not 

Systematically Considered 

Overlap’s Cost or Impact
 

Page 11 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

freelance reporters, and distribution networks—and will provide 

complementary, not duplicative, content. According to BBG officials, 

some entities already cooperate with each other to share resources and 

maximize efficiency. For example, VOA and RFE/RL staff share office 

space in Afghanistan and collaborate on their Persian service to share 

news agendas and reduce duplication of effort.17

Although BBG’s strategic plan includes a general proposal to reduce 

language service overlap, BBG’s annual language service review—the 

agency’s primary method of prioritizing broadcast languages and planning 

resource allocations—does not systematically consider the cost and 

impact of language service overlap. BBG’s language service review is 

intended to help the agency make decisions regarding allocating 

resources to language services by considering factors such as foreign 

policy priorities and the domestic media environment in countries that 

receive BBG broadcasts. The resulting Annual Language Service Review 

Briefing Book provides detailed data for all language services, including 

information regarding the media and political environments in which the 

services operate.

BBG officials also said 

that the agency’s proposed management reforms included in the strategic 

plan may enhance their ability to increase coordination, reduce overlap, 

and create a more integrated and efficient organization.

18

Although BBG has not estimated potential savings and efficiencies from 

reducing unnecessary overlap, our analysis indicates that the total cost 

Although the briefing book shows overlap—for 

example, when more than one BBG entity broadcasts in a language—it 

does not discuss the cost or impact associated with this overlap. BBG 

officials stated that the methodology for the language service review does 

not include an assessment of the cost and impact of overlapping 

language services because officials are already well aware of overlap 

among their language services and because the law has not required 

BBG to include assessments of overlap as part of its annual language 

service review.

 

17In addition, RFE/RL officials demonstrated to us content-sharing software used by four 

of the five BBG entities to allow BBG entities to share web content, including text, 

photographs, and web video. 

18For example, BBG considers the Media Sustainability Index, which measures a number 

of contributing factors of a well-functioning media system and considers both traditional 

media types and new media platforms. Among its other measures, the index includes a 

measure of plurality of news sources.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

associated with maintaining the 43 overlapping language services is 

about $149 million, or nearly 20 percent of BBG’s total appropriations for 

fiscal year 2011. This amount represents the sum of the total cost for all 

overlapping language services, including employee salaries, benefits, and 

general operating expenses, as reported in BBG’s Annual Language 

Service Review Briefing Book from fiscal year 2011. This amount 

exceeds the potential savings from eliminating or reducing overlap.19 The 

amount of money that could be saved by reducing or eliminating 

overlapping language services would depend on a variety of factors, 

including which services were reduced or eliminated, which transmission 

assets or broadcast hours were reduced or transferred, and whether staff 

and other resources from an eliminated service were transferred to the 

remaining services.

More than half of BBG’s broadcast languages are used by other 

international broadcasters, although these broadcasters’ objectives differ 

from those of BBG. Specifically, we found that U.S. commercial 

broadcasters transmit in 7 of the 59 BBG languages and target different 

audiences, and other democratic nations’ government-supported 

broadcasters transmit in over half of BBG languages, but each represents 

the unique perspectives and interests of its respective country. BBG’s 

annual language service review has not systematically considered the 

activities of these broadcasters, and as a result BBG risks missing

opportunities to strengthen its allocation of resources.

 

19The total cost includes both overlapping services in each country and language, rather 

than solely the costs of services that may be eliminated or reduced. 

More Than Half of 

BBG Languages Are 

Used by Other 

International 

Broadcasters, but 

BBG Does Not 

Annually Review 

Other Broadcasters’ 

Efforts
 

Page 13 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

BBG and the other international broadcasters we reviewed broadcast in 

many of the same languages, although their objectives differ. The U.S. 

commercial international broadcasters that we identified, including CNN 

International and Fox News, broadcast in 7 of the 59 languages that BBG 

uses.20 Officials from both BBG and commercial broadcasters said that 

they target different audiences and consider their approaches to providing 

content to be distinct. Commercial broadcasters are often not present in 

smaller markets where vernacular languages are spoken, because these 

markets offer little potential for generating profit.21

Collectively, major government-supported international broadcasters from 

other democratic nations—Audiovisuel Extérieur de la France (AEF), the 

British Broadcasting Corporation World Service (BBC), Deutsche Welle 

(DW), and Radio Netherlands Worldwide (RNW)—transmit programs in 

35 of the 59 languages that BBG uses (see fig. 4). These broadcasters 

transmit programs in 10 languages that BBG does not use. (For the full 

list of languages used by the democratic nations’ broadcasters, see app. 

