U.S. International Broadcasting: Strategic Planning and Performance Management System Could Be Improved
Published: 2000-09-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined whether the Broadcasting Board of Governors: broadcasters (1) responded to the specific limitations and cost-cutting expectations regarding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's operations; (2) implemented an annual language service review process; and (3) instituted a strategic planning and performance management system.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO noted that: (1) the Board met its mandates under the 1994 U.S. International Broadcasting Act to reduce Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's annual budget by lowering its budget from $208 million in fiscal year (FY) 1994 to approximately $71 million in FY 1996; (2) it did this by taking several actions including relocating its operation from Munich, Germany, to Prague, Czech Republic and significantly reducing staff; (3) additional savings were made by: (a) eliminating several hundred hours of broadcast overlap; (b) eliminating and modifying a limited number of language services; (c) consolidating transmission operations under the International Broadcasting Bureau; and (d) deploying digital sound recording and editing technology, which has increased Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's staff efficiency and effectiveness; (4) the Board completed a comprehensive language service review in January 2000 that sought to systematically evaluate U.S. international broadcast priorities and program impact; (5) the Board intends to use this information to strategically reallocate approximately $4.5 million in language service funds from emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to several African countries and selected countries in other regions; (6) according to the Board, it intends to continue to use the annual language service review process to strategically analyze broadcast priorities, program funding, and resource allocations; (7) the Board has not yet established an effective strategic planning and performance management system that incorporates Government Performance and Results Act planning, the annual language service review process, and the program reviews of individual language services conducted by the International Broadcasting Bureau and the surrogate broadcasters; (8) the Board's FY 2001 performance plan is deficient because of missing or imprecise performance goals or indicators and a lack of key implementation strategies and related resource requirements that detail the key issues facing the Board; (9) the Board has not established a standard program review approach, which would help ensure that consistent and meaningful measures of program quality are developed across broadcast entities; and (10) it has also not incorporated specific audience size and composition targets into the program review process, which would help ensure that program reviews culminate in a written report that identifies the specific actions needed to achieve agreed-upon performance goals.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasters include the Voice of America,  Worldnet Television and Film Service, Radio/TV Marti, Radio Free  Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. These broadcast entities  support 84 discrete “language services” such as Radio Free Asia’s Mandarin  service to China and Radio/TV Marti’s Spanish language broadcasts to  Cuba. While each broadcast entity has a unique mission, a central theme in  all U.S. international broadcasting is to provide underserved populations  with balanced news coverage in areas where a free and open press does not  exist or has not been firmly established. The open exchange of information  and ideas, in turn, is designed to serve the interests of the United States by  promoting international peace and stability.
Congress passed the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994  (title III of P.L. 103-236) with the goal of reorganizing and consolidating U.S.  international broadcast efforts in light of the end of the Cold War and  administration efforts to meet deficit reduction targets. The act established  a bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors (the Board) to oversee and  coordinate the efforts of all nonmilitary international broadcasting. The  act also created an International Broadcasting Bureau to carry out all  nonmilitary broadcasting activity, with the exception of Radio Free  Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, both of which report directly to  the Board as federally funded grantees.
In addition to these changes, the act also contains specific funding  limitations and cost-cutting expectations, including the following:
The total amount of grants made by the Board for the operating costs of  Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was not to exceed $75 million for any  fiscal year after fiscal year 1995.
The Board was not to make any grant to Radio Free Europe/Radio  Liberty unless Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s headquarters are in a  location that ensures economy, operational effectiveness, and  accountability to the Board.
Duplication of language services and technical operations between  Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the International Broadcasting  Bureau (which includes the Voice of America) were to be reduced to a  level deemed appropriate by the Board.
The Board was to conduct an annual assessment of language services.
Under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277), the Board was removed from the U.S. Information Agency  and established as an independent federal entity on October 1, 1999. As an  independent entity, the Board now is fully responsible for developing a  strategic planning and performance management system that is responsive  to both the 1994 act and the Government Performance and Results Act of  1993 (P.L. 103-62).
As agreed with your office, this report examines whether the Board (1) responded to the specific funding limitations and cost-cutting  expectations regarding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s operations, (2) implemented an annual language service review process, and (3)  instituted a strategic planning and performance management system. As  requested, we also provide information on U.S. international broadcasting  and the British Broadcasting Corporation (see app. IV). Details about our  scope and methodology are presented in appendix V.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Board is responsible for overseeing a complex broadcast environment  which spans 5 broadcast entities with varying missions, 84 discrete  language services, changing consumer habits and preferences, and a  technology environment that presents constant new challenges and  opportunities. The Board currently oversees a staff of almost 3,200 and a  worldwide network of leased communication satellite services and 38  owned or leased transmission stations. The Board oversees the broadcast  of almost 2,000 hours of original (not rebroadcasts) broadcast material  each week. The Board estimates that the Voice of America’s broadcasts  alone reach a worldwide listening audience of 91 million people each week.  Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts reach an estimated 16 million  listeners each week. Radio Free Asia and Radio/TV Marti have difficulty  obtaining reliable audience estimates due to the closed nature of target  broadcast countries. These audiences are reached through a variety of  means, including direct radio and television broadcasts from U.S.-owned or  -leased transmitters, local rebroadcasters (known as affiliates) who carry  U.S. international broadcasting content on their stations, and the Internet.
The U.S. international broadcasting budget for fiscal year 2000 is about  $420 million. The Board, the Voice of America, Radio/TV Marti, and  Worldnet are federal entities and receive funding directly from Congress.  Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia operate as  independent, nonprofit corporations and are funded by grants from the  Board.
