Independent Media Development Abroad: Challenges Exist in Implementing U.S. Efforts and Measuring Results
Published: 2005-07-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Independent media development led by the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) supports the national security goal of developing sustainable democracies around the world. Independent media institutions play a role in supporting commerce, improving public health efforts, reducing corruption, and providing civic education. According to the Freedom House's Freedom of the Press 2005 survey, despite important gains in some countries, the overall level of press freedom worldwide continued to worsen in 2004. GAO was asked to examine (1) U.S. government funding for independent media development overseas; (2) the extent to which U.S. agencies measure performance toward achieving results; and (3) the challenges the United States faces in achieving results. The Department of State generally concurred with our report and USAID offered technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate. In addition, State indicated that it plans to develop additional performance indicators and promote best practices in the future.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development obligated at least $40 million in fiscal year 2004 for the development of independent media, including activities such as journalism and business management training and support for legal and regulatory frameworks. About 60 percent of the fiscal year 2004 USAID and State obligations we identified supported independent media development projects in Europe and Eurasia. However, precise funding levels are difficult to identify due to a lack of agencywide budget codes to track media development obligations, differing definitions of independent media development, and complex funding patterns. State and USAID face challenges in designing performance indicators and accurately measuring and reporting results directly tied to the performance of U.S. independent media efforts. The tools most frequently used by State and USAID as performance indicators--Freedom House's Freedom of the Press survey and the IREX Media Sustainability Index--are useful for determining the status of the media in selected countries but are of limited utility in measuring the specific contributions of U.S.-sponsored programs and activities toward developing independent media in countries when used alone. Several country-specific and programmatic challenges can impede the implementation of media development efforts, including a changing political condition, sustainability of local media outlets, and coordination between donors and providers. Specifically, a country's changing political condition or lack of adequate civic and legal institutions can create challenges for a mission to plan, implement, and measure the results of its efforts. The sustainability of program recipients can also impede the overall success of efforts or specific activities at the country level. In addition, when coordination of activities is unstructured or informal, redundancies and confusion of responsibilities can impact project implementation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: U.S.-sponsored independent media development efforts support the  national security goal of developing sustainable democracies around the  world, while complementing U.S. public diplomacy efforts by encouraging  the development of sustainable media outlets with responsible and  professional reporting standards and editorial practices. Independent  media development projects include such activities as direct financial  assistance to media outlets, journalism and business management training,  and support for developing the legal and regulatory frameworks necessary  for a free and open press. Beyond serving as a source of information,  independent media institutions can play a role in supporting commerce,  improving the effectiveness of public health efforts, reducing corruption,  improving citizen access to information, and providing civic education.  However, despite important gains in some countries, like Ukraine, the  overall level of press freedom worldwide continued to worsen in 2004,  continuing a 3-year decline. The declining level of press freedom has been  illustrated, for example, by cases of journalists being censored, tortured,  imprisoned, and murdered in response to published news reports about  their government.
The Department of State (State) and the U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID) are primarily responsible for U.S. government  media development funding and activities. At your request, this report  examines: (1) U.S. government funding for independent media  development overseas, (2) the extent to which U.S. agencies measure  performance toward achieving results, and (3) the challenges the United  States faces in achieving results.
To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed documentation and spoke with  officials from State, USAID, and their primary partners, including the  Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), National Endowment for  Democracy (NED), International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX),  Internews, Eurasia Foundation, International Center for Journalists, and  The Asia Foundation. In addition to audit work performed in the United  States, we traveled to and reviewed documentation on U.S.-sponsored  independent media development projects in Croatia, Ukraine, and  Indonesia. We also sent questions to posts in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt,  Georgia, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, and Mali. Our analysis of key challenges  included a review of several recent studies covering independent media  development. Appendix I provides a more detailed description of our scope  and methodology. We conducted our evaluation in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards from June 2004 to July  2005.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The United States has, for many years, funded various agencies’  educational, visitor, and democracy-assistance programs that promote  democratic ideals, including freedom of the press. Although considered a  fundamental human right by many, freedom of the press remains unrealized  in many parts of the world, particularly in countries governed by repressive  regimes. Journalists continue to be censored, tortured, imprisoned, and  murdered for publishing articles or broadcasting information about their  government. Media assistance emerged as a significant aspect of  development work in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly following the end of  the Cold War and the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. Media  development aid has evolved from relatively modest activities with minor  donations of equipment and training tours for journalists to, in some cases,  long-term, multifaceted projects with millions of dollars invested over the  life of the project.