III.)

Commercial 

broadcasters may target audiences such as business people and other 

professionals. For example, officials from one network told us they target 

U.S. citizens outside the United States, including travelers and 

expatriates. In contrast, BBG targets foreign audiences. Moreover, 

commercial broadcasters generally provide broad international or regional 

programming as opposed to the more localized content that BBG entities 

often provide.

 

20For example, CNN International broadcasts in seven languages: Arabic, English, 

German, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, and Turkish. None of the commercial broadcasters 

that we reviewed transmit in Pashto, Dari, or Tajik, among many other BBG broadcast 

languages. 

21A vernacular is the native language or native dialect of a specific population, as opposed 

to a language of wider communication. 

More Than Half of BBG 

Languages Are Used by 

Other International 

Broadcasters, Although 

Their Objectives Differ
 

Page 14 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Figure 4: Broadcast Languages of BBG and Other Democratic Nations’ International Broadcasters as of 2012

a

For the purposes of this review, we have combined DW’s Portuguese services to Brazil and Africa.

b

As of 2013, RNW will reduce its number of broadcast languages from ten to five (Arabic, Chinese, 

English, French, and Spanish). 

Representatives of other democratic nations’ government-supported 

international broadcasters generally told us that they coordinate with each 

other and BBG on issues such as broadcast transmission and audience 

research. However, most of these broadcasters do not consider the 

presence of, or coordinate with, other international broadcasters when 

determining whether to transmit in a given language or country, because 

their objectives differ in several ways.

• Democratic nations’ international broadcasters focus on 

respective national interests. According to the broadcasters’ 

representatives, no nation’s international broadcaster can accurately 

represent the interests, perspectives, values, and culture of another 

nation. AEF, DW, BBC, and RNW’s missions are to represent, 

respectively, the French, German, British, and Dutch perspectives on 

international news and events in an independent and unbiased 

manner. Although democratic nations’ broadcasters represent many 

of the same perspectives on values such as democracy and freedom 

of speech, the representatives stated that their countries’ particular 

perspectives cannot be accurately represented by another country’s 

international broadcaster.
 

Page 15 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

• Democratic nations’ international broadcasters have different 

substantive and geographic targets. The focus and target 

audiences of democratic nations’ broadcasters’ programming differ 

significantly, according to the broadcasters’ representatives. For 

example, while DW aims to provide thorough information to opinion 

makers and to emphasize human rights issues, BBC aims to serve as 

the premiere independent and unbiased global news provider. RNW 

recently adopted a narrower focus, targeting individuals between the 

ages of 15 and 30 and focusing on free speech.

Representatives of democratic nations’ broadcasters also indicated that 

foreign policy priorities may weigh in favor of a broadcaster’s presence in 

a given language even when other broadcasters are present. For 

example, partly because of the current strategic importance of the Middle 

East, BBG, BBC, DW, AEF, and RNW all broadcast in Arabic. 

Additionally, broadcasters told us they believed that the presence of 

multiple democratic nations’ broadcasters in the same broadcast 

language can be positive and provide multiple perspectives in countries in 

which the press is not free.22

Representatives of these major democratic nations’ broadcasters further 

suggest that the surrogate role served by BBG grantees—MBN, RFA, 

and RFE/RL—is a distinct U.S. contribution to the context of governmentsupported international broadcasting. According to the representatives, 

other democratic nations’ broadcasters present their countries’ 

perspectives, but their primary functions generally do not include acting 

as indigenous media or providing local news and information in countries 

in which press freedom is limited or nonexistent.