The Board’s current organizational structure is illustrated in figure 1. While  this figure shows a reporting relationship from the Voice of America,  Worldnet, and Radio/TV Marti to the Director of the International  Broadcasting Bureau, these broadcast entities have a direct reporting  relationship with the Board regarding all programming issues. The Acting  Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau told us that his  organization provides consolidated technical and support services to client  broadcasters; however, programming decisions are handled by the  respective broadcast entities and the Board.
As noted earlier, the central focus of U.S. international broadcasting is on  reaching audiences that are underserved by their local media. According to  Freedom House’s year 2000 survey of press freedom, most countries rated  as “not free” are located in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia (see app. I for a  reproduction of Freedom House’s current world map of press freedom).  While all five broadcast entities share the core mandate of reaching  underserved populations, a key distinction among the entities is that the  Voice of America and Worldnet broadcast to a global audience, while Radio  Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio/TV Marti serve as  “surrogate” broadcasters in their respective regions and substitute for local  media in countries where a free and open press is deemed not to exist or  has not been fully established.
In addition to adhering to a global mission for U.S. broadcasting, each  broadcast entity has its own broadcast mission. As described in public  documents and by Board officials, the Voice of America provides accurate  and credible international, regional, and country-specific news to a global  audience, with a particular emphasis on supplying information relating to  the United States. However, in Africa where the Voice of America serves a  surrogate role, greater emphasis is given to news of local interest. The  Voice of America meets its mandate to broadcast the U.S. position on  various foreign policy matters by including the views of U.S. officials in its  regular programs and through daily editorials that are identified as  representing the views of the U.S. government. It also broadcasts a number  of public affairs programs which focus on discussions of U.S. policy by  policymakers and experts. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty focuses on  providing regional and local news to emerging democracies in Central  Europe and the former Soviet Union, and to Iran and Iraq. Radio Free Asia  and Radio/TV Marti concentrate on providing news of local interest to  audiences in Asia and Cuba, respectively, who generally do not have access  to a free and open press. Figure 2 shows the regional coverage of the Voice  of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and  Radio/TV Marti.
Shortwave broadcasting has dominated the history of U.S. international  broadcasting for over 50 years. Over the past decade, however, the range of  media options available to many listeners around the world has expanded  to include local AM/FM programming, television, and the Internet. This  diversified media environment has greatly increased the complexity of the  strategic decisions the Board faces. These transmission modes and certain  issues surrounding their use are described in appendix II.
section_title: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Funding Cap and Cost-cutting Expectations Have Been Met
paragraphs: The Board responded to the $75-million funding cap placed on Radio Free  Europe/Radio Liberty and related cost-cutting expectations by relocating to  virtually rent-free quarters in Prague, Czech Republic; reducing staff; and  forming local broadcast partnerships in two cases. The Board achieved  further savings by consolidating Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and  Voice of America broadcast schedules, consolidating Radio Free  Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America transmission operations under  the International Broadcasting Bureau, and implementing digital sound  recording and editing technology in Prague.
One key cost-cutting action that has not been implemented was the original  expectation in the 1994 act that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty would  receive private rather than public funding after the end of calendar year  1999. Based on the results of analysis that the Board conducted, the Board  concluded that privatization was not a feasible option due to the lack of  tangible business assets (such as transmission facilities or broadcast  frequencies) of interest to commercial buyers. The Foreign Relations  Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (sec. 503 of App. G of P. L. 106-113) amended the original expectation regarding privatization to  require that broadcast operations to a given country should be phased out  when there is clear evidence that democratic rule has been established and  that balanced, accurate, and comprehensive news and information is  widely available.
In line with congressional expectations, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty  reduced its budget from $208 million in fiscal year 1994 to approximately  $71 million in fiscal year 1996 by taking the following actions.
In 1995, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty relocated its headquarters  from Munich, Germany, to quarters in Prague, Czech Republic, provided  by the Czech Republic as a public service.
In conjunction with the move to Prague, Radio Free Europe/Radio  Liberty reduced its total staffing by almost 1,200 individuals, or almost  75 percent of its workforce.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America officials  coordinated their respective broadcast schedules and eliminated over  300 weekly broadcast hours in overlapping and duplicative  programming.
The Polish and Czech language services were reconstituted as separate,  nonprofit corporations.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty transmission facilities were turned  over to the International Broadcasting Bureau in 1995 in connection  with the consolidation of engineering and technical operations under  the Bureau. Prior to this consolidation, Radio Free Europe/Radio  Liberty controlled a network of six transmission stations located in  Germany, Portugal, and Spain. The two stations in Portugal were closed  as a result of the consolidation. International Broadcasting Bureau  officials estimate that the consolidation of engineering and technical  operations initially resulted in more than $32 million in annual recurring  savings and that current annual savings have grown to more than $50  million.
A digital sound recording and editing platform was installed in  connection with the move to Prague. This technology, under appropriate  circumstances, allows one individual to produce a radio broadcast that  previously would have required the services of an announcer, a  producer, and a sound technician using the analog recording and editing  technology that had been used in Munich. One Radio Free Europe/Radio  Liberty official noted that approximately 75 percent of the station’s  output lent itself to the streamlined mode of production enabled by  digital technology.
section_title: First Language Service Review Used to Strategically Align Resources
paragraphs: The Board completed its first annual language service review in January  2000 and plans to use the results of this review to strategically reallocate  approximately $4.5 million in program funds across broadcast regions on  the basis of priority and impact ratings assigned to each language service.  The priority ratings reflected a number of factors, including the language  service’s contribution to furthering U.S. strategic interests, audience size,  and other variables. The language service’s impact was based on the mass  audience size and the number of “elite” (that is, government and other  influential decisionmakers) listeners reached. The Board plans to use next  year’s language service review to examine the issue of duplication in  program content among the Voice of America and surrogate language  services. We also found overlap in overseas news-gathering resources  among broadcast entities. This is a potentially important duplication issue  that the Board has not reviewed. We raised a similar issue in our 1996  report reviewing potential budget reduction options.