Independent media development efforts are not clearly defined, but are  commonly understood to include activities such as  training or educating local or indigenous reporters and editors on  subjects such as media ethics, professionalism, accountability,  investigative journalism, media business management and marketing,  strategies for transforming state broadcasters into public service  networks, and legal defense or legal regulatory issues;  developing media or press centers;  developing journalism schools and curriculum;  ensuring the financial sustainability and independence of media outlets,  through loan programs, advertising development, grants for  commodities, and other means;  supplying equipment or helping to build infrastructure needed to ensure  media independence, including technical capacity;  developing professional journalist, publisher, or broadcast associations;  developing networks of independent media, such as sharing  arrangements, which link production, distribution, and management of  material;   supporting the establishment of legal and regulatory frameworks and  advocacy groups that protect freedom of the press;  promoting an understanding of professional media practices and the  role of free and independent media in society; and  engaging diplomatically to advance the development of press freedoms  or media-related institutions, laws, and regulatory frameworks.
subsections: section_title: A Number of Agencies and Organizations Implement or Fund a Range of Media Development Efforts
paragraphs: The Department of State and USAID are primarily responsible for funding  and overseeing U.S. media development projects and activities. State and  USAID do not have separate global or agency-specific independent media  development strategies and goals; rather, State and USAID often consider  independent media development part of broader agency goals. State’s  independent media development efforts are generally used as tools within  broader public diplomacy and democracy building efforts. USAID’s  independent media development efforts are generally designed to promote  the development of civil society and increase citizen access to information.
A commonly agreed upon definition of independent media development  programs does not exist among State, USAID, and other donors. Rather, a  variety of U.S. projects and activities support independent media in various  countries overseas through individual contracts, grants, or cooperative  agreements with NGO partners, or through other established U.S.  programs, such as exchange programs administered by embassy public  affairs sections. In addition, donors frequently use different approaches for  developing independent media. For example, State offers training  opportunities to a select number of individuals in the media sector or offers  small grants to organizations for media development. NED provides small,  short-term grants to media or advocacy organizations in many countries. In  contrast, USAID has developed a more comprehensive, multiyear,  multiproject approach to developing independent media in many countries  that addresses the training and education of journalists, financial  sustainability of local organizations, and development of the supporting  legal and regulatory frameworks.
Five primary U.S. nongovernmental organizations—IREX, Internews, the  International Center for Journalists, Eurasia Foundation, and The Asia  Foundation—assist U.S. donors by implementing media development  projects and offering funding or programmatic activities to local media  organizations. In addition, due to political sensitivities in the region, USAID  has awarded contracts to private organizations for media development  projects in the Middle East. Examples of possible independent media  development recipients include media outlets, media organizations, and  local nongovernmental organizations; professional associations; journalism  schools or universities; and policymakers. In addition, there are several  international organizations that support media development. (See app. II).  See table 1 for a description of the roles of each bureau or office at State  and USAID and select U.S. NGOs in independent media development.
section_title: U.S.-Sponsored Media Development Funding Levels Difficult to Determine
paragraphs: Our analysis of available documents revealed that together, State and  USAID obligated at least $40 million in fiscal year 2004 to support a number  of independent media development efforts. According to State, it obligated  approximately $14 million for media development projects for fiscal year  2004. State also transferred more than $700,000 to the BBG for fiscal year  2004 independent media development obligations. USAID was not able to  provide global budget obligations figures for its 2004 support of  independent media. However, we calculated that USAID obligated at least  $25.6 million in fiscal year 2004. USAID’s largest independent media  contractors—Internews and IREX— received fiscal year 2004 obligations  of $14.1 million and $11.3 million, respectively. In addition, the Asia  Foundation identified that it received $175,000 in fiscal year 2004  obligations provided by USAID. Although we were not able to confirm  these figures, USAID officials told us that they obligated an average of $33  million per year for independent media development efforts since 1991 in  amounts ranging from approximately $13 million in fiscal year 1992 to $61  million in fiscal year 1999.
We found that the largest portion of the State and USAID fiscal year 2004  obligations for independent media development—about 60 percent of all  the agency obligations we could identify—funded efforts in Europe and  Eurasia. The Middle East, which has the lowest level of press freedom,  according to Freedom House’s 2005 Press Freedom survey, received only  about 2 percent of the total fiscal year 2004 obligations we could identify.  Agency officials said that the larger funding levels for Europe and Eurasia  are attributable to the democracy assistance funding provided through the  Freedom Support Act and the Support for East European Democracy Act  of 1989 and the high priority given to independent media development  projects by the Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and  Eurasia. According to State officials, independent media development  funding levels for the Middle East are expected to increase in the future  due to an expansion of efforts through the Middle East Partnership  Initiative. In addition, USAID officials said they expect that USAID will  provide up to four times the amount of media development funding to  individual countries in the Middle East in the near future—with the U.S.  Mission in Egypt already in the process of launching a $15 million media  project. Officials at one mission in Central Europe expressed concern that  such a funding shift could be detrimental to the ultimate success of media  development efforts in European countries that have fragile and changing  media environments.
Due to a variety of factors, it is difficult to accurately determine U.S.  funding obligations for independent media development efforts. USAID  media development funding is difficult to track globally over time because  the agency has not implemented consistent agencywide budget codes to  document its obligations for cooperative agreements, grants, and contracts  for independent media projects and activities. Rather, USAID’s financial  systems are designed to collect obligation information at the higher  strategic objective level, where, we were told by USAID officials, there are  inconsistencies in coding independent media activities because definitions  for budget codes and strategic objectives have changed over the years.  However, USAID officials told us they are currently in the process of  developing systems to better track agencywide obligations data for  individual program components under each strategic objective, including  for independent media development efforts. State Department funding is  also difficult to track because State does not keep systematic records or  budget codes of its obligations at the level of independent media  development activities and posts consider varying activities to embody  independent media development. Finally, complex donor funding  arrangements, including in some cases multiple project implementers and  subgrantees, can obscure funding relationships and make it difficult to  accurately determine the overall level of U.S. financial support, as well as  the number of specific efforts provided in individual countries.