Other democratic nations’ broadcasters have faced declining budgets in 

recent years and have consequently reduced their broadcasting and 

implemented other organizational changes.23

 

22We did not conduct or identify any analysis of the content of these broadcasters’ 

programming and have not identified the extent to which their content is similar or unique.

For example, RNW’s budget 

decreased by 70 percent from 2012 to 2013 (from approximately $60 

million to $18 million), and BBC World Service’s budget decreased by 11 

percent from 2009 to 2012 (from approximately $402 million to $356 

23In recent years, other major international broadcasters such as Russia and China have 

increased their international broadcasting efforts. See appendix III for a list of the 

languages in which Russia and China broadcast. 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

million). To cope with declining resources, broadcasters have taken steps 

such as restructuring their organizations and changing their program 

formats and distribution. For example, the broadcasters have significantly 

reduced their broadcasts in shortwave radio,24 which are more expensive 

to maintain than are other broadcast platforms. In addition, BBC 

eliminated five language services and moved other services from radio 

transmission to Internet only. In early 2013, RNW will reduce its number 

of broadcast languages from ten to five and will end direct distribution on 

platforms other than the Internet.25

The International Broadcasting Act contains 18 standards and principles 

for U.S. international broadcasting, including that U.S. international 

broadcasting shall not duplicate the activities of private U.S. broadcasters 

or of other democratic nations’ government-supported broadcasting 

entities. BBG officials stated that the agency is in compliance with this 

principle. The law does not specify, however, that BBG should assess 

duplication in its annual language service reviews. Moreover, BBG 

officials noted that the law provides BBG broad latitude on how to 

interpret duplication and that the term should be considered in the context 

of BBG’s overall authorities and responsibilities. BBG officials stated that 

to maximize the impact of its resources, BBG should be aware of, and 

complement, the efforts of commercial U.S. broadcasters and of other 

democratic nations’ broadcasters.

BBG’s annual language service review generally considers the broadcast 

alternatives available to targeted audiences by identifying the most 

significant broadcasters in each market BBG serves. The resulting 

briefing book lists the top 10 sources of news in each market. However, 

the language service review process does not systematically identify the 

languages used, and the countries served, by other major democratic 

nations’ international broadcasters and U.S. commercial broadcasters. 

Further, it does not assess the extent to which these broadcasters 

provide similar or complementary alternatives to BBG broadcasts. BBG 

officials noted that the law has not required that the annual language 

 

24Shortwave broadcasts from the Earth’s surface are reflected by the upper atmosphere 

and can travel great distances around the planet. 

25RNW’s distribution through its media partners, including through local radio and 

television stations, will continue.

BBG’s Annual Language 

Service Review Does Not 

Systematically Consider 

Activities of Other 

International Broadcasters
 

Page 17 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

service review consider other international broadcasters. BBG officials 

also stated that individual BBG entities are well informed about the 

broadcast activities of relevant commercial international broadcasters and 

other democratic nations’ broadcasters. However, without regularly 

reviewing and documenting the activities of other international 

broadcasters, BBG risks missing opportunities to better allocate its 

resources.

U.S. public diplomacy efforts rely on U.S. international broadcasting to 

communicate directly with audiences in countries with limited journalism 

alternatives. Over the past 70 years, Congress authorized five separate 

entities to broadcast news and information throughout the world to 

address new foreign policy priorities, and these entities overlap 

substantially with one another in the countries and languages they serve. 

BBG’s strategic plan for 2012-2016 broadly recognizes the need to 

reduce overlap and reallocate limited resources to broadcasts that will 

have the greatest impact. However, by not systematically considering the 

cost and impact of overlap in its annual language service reviews—BBG’s 

primary method of prioritizing broadcast languages and planning resource 

allocations—the agency risks missing opportunities to reduce overlap as 

appropriate, strengthen impact, and improve coordination among its 

entities. Further, without systematically considering the activities of other 

international broadcasters in its annual language service review, BBG 

also may be missing opportunities to better allocate its resources in order 

to maximize the impact of U.S. international broadcasting.