Board officials explained that a comprehensive language service review  was not completed until January 2000 because the Board lacked adequate  audience research on the number and type of listeners for such a review.  Starting in 1997, the Board increased the budget devoted to audience  research and in 1999 tasked the International Broadcasting Bureau’s Office  of Strategic Planning with developing a comprehensive set of program and  performance data to be used as the basis for the comprehensive review of  language services.
subsections: section_title: Evaluation Process Used to Make Resource Allocation Decisions
paragraphs: Board members assigned priority and impact (audience) ratings to each  language service as a basis for reallocating resources. The evaluation  criteria used for the priority ratings included potential audience size, U.S.  strategic interests, press freedom, economic freedom, and political  freedom. For example, a service’s contributions to furthering U.S. strategic  interests was scored on the basis of inputs received from a variety of  sources, including the White House, the National Security Council, the  State Department, and applicable congressional Committees. For the  impact ratings, the Board focused on audience size and composition as key  performance measures. The Board also evaluated other data, such as the  language service’s program quality, operating budget, broadcast hours,  signal strength, and affiliate stations, to identify approaches for increasing  listening rates in selected countries. Audience data were based on research  conducted by the International Broadcasting Bureau’s Office of Audience  Research and the InterMedia Survey Institute, which provided data on both  audience size and elite listening rates. Appendix III contains further details  on the criteria and related processes used to support the Board’s language  service review process.
The Board used the language service evaluation criteria to develop  priority/impact ratings for 69 of the Board’s 84 language services. As  shown in table 1, the Board used these ratings to develop a matrix that  identified higher priority/higher impact services, higher priority/lower  impact services, lower priority/higher impact services, and lower  priority/lower impact services. The Board intends to use this information to  strategically reallocate approximately $4.5 million in language service  funds from emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to several  African countries and selected countries in other regions. The review  resulted in 21 language service reduction recommendations, 15  recommended service enhancements, and a call for the further review of  seven low-performing and five duplicate language services.
Language services rated as higher priority were concentrated in countries  with a large potential listening audience; low press, political, and economic  freedom; and high strategic interest to the United States. Higher and lower  impact scores were determined on the basis of percentage weekly listening  rates for both mass and elite audiences. Services with listening rates below  5 percent for mass listeners and 15 percent for elite listeners were rated as  having lower impact. Services that ranked above this threshold were rated  as having higher impact.
section_title: Review of Program Content Duplication Planned for Next Year
paragraphs: According to the Board, next year’s language review will include an  assessment of overlapping language services among the five U.S. broadcast  entities. Board officials told us that the strategy of duplicating language  services has been designed to allow U.S. international broadcast entities to  achieve their respective missions by offering different program content in  the same language. Nonetheless, the Board said in a written evaluation of  this year’s language service review that it is essential that the Board revisit  the respective roles of the broadcasting services in light of evolving foreign  policy and geopolitical and budget realities in the new century. The Board  intends to use the language service review next year to look at program  duplication between the Voice of America and surrogate language services,  such as broadcasts to countries of the former Soviet Union, and to  determine whether this overlap effectively serves U.S. interests on a  country-by-country basis.
Figure 3 shows those languages where both the Voice of America and a  surrogate service broadcast in the same language.
section_title: Review of Duplicate Overseas News Gathering Operations not Planned
paragraphs: While the Board intends to review the issue of program content duplication  next year, it does not expect to explicitly review the duplicate news  resources maintained by broadcast entities overseas. The Voice of America,  Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia each maintain field  offices and freelance journalists in their respective regions. Voice of  America resources overlap with those deployed by Radio Free  Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia in their respective regions. For  example, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has a combined total of about  700 bureau staff and freelance journalists covering its broadcast area. The  Voice of America has a combined staff of about 150 in the same region. In  addition to the issue of overlap, broadcasting officials noted that  news-gathering resources are not shared across broadcast entities. For  example, one Voice of America language Division Director noted that news  feeds from Voice of America overseas bureaus are not shared with Radio  Free Asia and that Radio Free Asia news feeds are not shared with the  Voice of America. The Division Director said “They do their work, and we  do ours.” A Radio/TV Marti employee noted that neither the Voice of  America nor Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty share relevant news items of  interest to Radio/TV Marti listeners. As an example, news from Russia is  not directly available to the station, because Radio/TV Marti does not have  overseas bureaus or freelance journalists.
We reported on a similar issue in our 1996 report on budget reduction  options for the U.S. Information Agency. In our report, we noted areas  where elimination of existing overlap could yield management  improvements and cost reductions. One area we highlighted was the  potential for further consolidation of overseas news bureaus and other  broadcasting assets. Our report cited the overlap in news-gathering  resources deployed by the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio  Liberty in Moscow as an example of a potential area for consolidation.
Table 2 provides details on the number of bureaus, bureau staff, and  freelance journalists deployed by each broadcast entity along with related  fiscal year 2000 funding data.