section_title: Independent Media Development Performance Measurement Efforts Complicated by a Variety of Factors
paragraphs: State and USAID have a variety of independent media development efforts  under way. State has not widely established specific independent media  development performance indicators for the overseas missions we  reviewed or for specific media projects or activities sponsored by its  embassy public affairs sections. USAID frequently established specific  independent media development performance indicators for its missions  and for specific independent media development projects we reviewed.  Both agencies commonly used the IREX Media Sustainability Index (MSI)  and Freedom House’s Press Freedom surveys to measure performance—  where indicators were established; however, our analysis found these  indexes to be of limited utility in measuring the contributions of specific  media activities, or the efforts of entire missions toward developing  independent media in particular countries, when used alone.
subsections: section_title: State and USAID Sponsor a Number of Media Efforts
paragraphs: State and USAID support a wide range of media projects and activities,  from training journalists to supporting media law reform. In the countries  we visited—Croatia, Ukraine, and Indonesia—we spoke with several  individuals who said that they had benefited from U.S. government media  support. For example, we met with members of a consortium of five local  NGOs advocating passage of Indonesia’s Freedom of Information Act and  working with the Parliament to get it placed on the agenda. In Croatia, we  visited a U.S.-funded national association of journalists whose mission is to  raise the professional standards of its 2,000 members. In Ukraine, we met  with individuals of a U.S.-sponsored organization that has provided 220  training programs, in subjects ranging from technical production to media  management, to over 2,800 media professionals. We also spoke with a  number of journalists in all three countries who had visited television,  radio, and newspaper operations throughout the United States as part of  embassy exchange programs. See table 2 for a description of current U.S.  independent media development efforts and priorities in countries we  selected for in-depth analysis.
section_title: Performance Indicators for State’s Independent Media Development Efforts Not Widely Established
paragraphs: While State’s independent media activities conducted at overseas missions  support U.S. objectives in these countries, performance indicators were  not widely established for the activities, making it difficult for State to  accurately measure and report their value. At four of the nine countries we  reviewed, State had developed some media-related performance indicators  to measure the overall results of the missions’ independent media  development efforts. For instance, for Kyrgyzstan, State currently  measures the results of the embassy’s efforts in developing independent  media and improving the availability of political information in several  ways, including by surveying whether editors and journalists that receive  support become more skilled in reporting and editing political news.  However, aside from counting the number of participants, specific  performance indicators for individual embassy-sponsored independent  media projects or activities were not widely established in the cases we  reviewed. For example, embassy officials in Croatia said there were no  measurable performance indicators tracked for their journalism exchanges  and other media-related public diplomacy efforts.
Several State Department officials told us that posts rely heavily on their  knowledge of the activities and anecdotal reports of accomplishments to  evaluate performance. In some instances, embassy public affairs sections  submit reporting cables to State Department bureaus and offices or enter  descriptions of media projects or activities and anecdotal information into  a database managed by the Bureau of International Information Programs.  State’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) bureau has, in some  cases, used quantifiable indicators, including the number of local radio  stations that broadcast sponsored programs or the number of articles  written as a result of journalist training seminars, to measure the  performance of independent media projects related to democracy  assistance, in addition to gathering descriptive or anecdotal information on  accomplishments.
State officials told us that embassies are more likely to develop  independent media-specific performance indicators for evaluating results  when independent media is a priority at the post and specific performance  goals are set in mission-planning documents. For example, the current  mission plan for Kyrgyzstan includes a stated goal of helping to build  independent media that reports objectively and freely. Officials also said  that posts are not currently required to develop specific indicators for  individual public diplomacy projects and activities; however, a requirement  for the establishment of such measures is currently being considered.   Additionally, officials in State’s Middle East Partnership Initiative office  told us the office plans to develop measures for the effectiveness of its new  media assistance project in the Middle East, but could not provide details  because the initiative is still being designed. State officials we spoke with  told us it is difficult to develop performance indicators with limited staff  and funding, as well as the inherent difficulties in determining when and  how results will occur for public diplomacy-related efforts.
section_title: USAID Performance Indicators for Independent Media Development Efforts Frequently Established
paragraphs: In the cases we reviewed, USAID performance indicators for independent  media efforts were frequently established at the country or USAID mission  level and for individual projects. For example, six of the nine USAID  missions we reviewed established performance indicators in their current  planning documents for their missions’ independent media performance  objectives. In addition, all missions we obtained documentation from had  established performance indicators for country-specific projects. USAID  officials told us that the establishment of specific independent media  performance objectives is left to the discretion of the local USAID mission  and that some missions with active independent media development  projects or activities may not choose to designate media-related  performance objectives based on their relative priorities, or they may view  media development as a crosscutting issue or as a tool for accomplishing  other specific objectives. See table 3 for a list of the objectives and  performance indicators for USAID missions in the countries we reviewed.