To strengthen BBG’s efforts to streamline and maximize the impact of 

U.S. international broadcasting, we recommend that BBG’s Board of 

Governors take the following two actions:

• Ensure that BBG’s annual language service review includes 

systematic consideration of the cost and impact of internal overlap 

among BBG entities’ language services.

• Ensure that BBG’s annual language service review includes 

systematic consideration of the activities of U.S. commercial 

broadcasters and other democratic nations’ broadcasters, such as the 

languages used and the countries served.

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 18 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

We sent a draft of this report to BBG, State, and USAID for comment. 

BBG provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV, as 

well as technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. State 

and USAID had no comments. We also sent excerpts of the draft to the 

U.S. commercial broadcasters and other major democratic nations’ 

government-supported international broadcasters that we reviewed, and 

we incorporated their comments as appropriate. 

In its written comments, BBG agreed with our recommendations and said 

that it had begun the planning necessary to include a more in-depth and 

systematic review of overlapping language services in its annual 

language service review and that it would assess the countries served 

and languages broadcast by other commercial and governmentsponsored broadcasters. BBG noted that it broadly agreed with our 

presentation of the challenges involved in addressing overlap and offered 

several comments on the issues we discussed in the draft report. First, 

BBG noted that its spending in fiscal year 2011 to maintain language 

services broadcasting in the same countries and languages—$149 

million—represented the baseline budget for the 43 overlapping language 

services we identified but not the amount that could be saved if 

overlapping services were eliminated. For example, BBG stated that 

some overlap may be necessary and beneficial, and that, in some cases, 

the overlap resulted from statutory mandates. In addition, BBG noted that 

its strategic plan for 2012-2016 recognized the existence of overlapping 

language services and that it had introduced proposals to reduce 

unnecessary overlap. BBG further noted that enhancing the programming 

and operations of two language services in distinct organizations is a 

complex and sensitive undertaking. In each case, and as BBG 

acknowledged, our draft report generally reflected this information. 

Including a more in-depth and systematic assessment of overlapping 

language services in its annual language service review will provide BBG 

with an opportunity to balance these considerations, improve its 

operational efficiency, and maximize the impact of U.S. international 

broadcasting.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and to BBG, State, and USAID. In addition, the report is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 19 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Should you or your staff have questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3665 or dinapolit@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. Other key contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix V. 

Timothy J. DiNapoli

Acting Director

International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 20 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

This report examines the extent to which (1) Broadcasting Board of 

Governors (BBG) language services overlap with one another, and (2) 

BBG broadcasts in the same languages as other international 

broadcasters.

To examine BBG language service overlap, we reviewed laws, reports, 

and other documents related to U.S. international broadcasting, including 

BBG’s strategic plan for 2012-2016 and its 2011 Annual Language 

Service Review Briefing Book. In particular, we reviewed the United 

States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended, and other 

laws relevant to the five BBG entities—federal entities the Voice of 

America (VOA) and Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), and nonprofit 

grantees Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. (MBN), Radio Free 

Asia (RFA), and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). We obtained 

and reviewed BBG’s interpretation of the International Broadcasting Act 

provisions related to overlap and duplication.

We also reviewed information from BBG on the broadcast coverage of 

each entity, by country, language, and platform. To assess language 

service overlap among BBG entities, we identified instances in which the 

language services of two BBG entities broadcast in the same language 

and country, and we calculated the percentage of language services that 

overlap with another BBG language service. In our calculations, each 

instance of overlap involved two overlapping services. Some language 

services produce content in multiple languages; for those, we considered 

the language service to overlap if any of its languages overlapped with 

other BBG services. In addition, we counted BBG’s services in English, 

English to Africa, and Special English/Learning English as one language 

service. To obtain views about the causes and impact of overlap, we 

interviewed officials from BBG, the Department of State, and the U.S. 

Agency for International Development, as well as experts from U.S. and 

international organizations. We visited and conducted interviews at the 

headquarters of VOA (Washington, D.C.), MBN (Springfield, Va.), RFA 

(Washington, D.C.), and RFE/RL (Prague, Czech Republic), and we 

interviewed OCB officials by telephone. We also reviewed BBG’s 

methodology for its annual language service review and described the 

extent to which it included consideration of the cost and impact of overlap. 