The need to manage overseas resources effectively is heightened by the  fact that several broadcasting officials commented they do not have  adequate news-gathering resources and that product quality has suffered as  a result. For example, a Radio/TV Marti official told us that a lack of  resources has prevented the station from sending journalists to domestic  locations outside of the Miami area and overseas to report on news stories  of interest to the Cuban people. A Radio Free Asia language Director noted  that her service has only $500 a month to pay for reports from freelance  journalists that cost $50 to $100 per report. She noted that this level of  funding is not sufficient to produce original and up-to-date programming.  Radio Free Asia officials have since told us that freelance budgets have  been adjusted to fully fund all language services’ projected requirements  for the remainder of fiscal year 2000.
section_title: Strategic Planning and Performance Management Process Still Under Development
paragraphs: The Board has not yet developed a strategic planning and performance  management system that provides a high level of assurance that resources  are being used in the most effective manner possible. The key components  of this system are Results Act planning, the annual language service review,  and the program reviews of individual language services. The Board’s fiscal  year 2001 Results Act performance plan is deficient because of missing or  imprecise performance goals and indicators and a lack of key  implementation strategies and related resource requirements. In addition,  the lack of a standard program review approach and audience goals for  individual language services limits the usefulness of the program reviews  that the broadcast entities conduct to assess the content and presentation  of their individual language service programs.
As a newly independent federal entity, the Board has full responsibility for  implementing its strategic planning and performance management system.  A key component of such a system is Results Act planning. Under the  Results Act, executive agencies are required to prepare 5-year strategic  plans that set the general direction for their efforts. Agencies then develop  annual performance plans that establish the connections between long-term strategic goals outlined in the strategic plan and the day-to-day  activities of program managers and staff. Finally, the act requires that each  agency produce an annual performance report on the extent to which it is  meeting its annual performance goals and the actions needed to achieve or  modify those goals that have not been met. Board officials pointed out  that they have made considerable progress in implementing a strategic  planning and performance management system and that they submitted a  performance report in March 2000 as required.
subsections: section_title: Missing Performance Elements and Imprecise Measures of Audience Size and Composition Weaken the Board’s Performance Plan
paragraphs: The Board’s fiscal year 2001 performance plan includes two strategic  objectives that are not supported by accompanying performance goals and  indicators. First, the performance plan lists encouraging the development  of a free and independent media as a strategic objective. This reflects one  of the objectives embodied in the 1994 Broadcasting Act that calls for the  training and technical support for independent indigenous media through  government agencies or private U.S. entities. The second strategic  objective lacking supporting performance goals and indicators relates to  the Board’s need for comprehensive and up-to-date audience research data.  Again, the 1994 Broadcasting Act stipulates that U.S. international  broadcasting efforts should be based on reliable audience research data.  The Board recognizes that its performance plan has some limitations and  has formed a Results Act indicators review team to address them.
Table 3 provides an overview of the Board’s fiscal year 2001 performance  plan that was included with the agency’s fiscal year 2001 budget submission  to Congress. This performance plan supports the Board’s stated mission of  using U.S. international broadcasting to encourage the development and  growth of democratic values in support of the diplomatic, humanitarian,  and economic goals of the United States. The array of programs and  accurate information that U.S. international broadcasting strives to provide  foreign audiences worldwide are intended to help people understand  democratic ideals, civil governance, free market economics and trade, and  respect for the rule of law. Within this context, while a number of  performance goals and indicators are used to assess the extent to which  U.S. international broadcasting is achieving its mission, Board officials told  us that audience size is the most important performance goal and  indicator. Table 3 shows the strategic objectives and the performance  goals and indicators contained in the Board’s fiscal year 2001 performance  plan.
Of the performance goals and indicators shown in table 3, Board officials  have identified audience size as the most important performance goal and  indicator for assessing to what extent U.S. international broadcasting is  achieving its mission. Audience size provides an indicator of how many  people around the world are tuning in to information intended to help them  understand democratic ideals, civil governance, and the rule of law.  However, the Board uses only global audience size estimates by broadcast  entity to set performance goals and track performance. For example, the  fiscal year 2001 performance plan lists the Voice of America’s current  listening audience at 91 million and sets a performance target of 92 million  for fiscal year 2001. A January 1999 memo provided instructions on  preparing submissions to the fiscal year 2001 performance plan; it invited  units to suggest potential program enhancements and provide a memo  describing the impact these enhancements would have on such  performance measures as audience size. The instructions also called for a  description of how the actual impact of such program enhancements would  be measured. However, this guidance did not discuss the systematic  establishment of specific audience targets by language service or the  method for monitoring such targets to provide meaningful performance  data (such as the number of language services achieving target  performance levels each year) for inclusion in the Board’s annual  performance plan.
The Board acknowledges in its performance plan that changes in estimated  global listening audiences from year to year do not necessarily indicate a  “genuine” increase in listeners because better survey techniques may  simply have identified additional listeners not included in earlier estimates.  In addition, the International Broadcasting Bureau’s Office of Research  reported that the Voice of America’s global estimate should be taken only  as a rough indication of the number of listeners, with a potentially wide  margin of error. The report further noted that “most of Voice of America’s  audience is heavily concentrated in a small number of countries; as a result,  exclusive reliance on the global estimate as a measure of effectiveness may  obscure important changes that occur from year to year at the regional or  country level.” Radio Free Asia officials have pointed out that Radio Free  Asia is relatively new and has no effective means to advertise its services in  the closed target countries. Further, these officials said that it is very  difficult to obtain reliable audience size estimates. Thus, the officials  believed that audience size would not be an adequate measure of Radio  Free Asia’s performance at this time.
A second problem with this key performance indicator is that the  performance plan makes no distinction between mass versus elite (that is,  government and other influential decisionmakers) audiences and only  references mass listening audiences in its strategic objectives and  performance goals. The distinction between these two basic audiences has  major implications for the Board with regard to setting strategic objectives  and performance goals, establishing and refining broadcast strategies, and  allocating resources in the most effective manner possible. A senior Voice  of America official told us that the agency’s biggest challenge is analyzing  its programming language by language and determining what matches the  needs of the various audiences the Voice of America is trying to reach. The  target audience can also change over time. For example, the Voice of  America’s audience in Africa has typically been made up of an elite group of  40- to 50-year-old males in political or civil service leadership positions.