section_title: State and USAID Missions Use Broad Indexes of Country Press Freedom That Cannot Measure Performance of U.S. Efforts
paragraphs: In the cases we reviewed, State and USAID often selected media indexes,  such as the Media Sustainability Index (MSI) and Freedom House’s Press  Freedom survey, to measure the results of their independent media  development efforts. The MSI and the Press Freedom survey assess the  freedom of media in a country; however, when used alone as performance  indicators, media indexes are of limited utility in measuring the specific  contributions of specific activities or combined U.S. efforts toward  developing independent media in particular countries.
subsections: section_title: State and USAID Rely Frequently on Media Indexes to Measure Performance
paragraphs: State and USAID commonly use media indexes to measure the  performance of independent media efforts. In cases we reviewed where  State had specifically defined performance indicators for its independent  media development efforts, Freedom House’s Press Freedom survey and  MSI were frequently used by the mission for measuring results. In the cases  we reviewed, all four State missions that designated performance  indicators relied on media indexes to measure the performance of their  efforts. For example, the U.S. Mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina designated  the MSI as its primary performance indicator for its independent media  efforts. USAID missions we reviewed also frequently used the MSI and the  Press Freedom survey as measures of performance. Of six USAID missions  that established indicators for their performance goals, three used the  media indexes as performance indicators. Some missions, including the  USAID Missions to Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, used the MSI along with other  measures they had created to measure the accomplishment of performance objectives. However, the USAID Mission to Croatia used the media  indexes alone to measure performance objectives related to independent  media development. In addition, the only performance indicators  established for the USAID media project in Croatia were the four broad  MSI components, including “journalists professional standards improved in  Croatia” and “multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable and  objective news.” USAID officials told us that the MSI index is generally  promoted and used as an independent media development performance  indicator in Europe and Eurasia and that it is generally used in  coordination with more specific indicators of activities to determine  program performance.
section_title: Broad Indicators Assess Media Freedom, Not Necessarily a Measure of U.S. Efforts
paragraphs: Media indexes used alone are of limited use for determining the  performance of U.S. independent media development programs.  Commonly used media indexes—such as the Press Freedom Survey and  MSI in particular—cannot pinpoint the effects of U.S. government  programs, and are general indicators rather than precise measures. These  indexes use reasonably consistent methodologies to measure broad  concepts such as press freedom and media sustainability. However,  because the indexes focus on broad concepts that are affected by a wide  variety of social, political, and economic factors, they have limited utility  for purposes of identifying the effects of particular U.S. media development  programs. The indexes do provide general measures of trends and allow for  some cross-country comparisons. However, IREX has only been collecting  data on the MSI for 3 years, which makes it impossible to evaluate longer  term trends and establish baselines for efforts that began before 2001.  Another concern is the time lag in the data of 1 year from scoring to  publication.
Freedom House and IREX officials told us that the Press Freedom survey  and MSI were not designed to measure the performance of U.S. media  development programs. According to a senior Freedom House official, the  Press Freedom survey was initially intended to inform debate and  discussion about the state of media development in particular countries,  and potentially could be used to prod particular countries to liberalize their  media. Freedom House’s Press Freedom survey has been used to assess the  freedom of the media in more than 100 nations since 1981. The Press  Freedom survey evaluates countries’ legal, political, and economic  environments, scoring between 8 and 12 subcategories. According to IREX  officials, the MSI was designed, with the support of USAID, to be used for  making prioritized decisions on funding. IREX’s Media Sustainability Index  has assessed the sustainability of independent media in about 20 countries  in Europe and Eurasia since 2001. The MSI measures five objectives—free  speech, professional journalism, plurality of news sources, business  management, and supporting institutions—each of which includes between  7 and 9 subcategories. Freedom House and IREX officials both stated that  use of the indexes for anything other than what they were designed for  imply an unwarranted precision to their measures.
Some State and USAID officials indicated that they do not think media  indexes alone are comprehensive indicators for measuring mission or  project performance and supported the development of additional  measures in some cases. However, they also told us that it is difficult to  develop their own independent media development performance indicators  for several reasons. In addition to funding constraints, agencies noted that  there are also difficulties separating media efforts from broader goals and  determining when and how results will occur for democracy-related or  public diplomacy programs. Some USAID officials in the field noted that  USAID officials in Washington, D.C., supported using the MSI as a primary  performance indicator and some USAID officials noted they viewed using  the MSI as a cost-effective means to provide a common indicator to  measure and compare the results of efforts in Europe and Eurasia.
section_title: Country-Specific and Programmatic Factors Can Impact Media Development Efforts
paragraphs: In all the cases we reviewed, countries faced changing political conditions  or deficiencies in the legal, regulatory, or professional environments, which  created challenges for planning and implementing independent media  development efforts. In some cases, programmatic factors, such as  unsustainable local partner organizations or lack of coordination at  overseas missions, affected overall U.S. efforts or specific projects or  activities in a country. The following media development challenges  represent a sample of those frequently mentioned during our review.
subsections: section_title: Country-Specific Factors, Such as a Changing Political Society or Inadequate Legal, Regulatory and Professional Environments, Can Impact Media Development Efforts
paragraphs: A country’s political conditions can impact efforts to plan and implement  independent media development projects and activities. In January 2004,  USAID surveyed its independent media development efforts, as well as  those supported by other donors, and determined that different  programmatic approaches are required for five different types of political  societies, which USAID classified as: (1) closed, (2)  semidemocratic/developing, (3) war-torn, (4) postconflict, and (5)  transition. For semidemocratic, postconflict, or transitional countries  making progress toward democracy or no longer experiencing conflict,  USAID has identified a variety of activities to support the development of  an independent media. However, in closed or war-torn societies, USAID  determined it can do very little because the environments are unsuitable  for outside intervention. See table 4 for definitions of political societies and  further detail on the appropriate programmatic media strategies identified  by USAID.