We did not analyze the content of broadcast programs, overlap in BBG 

administrative or technical operations, or management and administrative 

streamlining proposals.

To examine the extent to which BBG broadcasts in the same languages 

as other international broadcasters, we interviewed representatives of 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 21 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

U.S. commercial broadcasters and democratic nations’ governmentsupported international broadcasters. Through interviews with the 

National Association of Broadcasters, the Association for International 

Broadcasting, and other experts, we identified several U.S. commercial 

broadcasters that provide general news programming to audiences 

outside the United States. We conducted interviews with representatives 

of two of these broadcasters: Fox News and CNN International. We 

interviewed major democratic nations’ international broadcasters—

Audiovisuel Extérieur de la France (AEF), the British Broadcasting 

Corporation World Service (BBC), Deutsche Welle (DW), and Radio 

Netherlands Worldwide (RNW)1

We assessed BBG’s processes for compiling information on the 

broadcast languages used and countries served by BBG entities’ 

language services, and we determined that these data were adequate 

and sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review.

—as well as several other public 

international broadcasters, including Voice of Russia. We interviewed 

some international public broadcasters at a global media forum in Bonn, 

Germany, and others by telephone. For both U.S. commercial 

broadcasters and democratic nations’ international broadcasters, we 

reviewed information on their objectives and the languages in which they 

broadcast, and we compared these to BBG objectives and broadcast 

languages.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2012 to January 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

1

We determined that the government-supported international broadcasters for France, 

Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States, which are 

represented in an organization known as the Directors General Five (DG5), comprise the 

major government-supported broadcasters from democratic nations. Democratic 

broadcasters that are not members of the DG5 are not included in this review.
Appendix II: BBG Language Services

Page 22 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Voice of America (VOA)

Africa Division

Central Africa (Kinyarwanda, Kirundi)

French To Africa

Hausa

Horn Of Africa (Amharic, Tigrigna, Afaan Oromoo)

Portuguese

Somali

Swahili 

Zimbabwe/Shona/Ndebele/English 

East Asia & Pacific Division

Burmese* 

Cantonese*

Indonesian

Khmer* 

Korean*

Lao*

Mandarin*

Thai

Tibetan*

Vietnamese*

Eurasia Division

Albanian*

Bosnian*

Greek

Macedonian*

Russian*

Serbian*

Ukrainian*

Latin America Division

Creole

Spanish*

Near East & Central Asia Division

Armenian*

Azerbaijani*

Georgian*

Appendix II: BBG Language Services
Appendix II: BBG Language Services

Page 23 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Kurdish 

Turkish

Uzbek*

South Asia Division

Afghanistan (Dari, Pashto)*

VOA Radio Deewa (Pashto)*

Bangla

Urdu

Persian News Network

Persian* 

English Division

All English

English to Africa

Special English/Learning English

Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB)

Radio Marti, TV Marti (Spanish)*

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)

Armenian*

Azerbaijani*

Balkans (Bosnian, Macedonian, Serbian, Albanian, Montenegrin, Croatian)*

Belarusian

Georgian*

Kazakh

Kyrgyz

Radio Farda (Persian)*

Radio Free Afghanistan (Dari and Pashto)*

Radio Mashaal (Pashto)*

Radio Free Iraq (Arabic)*

Romanian to Moldova

Russian*

North Caucasus Unit (Avar, Chechen and Circassian)

Tajik

Tatar-Bashkir (Tatar, Crimean Tatar, Bashkir)

Turkmen

Ukrainian*

Uzbek*

Radio Free Asia (RFA)

Burmese* 
Appendix II: BBG Language Services

Page 24 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Cambodian (Khmer)*

Cantonese*

Korean*

Laotian*

Mandarin*

Tibetan*

Uyghur

Vietnamese*

Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)

Alhurra, Radio Sawa, Alhurra Iraq, Afia Darfur (Arabic)*

Source: GAO analysis of BBG information.

Notes: 

Asterisk (*) denotes overlapping language service.

