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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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.