Now, one official told us, the African language services need to attract  more of a mass audience in order to reach future leaders.
section_title: Lack of Implementation Strategies and Resource Requirements Obscure the Board’s Planned Actions
paragraphs: According to the Results Act, agency performance plans should describe  the operational processes, skills, technology, and other resources an  agency will need to achieve its performance goals. The plans should  describe both the agency’s existing strategies and resources and any  significant changes to them. We found that the Board’s fiscal year 2001 plan  does not discuss such strategies or resource requirements for its ongoing  initiatives. For example, the plan does not include a discussion of the  Board’s Internet deployment plan. This is a concern, given the complex  issues the Board faces as it attempts to integrate the Internet with the more  traditional radio and television distribution efforts of five discrete  broadcast entities in an era of rapid political and technological changes and  shifting consumer demands and preferences.
The lack of a discussion of the role and significance of the International  Broadcasting Bureau’s deployment of digital production technology for the  Voice of America is another concern. Under the title of the “Digital  Broadcasting Program,” the digital production technology effort is being  overseen by the Board. This $57-million effort to upgrade the Voice of  America’s operations from an analog mode to a digital one will allow, in  certain cases, a single staff member to perform the work previously  assigned to an announcer, a producer, and a sound technician. Radio Free  Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia have already implemented  digital production systems, and Radio/TV Marti expects to have its digital  project completed by December 2001. However, according to a senior  International Broadcasting Bureau official, the Digital Broadcasting  Program, which was initiated in 1995, was supposed to be finished within a  3- to 4-year time period predicated on the project’s receiving funding at the  planned levels. Actual funding has been extended over a longer period of  time, and a definitive end-point for the project remains to be established.  The Board’s performance plan does not highlight the importance of this  project to the Voice of America’s effectiveness, the specific strategies being  followed to ensure successful implementation, the impact budget shortfalls  will have on its completion, and the projected cost savings (in terms of  long-term staffing needs, for example) to be derived from full  implementation of the project.
section_title: Program Reviews not Standard Across Broadcast Entities
paragraphs: The usefulness of annual program reviews of individual language services  is hampered by (1) a lack of consistency in how program quality scores—a  key component of the program review process—are developed across  broadcast entities and (2) the lack of audience size and composition  targets, which would help focus language service planning efforts. The  International Broadcasting Bureau conducts program reviews for the Voice  of America and Radio/TV Marti, while Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty  and Radio Free Asia conduct their own reviews. Program reviews evaluate  a number of factors, including audience size, signal strength, affiliates  management, and program content and presentation. The latter factor is  referred to as “program quality.” Program reviews culminate with a written  report with recommendations for improving operations in one or more of  the previously listed areas.
Board officials acknowledge that there is variability in how program  reviews are conducted across broadcast entities. Specifically, they noted  that a consistent approach to evaluating program quality remains to be  established. Program quality refers to content and presentation issues such  as program balance and objectivity, program pacing, use of musical bridges  between program segments, and the quality of the announcer’s voice. One  key methodological difference that exists today is that some broadcast  entities use external experts and in-country listening panels in assessing  program quality, and others do not. For example, the International  Broadcasting Bureau relies on internal personnel to develop program  quality assessments. Voice of America language program directors  generally noted that these assessments were not that rigorous and would  benefit from input from outside experts, such as journalists and academic  specialists. In contrast, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty does utilize  external experts and in-country listening panels in its program quality  review process. Funding permitting, Board officials noted that they  eventually intend to move all program reviews toward a uniform process  and methodology that incorporates the views of external experts and in-country listening panels in assessing program quality.
Finally, we noted that program reviews center on discussions of program  operations and a general desire to improve language service performance  without the benefit of focussing on specific performance targets such as  audience size and composition. Board officials noted that performance  targets for individual language services could be established at the Results  Act and annual language service review levels and these targets could form  the focal point for program reviews. Focused program reviews could, in  turn, influence and modify the next iteration of performance targets  established at the Results Act and annual language service review levels.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Board has taken actions to fulfill the mandates and expectations  contained in the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994. It has  implemented the steps necessary to reduce Radio Free Europe/Radio  Liberty’s budget to below the $75 million ceiling established by Congress.  The Board established a language service review process that is designed  to realign budget resources strategically on an annual basis. Finally, the  Board has developed a strategic planning and performance management  system that consists of Results Act planning, the annual language service  review, and the program reviews of individual language services. This  system is intended to help ensure that U.S. international broadcasting  resources are used in the most effective manner possible.
Despite the Board’s overall progress and its continuing efforts to further  refine its strategic planning and performance management system, the  broadcast entities could benefit from the closer integration of international  broadcast missions and strategic objectives and more clearly defined  performance goals and indicators as called for by the Results Act. For  example, the Board’s global audience goal, in particular, is less useful as a  key indicator of broadcast effectiveness than summary data on the success  of language services in achieving individual audience size and composition  targets. Further, the performance plan lacks an implementation strategy  and related resource requirements for the Board’s key initiatives.
Addressing these strategic planning issues could help ensure that resources  are managed more effectively with more clearly defined results.
The Board’s current plans for its next language services review do not  include a plan to analyze the deployment of field news-gathering resources  among the broadcast entities. Such an analysis could potentially identify  areas of unnecessary overlap, which would allow them to redirect  resources to areas needing more news coverage. A lack of adequate news  coverage ultimately diminishes the quality of U.S. broadcast efforts and  potentially affects the size and nature of the listening audience, a key  performance indicator.