We analyzed BBG’s information on the countries and languages of BBG entities’ broadcasts. Some 

language services produce content in multiple languages; for those, we considered the language 

service to overlap if any of its languages overlapped with other services. In addition, we counted 

BBG’s services in English, English to Africa, and Special English/Learning English as one language 

service.
Appendix III: Languages Used by BBG and 

Selected Other Government-Supported 

International Broadcasters as of 2012

Page 25 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Language BBG AEF BBC DW RNWa China Russia Language BBG AEF BBC DW RNWa China Russia

Afaan Oromoo X Kirundi b X X 

Albanian X X X X Korean X X X 

Amharic X X Kurdish X X 

Arabic X X X X X X X Kyrgyz X X X X 

Armenian X X Lao X X 

Avar X Lithuanian X 

Azerbaijani 

(Azeri)

X X Macedonian X X 

Bangla 

(Bengali) 

X X X X X Malay X 

Bashkir X Moldovan X 

Belarusian X Mongolian X X 

Bosnian X X Montenegrin X 

Bulgarian X X X Ndebele X 

Burmese X X X Nepali X X 

Chechen X Norwegian X X 

Chinese 

(Cantonese or 

Mandarin)

X X X X X X X Papiamentu X 

Circassian X Pashto X X X X X 

Creole X Persian X X X X X X 

Crimean 

Tartar

X Polish X X X 

Croatian X X Portuguese X X X X X X X 

Czech X X Romanian X X X X X 

Danish X Russian X X X X X X 

Dari X X X Sarnami X 

Dutch X X Serbian X X X X 

English X X X X X X X Shona X 

Esperanto X Sinhala X X 

Estonian X Slovak X 

Filipino X Somali X X 

Finnish X X Spanish X X X X X X X 

French X X X X X X X Swahili 

(Kiswahili)

X X X X X 

Georgian X Swedish X X 

German X X X Tajik X 

Appendix III: Languages Used by BBG and 

Selected Other Government-Supported 

International Broadcasters as of 2012
Appendix III: Languages Used by BBG and 

Selected Other Government-Supported 

International Broadcasters as of 2012

Page 26 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Language BBG AEF BBC DW RNWa China Russia Language BBG AEF BBC DW RNWa China Russia

Greek X X X Tamil X X 

Hausa X X X X X Tatar X 

Hindi X X X X Thai X X 

Hungarian X X Tibetan X X 

Icelandic X Tigrigna X 

Indonesian X X X X X Turkish X X X X X 

Italian X X Turkmen X 

Japanese X X Ukranian X X X X 

Kazakh X X Urdu X X X X X 

Khmer 

(Cambodian)

X X X Uyghur X X 

Kinyarwanda b X X Uzbek X X 

Vietnamese X X X X X 

Source: GAO analysis of broadcast language information from selected government-supported international broadcasters.

Note: Table includes broadcast language information for Audiovisuel Extérieur de la France (AEF); 

British Broadcasting Corporation World Service (BBC); Deutsche Welle (DW) (Germany); Radio 

Netherlands Worldwide (RNW); Russian broadcasters (includes broadcasting data for Voice of 

Russia and Russia Today); and Chinese broadcasters (includes China Radio International, China 

Central Television, and Xinhua News Agency).

a

In 2013, RNW will reduce its number of broadcast languages from 10 to 5 (Arabic, Chinese, English, 

French, and Spanish). 

b

Kinyarwanda and Kirundi are a single BBC language service.
Appendix IV: Comments from BBG

Page 27 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Appendix IV: Comments from BBG
Appendix IV: Comments from BBG

Page 28 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors
Appendix IV: Comments from BBG

Page 29 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 30 GAO-13-172 Broadcasting Board of Governors

Timothy J. DiNapoli, (202) 512-3665 or dinapolit@gao.gov

In addition to the contacts named above, Jason Bair (Assistant Director), 

Marissa Jones, Mary Moutsos, Ashley Alley, Qahira El’Amin, Julia Jebo 

Grant, and Reid Lowe made key contributions to this report. Additional 

assistance was provided by Mike Courts, Etana Finkler, Dave Hancock, 

Julia Ann Roberts, Mike Rohrback, Mike Silver, and Mike ten Kate.

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(320897)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.