We examined independent media development projects in nine different  countries—Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Georgia, Haiti, Indonesia,  Krygyzstan, Mali, and Ukraine—each experiencing differing domestic  political conditions that limit the impact of these projects.  In some of the  cases we reviewed, changes in domestic conditions or the status of  political societies occurred following the onset of independent media  development activities, creating further challenges in implementing efforts  in these countries. For example, in Haiti—a nation experiencing civil  conflict—violent demonstrations and protests prior to the departure of the  president prevented some USAID-funded media development projects from  continuing because staff were physically unable to get to work.  Officials  told us that several radio stations suffered extensive damage from looters,  and community radio stations reported several cases where police, as well  as government officials loyal to the president, tried to use their power to  silence independent media voices. After the president’s departure, all  nonessential USAID staff were ordered to evacuate the country, and the  media project was on hold for nearly a month.
In countries with deficient legal, regulatory, or professional environments,  agencies can face challenges in implementing independent media  development projects and activities. All nine of the countries we reviewed  faced challenges due to deficiencies in at least one of these areas, which  impacted efforts to train the media, build the capacity of the media outlets,  and improve the freedom of the press within the country. In particular,  these deficiencies have led to such challenges as limited press freedom due  to direct government control over the media industry; changing legal and  regulatory frameworks; limited training opportunities; and lack of skilled  journalists due to widespread problems in professional and educational  systems. Agency officials provided examples of how such deficiencies have  impacted their programs:   Limited press freedom. Prior to the revolution in Kyrgyzstan, the Kyrgyz  government maintained a tight hold on broadcast frequencies,  prevented new stations from obtaining frequencies, and canceled  frequencies of certain independent outlets. Agency officials said that  journalists were afraid to broadcast on certain topics for fear of  harassment or prosecution. In Georgia, most television stations are  owned by oligarchs, many of whom support the new government.  According to embassy officials in Tbilisi, working journalists exercise  self-censorship for fear that reports critical of the government would be  unpopular with their owners.
Changing legal and regulatory frameworks. Although Ukraine’s new  president stated publicly his support for a free mass media, State  officials said Ukraine’s legal and regulatory environments still need  assistance.  Though legislation has been enacted to improve freedom of  the press and oversight of the media industry, these changes have not  been consistently applied by Ukrainian judges and media outlets.  Therefore, journalists can still be pressured by government officials and  oligarchs to report information in a certain way, and media outlets’ legal  status and license to operate remain in question.
Limited training opportunities. Since 1993, Mali’s constitution has  made it relatively easy to obtain radio broadcast licenses for FM  frequencies. However, officials noted that that there are currently no in- country professional training institutions for broadcast media. As a  result, individuals have to go outside of Mali to receive training, or  obtain informal training from their peers and colleagues.
Lack of skilled journalists. In Croatia, most journalists have little  academic or professional training. Agency officials stated that although  independent media is evolving, journalists still report biased news and  information, do not check their facts or sources, do not follow up or  correct their errors, and skew the focus of articles to accomplish  personal agendas.
According to USAID’s January 2004 media assistance study, USAID has  funded a range of activities designed to further promote legal and  regulatory reforms, though undemocratic structures, politicians, and slow- to-change traditions have made the creation of enabling laws, policies, and  practices difficult or impossible in some cases. Assistance projects and  training efforts have been designed to mitigate legal, regulatory, and  professional deficiencies, though progress of these programs has been  slow. Agency officials from missions in several countries we examined  provided examples of approaches to addressing unregulated media  environments, including the following:    Limited press freedom. In order to limit editorial interference by state  bodies, USAID’s media project in Kyrgyzstan currently supports local  efforts to draft a new broadcasting law, which would include  stipulations for the transformation of state television and radio to a  public broadcasting system. To dilute the editorial influence of oligarchs  who own the vast majority of TV stations in Georgia, USAID’s  implementing partner in Tbilisi introduced a television rating system,  which produced verifiable ratings that made the commercial market far  more attractive to advertisers. The increased interest of advertisers in  the media market has made nonbusiness-based policies more costly for  oligarch owners.
Changing legal and regulatory frameworks. USAID’s media  development project in Ukraine has established a Media Law Institute  that will provide journalists with an outlet for legal defense and  consultations when faced with political pressure. The center also plans  to train local lawyers and judges on media law reform, and to publish  bulletins about changes in legislation.
Limited training opportunities. The USAID Mission to Mali has tried to  address the lack of professional media training institutions by  supporting a technical training facility, bringing professionals to Mali to  conduct training sessions, and sending broadcast and print journalists  as well as key members of the government and civil society to an  anticorruption ethics training seminar.