Finally, annual program reviews conducted for individual language services  do not employ a consistent approach to assessing program quality and do  not focus on specific audience size and composition targets. A standard  review approach, which incorporates both outside experts and in-country  listening panels, would increase the overall value of program quality  assessments and allow meaningful comparisons among individual language  services and among broadcast entities. Improved program quality  measures would also benefit the annual language service review process  and the Board’s Results Act planning, each of which incorporate program  quality as a performance measure. Establishing specific audience targets  for each language service would enable program review teams to develop  action plans listing the specific steps and resources needed to achieve any  audience share and composition goals established at the Results Act level.  These action plans and related resource discussions could be incorporated  in both Results Act planning and the annual language service review  process which is the Board’s primary vehicle for assessing the distribution  of broadcasting resources.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: To strengthen the Board’s management oversight and provide greater  assurance that international broadcasting funds are being effectively  expended, we recommend that the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of  Governors include in the Board’s performance plan a clearer indication of how its  broadcast missions, strategic objectives, performance goals, and  performance indicators relate to each other; and establish audience and  other goals, as appropriate, at the individual language service level; include implementation strategies and related resource requirements in  its performance plan; analyze overseas news-gathering networks across its broadcast entities  to determine if resources could be more effectively deployed; and institute a standardized approach to conducting program quality  assessments and require that program reviews produce a detailed action  plan that responds to specific audience size and composition targets  established at the Results Act and annual language service review level.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The Broadcasting Board of Governors provided written comments on a  draft of this report. The Board stated that the report is fair and accurate,  and the Board concurred with our recommendations. The Board said that  some actions currently underway will serve to partially implement the  recommendations and that it will implement additional actions in the  future. For example, the Board has launched a review of its existing  performance plan that will include drawing clearer linkages between  broadcast missions, strategic objectives, and performance goals. The  Board also intends to establish audience and other goals, as appropriate, at  the individual language service level. The Board agreed with our  recommendation that it analyze its overseas news-gathering network next  year. However, the Board said that an analysis of its overseas news-gathering resources would be more useful as a stand-alone analysis  rather than as part of the annual language service review as we  recommended. We recognize the need for such flexibility and modified our  recommendation accordingly.
The Board expressed concern that the information we provided on U.S.  international broadcasting and the British Broadcasting Corporation was  unfair and presented a misleading picture of two very different  organizations (see app. IV). The Board noted that U.S. international  broadcasting has been charged with a far more complex mission, which  includes conveying the views of the U.S. government and functioning as a  surrogate broadcaster in areas where gaining access to target audiences is  difficult. The Board added that caution was needed when comparing total  operating costs, listening audience size, the number of language services,  and the implied cost per listener, due to the significant differences between  the two organizations. To address the Board’s concerns, we modified the  introduction to appendix IV. We also adjusted U.S. budget data to remove  television production and transmission costs which are not included in the  British Broadcasting Corporation budget figure. However, we believe that  providing information on the world’s top two international broadcasters is  useful and serves to illustrate both the similarities and differences in how  these two organizations conduct their business. Further, discussions with  U.S. broadcast staff and our review of internal documents indicate that the  Board considers the British Broadcasting Corporation to be a key  competitor and closely tracks its activities in selected broadcast markets  around the world.
The comments provided by the Board are reprinted in appendix VI. The  Board also provided technical comments in attachment B, which we have  incorporated in the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Marc B. Nathanson,  Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors; and to interested  congressional committees. Copies will also be made available to others  upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call  me at (202) 512-4268. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are  listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Map of Press Freedom
paragraphs: The core mandate of U.S. international broadcasting is to reach audiences  in countries where a fair and open press does not exist or has not been fully  established. The Board’s primary basis for assessing the status of press  freedom around the world is the annual survey of press freedom conducted  by an organization called Freedom House, which is partly supported by  U.S. grant funds. As shown in figure 4, Freedom House’s most recent survey  shows that the most severely underserved audiences are concentrated in  Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
section_title: U.S. International Broadcasting Transmission Modes and Operations
paragraphs: U.S. international broadcasting operates within the context of a complex  and evolving transmission environment. Each of the key broadcast  methods the United States uses is described in the following section and in  more detail in an August 1999 International Broadcasting Bureau study.
This transmission mode utilizes the reflective properties of  the ionosphere to carry an analog radio signal to listeners typically up to  4,200 miles away or even farther under some circumstances. In many  situations the quality of shortwave transmissions can be comparable to that  of AM/FM broadcasts. However, over long distances, where shortwave is so  valuable, transmission quality can vary considerably. Despite its  drawbacks, shortwave remains the primary transmission medium (and  sometimes the only option) for international broadcasters seeking to reach  target populations where press freedom is completely or largely restricted.  One problem with shortwave broadcasts is that countries, such as China,  Vietnam, and Cuba, attempt to block U.S. broadcast signals. To counteract  these jamming activities, international broadcasters use very powerful  transmitters, operating from multiple locations, on multiple frequencies.  This increases the costs of shortwave broadcasting relative to most other  transmission mediums but it still remains an economical medium for  reaching large areas. Shortwave broadcasting is currently carried on a  network of 22 U.S.-owned and 16 leased transmission facilities. However,  U.S.-owned transmitters in the Philippines and Thailand currently cannot  be used for Radio Free Asia broadcasts because of host government  prohibitions.
