Broadcasting Board of Governors: Additional Steps Needed to Address Overlap in International Broadcasting
Published: 2013-01-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
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.
In 2003, we found that BBG’s organizational structure and broadcast  approach resulted in overlap among the language services. 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.BBG’s strategic plan for 2012-2016 identifies proposals for restructuring  and streamlining the organization to optimize the use of resources.
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.
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   We interviewed  broadcast coverage, by country, language, and platform.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  broadcasts in the same languages as other international broadcasters— U.S. commercial international broadcasters and other major democratic  nations’ government-supported international broadcasters—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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In accordance with the United States International Broadcasting Act of  1994, as amended, 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   The International Broadcasting Bureau provides all  than 100 countries.support services to BBG, oversight over grantee operations, and  transmission and distribution services to BBG entities.
BBG is managed by a nine-member part-time bipartisan Board of  Governors. As an element of U.S. public diplomacy, 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.
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:
The International Broadcasting Act authorized RFA in 1994 to  broadcast in seven Asian countries where VOA already broadcast.
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)  while also calling for the establishment of an RFE/RL radio program  (Radio Mashaal) in the region.
Figure 1 shows the creation of BBG entities since 1942.
Figure 2 describes each BBG entity’s mission and shows the amount of  appropriated funds each entity received in fiscal year 2012.
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  proposals, Congressional appropriations committees, which have  jurisdiction over BBG funding, in some years have directed the  continuation of the language services.
section_title: Many of BBG’s Language Services Overlap with Another BBG Service, but Annual Review Does Not Systematically Consider Overlap’s Cost or Impact
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Nearly Two-Thirds of BBG’s Language Services Overlap with Another BBG Service
paragraphs: 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.)
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).broadcast on the same platforms, while in others, such as Ukraine,  RFE/RL broadcasts only by radio and VOA broadcasts only on television.
In almost all countries, the overlapping entities  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.
BBG officials emphasized that overlapping language services are  sometimes distinguished by their broadcast hours or purpose and  content.
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. 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  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.
section_title: BBG Has Not Systematically Considered Overlap’s Cost or Impact
paragraphs: 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. 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. In addition, the law gives  the board authority to identify areas in which broadcasting activities could  be made more efficient and economical.
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,  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. 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.
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. 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.
For 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. 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. 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.
section_title: More Than Half of BBG Languages Are Used by Other International Broadcasters, but BBG Does Not Annually Review Other Broadcasters’ Efforts
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: More Than Half of BBG Languages Are Used by Other International Broadcasters, Although Their Objectives Differ
paragraphs: 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. 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.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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 government- supported 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. 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  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, 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.
section_title: BBG’s Annual Language Service Review Does Not Systematically Consider Activities of Other International Broadcasters
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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 government- sponsored 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  U.S. commercial broadcasters and democratic nations’ government- supported 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)—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 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: BBG Language Services
paragraphs: Voice of America (VOA)
Africa Division  Central Africa (Kinyarwanda, Kirundi)
Horn Of Africa (Amharic, Tigrigna, Afaan Oromoo)
Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB)
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)
Balkans (Bosnian, Macedonian, Serbian, Albanian, Montenegrin, Croatian)*  Radio Farda (Persian)*  Radio Free Afghanistan (Dari and Pashto)*  Radio Mashaal (Pashto)*  Radio Free Iraq (Arabic)*  North Caucasus Unit (Avar, Chechen and Circassian)
Tatar-Bashkir (Tatar, Crimean Tatar, Bashkir)
Radio Free Asia (RFA)
Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)
section_title: Appendix III: Languages Used by BBG and Selected Other Government-Supported International Broadcasters as of 2012
subsections: section_title: BBG AEF BBC DW RNW China Russia Language
paragraphs: Swahili  (Kiswahili)
section_title: BBG AEF BBC DW RNW China Russia Language
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from BBG
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.