Lack of skilled journalists. Croatia’s USAID media development project  focused on developing the capacity of the national journalist  association, including conferences to improve journalists’  professionalism, their capacity for reporting, and their relationships  with other sectors of society, such as the police and judiciary.  Additionally, University of Zagreb’s journalism school partnered with  the U.S. Embassy to participate in academic exchange programs,  international visits, and speaker programs.
section_title: Programmatic Factors Can Affect Media Development Efforts
paragraphs: The sustainability of local organizations can impact the overall results of  media development efforts or the success of specific projects and activities  in a country. Additionally, limited coordination and lack of communication  with local recipients at some posts have impacted some projects and  activities by causing confusion of responsibilities or duplication of efforts.
subsections: section_title: Sustainability of Local Organizations Can Affect Long- Term Media Development Results
paragraphs: The success of media development projects and activities can be impacted  by the sustainability of local partners. We found that seven of the nine  countries we reviewed had cases where local media outlets had difficulty  ensuring their financial sustainability as their U.S. funding decreased.  Sustainability challenges were primarily due to a poor economic  environment or lack of sufficient business management training.  Specific  examples include the following:   Poor economic environment. An official from the USAID Mission in  Haiti stated that because many independent radio stations are  community owned, the stations cannot increase their operating budgets  or replace expensive pieces of equipment without first increasing the  financial resources available to the entire community. Additionally, the  self-sustainability of private media outlets in Bosnia-Herzegovina  continues to be a major problem due to widespread crime and  corruption and a national unemployment rate of about 40 percent.
Lack of business management training. According to one local  television station owner in Croatia, a U.S.-sponsored national television  network, designed to link several local station’s news programs, is  struggling to survive because the network did not develop the  advertising revenue and profit-sharing structures necessary to keep it  financially sustainable. USAID acknowledged that this may be the case,  but they viewed the network project as a success because it had served  to provide an alternative, independent news program to the state- controlled TV network during an earlier period of political transition.
To respond to these programmatic challenges, some USAID officials  offered the following suggestions:    Poor economic environment. The USAID Mission to Bosnia- Herzegovina has focused on encouraging local business development  strategies, and currently financially supports the survival of only a select  number of media outlets. The USAID Mission in Mali told us that  because of the country’s high poverty rate, they conduct workshops for  radio stations in order to provide them with small-business concepts  that can be used to generate additional outside revenues, like the sale of  solar power to provide lighting or the creation of centers to provide the  community with computer services and Internet access.
Lack of business management training. Since 2002, Georgia’s USAID  media project has worked to promote the sustainability of print and  broadcast media outlets by improving their business management skills  and establishing an independent and credible national system of  television audience measurement. As a result of better information on  the profile of viewers, TV advertising in Georgia increased from $3  million to $7 million in 2004 and is expected to increase to $13 million by  2006.
Various studies have also offered suggestions for addressing the  sustainability of media outlets. A working paper by the Netherlands  Institute of International Relations on “International Media Assistance”  suggested allowing more time during the life of a project to focus on  sustainability. Another report published by USAID, Media Assistance:  Policy and Programmatic Lessons, suggested that in postconflict  societies, only media outlets willing to take concrete and concerted steps  toward economic independence should be given technical or financial  assistance. According to this study, USAID has implemented several  activities that promote the financial independence or sustainability of  media outlets, but these activities have achieved only limited success.
section_title: Limited Coordination at Some Locations Can Result in Confusion of Responsibilities and Duplication of Efforts
paragraphs: While not as widespread as other programmatic challenges, we found that  four of the nine countries we examined were challenged by coordination  issues, such as an unclear chain of command and limited communication,  which resulted in confusion over the responsibilities of donors and  providers of media development, duplication of efforts, or periods of  program inactivity. For example, the director of a Croatian media  development project worked with three different U.S. donors, with no clear  chain of command established. Thus, the director was unsure to whom he  should report under certain circumstances, resulting in difficulty in  reacting to urgent needs. In another case we reviewed, State and USAID  had unknowingly funded different NGOs that were working independently  to rebuild the same radio stations that had been destroyed during the  recent tsunami in Indonesia, leading to on-the-ground project conflicts.  Officials at the USAID Mission to Indonesia told us this duplication of effort  resulted from their lack of awareness of a grant awarded by State’s DRL  bureau in Washington, D.C., that was similar to the grant USAID awarded.  Poorly maintained roads, combined with poor phone and Internet access,  contributed to communication and coordination challenges faced by the  USAID Mission in Haiti and the community radios it supports; this, in turn  slowed USAID’s training activities, the delivery of equipment, and other  activities. USAID officials said they are planning to install Internet and  phone lines in rural areas to improve the situation.
One example of effective coordination can be found in Ukraine. Ukraine is  challenged by a complicated network of donors, providers, and recipients  (see fig. 1), multiple ongoing projects, various funding sources, and  agencies funding the same organizations and similar activities. For  example, four separate organizations, including the U.S. Embassy (via the  Media Development Ffund), Internews Network (via a cooperative  agreement via the USAID mission), the International Renaissance  Foundation, and NED (via its annual grant from State), currently provide  U.S.-sponsored funding or programmatic activities to the advocacy and  media monitoring organization Telekritika. However, in Kiev, USAID and  State officials have worked well together to minimize coordination  problems by keeping track of donor awards on a Web site and attending  donor coordination meetings on a monthly basis. According to USAID  officials, the Web site “Marketplace for Donors” is funded jointly by State  (the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, public affairs section) and the International  Renaissance Foundation.