The future of shortwave radio could be significantly affected by the  development of digital shortwave, which offers several advantages over the  current analog form of shortwave transmission. Digital shortwave is  capable of producing AM quality audio, which does not degrade over long  distances. Digital shortwave receivers (which are not yet commercially  available) can be programmed to lock on to a station name as opposed to a  specific broadcasting frequency. This development could have major  implications for countries such as China and Cuba, which actively jam  current shortwave transmissions. Under a digital system, it may be possible  to scramble frequencies to frustrate jammers while not affecting listeners,  whose preset stations would be available at a touch of a button. However,  the International Broadcasting Bureau noted that it is unclear whether  these potential anti-jamming features will be available in mass-market  products.
Transnational AM (medium-wave) broadcasts - U.S.-owned or -leased transmission facilities, AM broadcasts can reach  target audiences up to 900 miles away or even farther under some  circumstances. One advantage of AM broadcasting is the enormous  number of listeners with AM/FM receivers. As is the case with shortwave  transmissions, one drawback of medium-wave transmissions is that they  can be jammed by hostile governments.
AM/FM Radio Affiliates -- Radio affiliates are local AM/FM or television  stations that rebroadcast U.S.-produced program content. Some affiliates  are paid to carry this content, and others are not. FM signals provide the  highest sound quality, but they are limited to a line-of-sight broadcast range  typically of about 25 to 75 miles depending on the height of the transmitting  antenna and other local conditions. The Board currently has more than  1,300 radio affiliates, with the largest concentration of affiliates in Central  Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Latin America. For example, the  Board has 516 radio affiliates in Latin America. In contrast, it has only 54  radio affiliates in Africa.
Paid leases and licenses are another form of  local rebroadcasting. A lease is an agreement with a local station or  network for a specific allocation of airtime for a specific cost. The Board  currently has 24 AM/FM leases worldwide. Licenses are granted by a  national authority to broadcasters for the use of a dedicated AM or FM  frequency to broadcast locally using their own equipment. However, in  most cases, national regulations require that the license be issued in the  name of a local entity. According to a 1999 International Broadcasting  Bureau document on transmission strategies, the Voice of America has  traditionally placed its emphasis on building its network of AM/FM  affiliates, while other international broadcasters, such as Radio Free  Europe/Radio Liberty, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and Radio  France International, have invested substantially in local leases and  licenses.
Television via Local Affiliates - is broadcast through local cable and land-based broadcast affiliates.  According to Board officials, television has become the predominant media  choice for viewers in several key areas, including Russia and China. The  Board reports that it has almost 500 television cable/terrestrial affiliates  concentrated in the former Soviet Union and Latin America.
Television content for U.S. international broadcasting has traditionally  been provided by the Worldnet Television and Film Service, which is the  official television broadcast arm of the U.S. government. According to the  Board, it has transferred the public diplomacy portion of Worldnet to the  State Department under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act  of 1998. (P.L. 105-277). The Board has submitted a reprogramming request  to Congress to transfer Worldnet’s remaining resources (totaling  $20.5 million in fiscal year 2000 funding) to Voice of America TV.
Satellite Radio and Television -  This medium relies on direct satellite  transmission to relatively expensive analog or digital receivers or private  satellite dishes. While not appropriate for reaching mass audiences, this  option does offer the opportunity to reach “elite” listeners who are the key  decisionmakers U.S. international broadcasters would like to reach in  target countries.
Internet Webcasting and E-mail Delivery – The Internet offers the first  truly interactive medium for delivering text, audio, and video streams to  users’ personal computers. The use of e-mail also provides broadcasters  with the ability to send text messages to subscriber lists with the contents  of U.S. audio broadcasts. U.S. broadcast entities have also established a  presence on the Internet, and the Voice of America, Radio Free  Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia have initiated e-mail subscriber  programs. Again, the Internet is currently not poised to deliver information  to mass audiences around the globe; however, it represents another key  delivery option for reaching elite listeners. While Internet webcasting is not  susceptible to jamming, it is susceptible to blocking at entry portals by  hostile governments.
section_title: Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Board’s Language Service Review Process
paragraphs: Table 4 provides a brief overview of the criteria and related processes used  to support the Board’s language service review process. Audience listening  rate is the key variable used to assess the impact a language service is  having. However, the Board used additional impact criteria, such as  program quality and transmission effectiveness, to help identify potential  solutions to low audience listening rates.
section_title: Information on Board and British Broadcasting Corporation Operations
paragraphs: The British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) World Service has adopted a  model for international broadcasting that differs in several key respects  from the approach U.S. broadcasters use. Three of the most significant  differences between the Board and the BBC are mission, organizational  structure, and future operations.
The central mission of U.S. international broadcasting is geared toward  reaching audiences that are underserved by available media voices. As a  result, the United States does not broadcast to fully democratic nations  such as Canada, the United Kingdom, or Germany. In contrast, the BBC’s  mission is much broader and includes reaching listeners in markets  around the world, including media-rich countries such as the United  States.
The organization of U.S. international broadcasting has evolved along  the lines of “official” and “surrogate” broadcast entities. This division  has led to the creation of five separate broadcast entities with varying  missions, budget resources, and operating styles. The BBC has only one  World Service, which, according to BBC officials, varies broadcast  content on a country-by-country basis in response to market research  and audience demands.
Finally, U.S. international broadcasting and certain component  operations are either subject to sunset provisions or are required to  phase out over a period of time. In contrast, the World Service is not  subject to sunset. In the case of U.S. international broadcasting, an  original sunset provision in the 1994 International Broadcasting Act  generally required the Board to cease funding Radio Free Asia after  September 30, 1998. The act was amended in 1999 to provide for explicit  sunset of funding for Radio Free Asia after September 30, 2009.  Congress has also specified conditions under which Radio Free  Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasting should be phased out in a particular  country. Radio TV/Marti is required to be terminated upon transmittal by  the President to appropriate congressional Committees of a  determination that a democratically elected government is in power in  Cuba. Even the Voice of America’s goal to serve audiences deprived of  full access to an open and free press suggests a diminishing role over  time as the long-sought goal of global press freedom is eventually  achieved.