Media evaluations have made specific suggestions to improve the  coordination of donors, providers, and recipients of independent media  development programming in order to minimize the confusion of  responsibilities and duplication of efforts. An evaluation by the University  of Oxford, “Mapping Media Assistance,” suggested donors and providers  coordinate the distribution of their limited resources in a systematic and  logical manner, based on their areas of specialization. The Netherlands  Institute of International Relations working paper on “International Media  Assistance,” suggested establishing a strategic coordination mechanism,  like the European Media Agency for the European Union, that could serve  as a clearinghouse and evaluator of all media-related assistance proposals  for the targeted countries.
To address challenges in coordination, USAID funds regional media  conferences and has conducted a limited number of independent media  program evaluations, so that participants can share lessons learned;  however, these efforts face funding constraints. USAID has funded six  independent media development regional conferences in Europe and  Eurasia and one multiregional conference over the past 8 years.  These  conferences have brought together journalists, media development donors,  providers, and civil society organizations to discuss issues in journalism  that transcend borders. USAID has also designated the Bureau for Policy  and Program Coordination to conduct several assessments of independent  media programs in various countries and identify lessons learned and best  practices. In addition, USAID bureaus and missions have conducted several  different types of studies on independent media efforts, including midterm  assessments, final reports, and program evaluations. According to the  Policy and Program Coordination bureau director, USAID’s independent  media evaluations have created a body of knowledge and lessons learned  on subjects ranging from conflict areas to transitional countries. However,  USAID media officials noted that the discontinuation of funding for  conferences and limited funding levels for evaluations could reduce the  amount of collaboration and sharing of lessons learned officials said is  necessary to enhance media development programming efforts.  Additionally, several media officials indicated that in some instances  insufficient funding for USAID program evaluations has forced media  development providers to fund their own evaluations through their project  budgets, thus reducing funds available for development activities. Although  USAID requires its evaluations to be posted on the Development  Experience Clearinghouse to make them accessible to other posts, one  senior official said it was unclear to what degree the lessons learned from  evaluations are shared or used by missions. For example, one official in  Croatia said that program evaluations are shared only within the region due  to concerns that other countries’ approaches may not be relevant.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of State and the USAID  Administrator for their review and comment. State generally concurred  with our report, and USAID offered technical comments that were  incorporated, as appropriate. In addition, State indicated that it plans to  develop additional performance indicators and promote best practices in  the future. The comments provided by State are reprinted in appendix IV,  and comments by USAID are reprinted in appendix V.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of  Congress. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of State and the  Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. We will  also make copies available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-4268 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed documentation and spoke with  officials from the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID), the Broadcasting Board of Governors  (BBG), and key U.S. nongovernmental organization (NGO) partners,  including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the  International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), Internews, The Asia  Foundation, the Eurasia Foundation, and the International Center for  Journalists. In addition, we reviewed USAID’s guidance for performance  measurement. Department of Defense media activities were not included in  the scope of our work as its primary focus in the media field is on  conducting psychological operations.
In addition to audit work performed in the United States, we traveled to  and reviewed documentation on U.S.-sponsored independent media  development programs in Croatia, Ukraine, and Indonesia. These countries  were primarily selected based on geographic representation; preliminary  estimates on funding and years of assistance provided; and the range of  programs offered. During travel to Croatia, Ukraine, and Indonesia, we met  with State Department and USAID officials; multiple nonprofit, private  donor, and multilateral officials; and program recipients to discuss issues  of coordination, funding, measuring of program effectiveness, and  challenges faced when implementing foreign independent media  development programs. We also sent questions to and reviewed select  documentation from posts in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Georgia, Haiti,  Kyrgyzstan, and Mali.
subsections: section_title: Agency Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Obligations
paragraphs: In order to determine estimates for agency fiscal year 2004 obligations, we  obtained data from State, USAID, the BBG, and select NGOs. Assessments  of the reliability of the data yielded mixed results, but provided an overall  indication of the minimum level of funding for the agency.
subsections: section_title: USAID and Select NGOs
paragraphs: USAID’s historic budget obligations from USAID’s Democracy, Conflict,  and Humanitarian Assistance bureau proved to be unreliable because (1)  USAID historic budget records on media development programs are  incomplete after 1996 because agencywide budget codes related to media  activities were discontinued at this time; (2) USAID budget records were  not finalized for fiscal year 2004; and (3) historic funding codes could not  be recoded or configured to accurately reflect the specific activities of  missions falling under our definition of independent media development. In  addition, although USAID officials indicated that individual missions  currently track spending for various program components—including  media development—independent media projects can often be defined  differently or be intermixed within broader civil society projects; thus,  missions may record media funding levels inconsistently. Given this  determination, we instead obtained USAID fiscal year 2004 obligations  from NGOs that USAID identified as the main implementers of independent  media development projects. In particular, we gathered documentation  separately from the International Center for Journalists, Internews, The  Eurasia Foundation, the Asia Foundation, and IREX. USAID officials told  us that the true figure for USAID fiscal year 2004 obligations is likely  significantly higher than our estimate because (1) we were not able to  obtain documentation from all NGOs that received independent media  development grants from USAID headquarters; (2) we were not able to  obtain data on fiscal year 2004 obligations awarded directly by USAID  missions to local NGOS; and (3) we may not have captured all budget  accounts that funded obligations for fiscal year 2004.
section_title: State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy
paragraphs: We gathered State Department fiscal year obligation data by obtaining  documentation from the following bureaus or offices: Democracy Human  Rights and Labor (DRL), the Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to  Europe and Eurasia (EUR/ACE), Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA),  International Information Programs (IIP), Middle East Partnership  Initiative (MEPI), and State’s regional bureaus. We requested the bureaus  and offices include 2004 budget obligations that met our definition of media  assistance programs and exclude programs funded by the State  Department via interagency transfers to USAID or BBG. To assess the  reliability of the obligation data, we (1) posed a standard set of questions to  State officials, and (2) reviewed the list provided for consistency with our  definition of media assistance programs. According to State officials, some  variation existed in the techniques used to compile the programs and  budget obligations. For example, some bureaus or agencies relied on  electronic databases to gather information, while others did not have these  systems. We found the list of programs to be consistent with the media  assistance program definition in our request. We determined that the data  provided by State were sufficiently reliable to provide an estimate of 2004  budget obligations for media assistance programs.  We were not able to  specifically determine NED’s fiscal year 2004 obligations from State for  independent media development projects because NED receives several  broad grants each year for its work to support democratic initiatives.  However, we were able to obtain information from NED on the amount in  subgrants for media development activities it awarded during fiscal year  2004.
section_title: Broadcasting Board of Governors
paragraphs: We determined fiscal year 2004 obligations data provided by the BBG to be  sufficiently reliable following an interview with BBG officials to assess data  reliability. The key factors in making the determination were that BBG (1)  used one budget account for the program area, and (2) routinely performed  checks on the reliability of the database used.
section_title: Review of Media Development Indexes
paragraphs: To address our objective of examining agency performance measurement  for independent media development efforts, we also (1) reviewed available  agency, country, and program-level performance documentation for the  case study countries; and (2) assessed the principle media development  indexes—Freedom House’s Press Freedom survey and the IREX Media  Sustainability Index (MSI). Our analysis of the Press Freedom survey and  the IREX MSI included interviews with officials at the organizations  responsible for the indexes and interviews with State and USAID officials  to determine the strengths and limitations of the data.
section_title: Challenges to Media Development
paragraphs: To address the challenges that the United States faces in implementing  media development activities and achieving results, we interviewed or  requested information from State and USAID officials in Bosnia- Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Georgia, Haiti, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Mali,  and Ukraine. State and officials at all nine missions were asked to list the  challenges their mission has dealt with while implementing media  development programs and provide specific examples of how each  challenge impeded the effectiveness of their program. The officials were  also asked to explain the steps their mission took to mitigate these  challenges. Although the challenges provided could not be generalized  worldwide, we believe that the steps taken to mitigate the challenges, or  lessons learned, should be shared globally. Lastly, we reviewed several  media development studies published between 2000 and 2005 by State,  USAID, the Knight Foundation, University of Oxford, Freedom House,  IREX, Foreign Affairs, Netherlands Institute of International Relations,  UNESCO, the United Kingdom’s Department for International  Development, World Bank Institute Development Studies, and Routledge  Group. We did not review these studies for sufficiency of methodology.
section_title: Select International Organizations or Donors That Implement Media Development Programs
paragraphs: Provides major source of funding for media development at the European level as part of its  larger program of human rights and democratization. Includes both macroprojects,  implemented in partnership with international organizations (like the Office of Security and  Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE) that work with local entities, and microprojects that  directly fund local organizations.
Organization for Security and Cooperation  in Europe (OSCE)
Supports freedom of the press and freedom of information by providing training for  journalists and technicians, setting up radio stations, and monitoring freedom of information  in the media. OSCE also assists and advises governmental authorities as well as print and  electronic media in their endeavour to reform the media sector.
Concentrates on projects addressing issues of democratic media legislation, monitoring  violations of media freedom, protecting journalists, establishing self-regulation systems and  strong independent professional organizations, and raising the professionalism of  journalists and media managers.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and  Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
Provides training to journalists and technical media staff to strengthen independent media,  establishes independent printing plants and print distribution networks, and develops public  service broadcasting— including the establishment of a regulatory framework and support  for TV productions and co-productions.
Promotes global access to information by strengthening the legal and regulatory  environment for freedom and pluralism information, supporting capacity strengthening,  networking, and elevation of standards of media at national and local levels; raising  awareness on rights to official access to information; and developing communication  mechanisms for vulnerable groups.
Supports civil society with direct funding support—often provided in partnership with other  international aid donors—to back programs such as information technology access and  human rights.
section_title: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Diana Glod, Melissa Pickworth, Julia A. Roberts, and Joe Carney made key  contributions to this report. Martin de Alteriis, Ernie Jackson, Amanda K.  Miller, and Valerie J. Caracelli provided technical assistance.