Information on U.S. international broadcasting and BBC World Service  operations is provided in table 5. The table is designed to provide summary  data on U.S. and BBC broadcast operations and the table notes should be  read carefully to understand the data on total budget costs, listening  audience, and number of language services. This numerical data is not  sufficient to draw conclusions about the relative efficiency and  effectiveness of the two organizations. Additional factors such as the  relative costs of reaching different target audiences, the different mixes of  broadcast technology, and the nature of operating overheads would need to  considered to arrive at valid conclusions.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget requested that we  examine whether the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors (1) responded  to the specific mandates regarding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s  operations, (2) implemented an annual language service review process,  and (3) instituted a strategic planning and performance management  system. He also asked us to provide information on U.S. international  Broadcasting and British Broadcasting Corporation operations.
To assess whether the Board has responded to the specific cost-cutting  mandates and expectations established in the 1994 International  Broadcasting Act, we examined the Board’s transmission consolidation  efforts, the history of consolidation activities in connection with Radio  Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s move from Munich to Prague, the Board’s  efforts to privatize Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s operations by fiscal  year 1999, and the Board’s efforts to adopt digital production technology  for each broadcast entity. We met with Board, International Broadcasting  Bureau, Voice of America, Worldnet Television and Film Service, Radio  Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia senior officials in  Washington, D.C., to discuss these issues and review applicable  documentation. This documentation included the Board’s report on  Congress’s earlier mandate to privatize Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s  operations and additional documentation on the Board’s transmission  consolidation efforts, the relocation from Munich to Prague, and the Digital  Broadcasting Program being implemented by the International  Broadcasting Bureau on behalf of the Voice of America. We also met with  Radio/TV Marti officials in Miami, Florida, and Radio Free Europe/Radio  Liberty officials in Prague to review their respective streamlining and cost- cutting activities.
To assess whether the Board implemented a language service review  process, we met with International Broadcasting Bureau planning staff in  Washington, D.C., to determine the process, evaluation criteria, and  outcome of this year’s language service review. We reviewed the Board’s  February 2000 reports on this process and the linkage between these  documents and the Board’s reallocation decisions.
To assess whether the Board has instituted a strategic planning and  performance management system, we obtained and reviewed copies of all  relevant Results Act planning documents, including the Board’s 5-year  strategic plan dated December 1997; annual performance plans for fiscal  years 1999, 2000, and 2001; and the Board’s March 2000 annual  performance report. We compared the Board’s fiscal year 2001  performance plan against GAO’s guide for evaluating agency annual  performance plans. We also met with Board staff to discuss the Board’s  latest efforts to update its Results Act planning documents.
In order to prepare a comparison of Board and BBC World Service  operations, we interviewed BBC officials in London and collected and  analyzed relevant documents including World Service strategic plans,  marketing and audience research information, and data relating to the  BBC’s performance management system.
We conducted our review from December 1999 to August 2000 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Comments From the Broadcasting Board of Governors
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Broadcasting Board of  Governors’ letter dated September 13, 2000.
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Comments
paragraphs: 1. We agree that U.S. international broadcasters and the BBC World  Service have different roles. However, the fact that U.S. international  broadcasters have multiple and more complex missions does not  obviate the value of examining the BBC’s operations relative to U.S.  international broadcasting. The Board acknowledges the value of  tracking and evaluating the activities of competitors by maintaining an  on-line database to capture this information. The database includes  country-by-country audience data that shows how U.S. international  broadcasters are doing relative to other major international  broadcasters, with a particular focus on the BBC. The Board’s database  also summarizes this information into seven regional groups to help  identify broader performance trends. For example, with regard to the  35 countries in Africa targeted by the Voice of America and the BBC,  the Board’s database shows that the BBC has a higher audience share  than the Voice of America in 25 countries, the Voice of America has a  higher audience share in 8 countries, and the two organizations are tied  for listeners in two countries.  2. The number of language services shown in table 5 in appendix IV is  footnoted to indicate that 24 of the U.S. language services are duplicate  language services run by the Voice of America and surrogate  broadcasters. We revised the applicable table note to point out that  many of the Board’s language services have been mandated by  Congress.  3. We revised the table to show a total funding figure of $367 million for  U.S. international broadcasting. This figure was calculated by  deducting $53 million in television production and transmission costs  from a total U.S. funding figure of $420 million for fiscal year 2000. We  made this change to reflect that the BBC funding figure does not  include television costs. 4. We agree that simply dividing the number of total listeners by total  broadcast costs does not provide meaningful comparative information  in the absence of a more detailed understanding of why costs differ  between the two organizations. Explanatory factors might include the  relative costs of reaching different target audiences, different mixes of  broadcast technology, and the relative efficiency and effectiveness of  each organization. We revised the introduction to table 5 to emphasize  that our table is designed to provide summary data on U.S. and BBC  broadcast operations. We also incorporated the Board’s concern that  readers should avoid making a cost-per-listener comparison between  U.S. and BBC international broadcasting.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Michael ten Kate, Wyley Neal,  Ernie Jackson, and Rona Mendelsohn made key contributions to this  report.
section_title: Ordering Information
paragraphs: The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of  reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to  the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit  cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are  discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC  20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and  testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list  from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone  phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain  these lists.
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs
paragraphs: Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)