While Congress originally envisioned Open World as a vehicle to bring Russia’s emerging political leaders to the United States, Open World has recently been authorized to expand the scope of its program. As shown in fig. 1, Open World has launched pilot programs in Lithuania, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, with the first groups of about 50 participants from each country visiting the United States between December 2003 and February 2004. While Congress also made 11 other countries in the Newly Independent States and Baltic states eligible for funding, as of February 2004, there were no plans to extend the program to these countries. Open World is governed by a Board of Trustees and works with numerous partners to carry out the program. U.S. embassies play a key role by nominating individuals for the program, vetting applicants for final selection, and processing visas for participants. In addition, Open World has contracts with several organizations, such as the American Councils for International Education, which provides logistical support, and Project Harmony, which coordinates alumni activities, along with a network of 26 Open World alumni coordinators throughout Russia. Grants are awarded to U.S. national host organizations that, in conjunction with local partners, develop programs for participants and arrange home stays. (See app. II for a list of national host organizations in 2003.) The following chart illustrates Open World’s program operations and activities, as well as the entities involved in carrying out the program. Congress appropriates an annual amount for Open World, which has ranged from $8 million in fiscal year 2002 to $13.5 million in fiscal year 2004. In addition, Open World is authorized to seek and accept private donations and reports that it has received current gifts and pledges of about $2 million. Figure 3 shows the program’s total expenditures (unaudited) for fiscal years 1999-2003 and expenditures by major category during the same period. Based on data for the program’s expenditures and the number of participants for 2003 provided by Open World, we estimated the average cost per participant, including facilitators, to be about $6,200. When the program was established as an independent entity in December 2000, Congress provided the program with additional authority and support, including the authority to receive donations and appoint an executive director and to establish a trust fund in the Department of the Treasury to be credited with appropriations and donations approved by the program. In addition, Congress authorized the Library of Congress to provide the program with support services, including the ability to disburse appropriated funds; pay the program’s personnel; and provide administrative, legal, financial management, and other services. The Library was also authorized to collect the full costs of the services from the program’s trust fund. To formalize this arrangement, the Library and Open World entered into an interagency agreement. In addition to providing for support services, the agreement enables Open World to use Library personnel to conduct the program and the Library to recover the related salary and benefit costs of such personnel. According to Open World officials, the Library currently has 14 established positions assigned to assist the center in conducting its program. As provided for in the interagency agreement, the Library of Congress provides financial management services to the Open World Leadership Center. Open World officials review and approve financial management documents before submitting them to the Library of Congress for processing. Much of Open World’s in-house financial management activities are performed by a financial management consultant who makes recommendations to both the Executive Director and the Program Administrator regarding approval of program disbursements. In an effort to reach emerging leaders in various sectors, the program for Russia focuses on three types of exchanges—parliamentary, civic, and cultural. Parliamentary visits match members of Russia’s two houses of parliament—the Duma (the lower house) and the Federation Council (the upper house)—with host U.S. senators, representatives, and governors. The civic program in 2003 featured eight themes: economic development, education reform, environment, federalism, health, rule of law, women as leaders, and youth issues (see fig. 4). It targets, among others, government officials and civic leaders at all levels, with an emphasis on regional and local levels, and other community leaders. The new cultural program for Russia is designed specifically for cultural leaders, including museum professionals, visual and performing artists and administrators, and librarians. The typical exchange program runs for 10 days, including a 2-day orientation program upon arrival in the United States. Delegations usually consist of five people—four delegates and one paid facilitator who acts as a “bridge” between the Russian delegates and their American hosts. Most participants stay in private homes of American host volunteers for some or most of their local visit—a special feature of the program. In addition, unlike some other U.S. exchange programs, English is not a requirement for the Open World program. As a result, Open World has been able to send participants from each region of Russia to the United States—most for the first time. As of December 2003, Open World reported bringing 6,800 Russian delegates from seven geographic regions to visit over 1,200 communities in all U.S. states. The percentage of delegates from each region is roughly comparable to the proportion of the Russian population that each region represents. Figure 5 illustrates the representation of delegates, in terms of the number and percentage, from each region in Russia and the number of delegates that traveled to each state within the United States between 1999 and 2003. Fifty-eight percent of the delegates in 2003 were women. The average age of Open World delegates in 2003 was 39 years. As shown in figure 6, 77 percent of the delegates in 2003 were 45 years of age or younger. Delegates come from a wide variety of academic and professional backgrounds. Ninety-four percent of 2003 delegates reported having completed higher education, 12 percent had the equivalent of a master’s degree, and 1 percent had the equivalent of a doctorate. Their degrees span a wide spectrum, ranging from the fields of law and medicine to agriculture and journalism. Fifty-eight percent of the delegates reported that they had authored publications. Professions varied from Duma members and judges to leaders of nongovernmental organizations. Twenty percent of the delegates reported they were elected officials. Open World records as of February 2004 showed that 140 members of the Duma and 20 members of the Federation Council—representing about 31 percent and 11 percent of the current Duma and Federation Council, respectively—have traveled to the United States through Open World. Also, 577 Russian judges have participated in the program. In addition, Open World officials noted that Russia’s diverse ethnic groups were substantially represented among program participants. Based on our analysis of responses to participant surveys conducted by Open World, as well as our interviews with Open World alumni in Russia, delegates generally hold highly favorable views of their experience in the program. Almost all of the delegates reported that the program was useful and had partially or completely met their expectations. They also reported a greater willingness to cooperate with Americans as a result of the exchange. While overall comments were positive, some delegates cited not having enough time to establish business contacts. Our analysis of Open World questionnaires that surveyed delegates for their experiences in and immediate reactions to the program, and our own interviews of past delegates, showed that Open World program alumni hold highly favorable views of their exchange experience. Almost all of them reported the program was either probably or definitely useful to them. Many alumni with whom we met offered concrete examples of actions they had taken to implement what they learned from their U.S. visits in the context of the Russian environment. For example, several members of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs in Moscow used information they gained from their visits with State Department officials and nongovernmental organizations to draft legislation prohibiting the trafficking of women. The Chairman of the Judicial Council in Moscow and several judges at the Supreme Court in Petrozavodsk told us that they established court management structures modeled after U.S. courts and developed a judicial code of ethics in consultation with American judges. Librarians in Petrozavodsk told us that, after returning from the United States, they helped to establish a library association in the Republic of Karelia that is similar to the Russian Library Association, a counterpart to the American Library Association. Another alumnus joined the Rotary Club in Moscow after his Open World experience and was recently elected the president of his chapter. One woman said that upon learning about fund- raising efforts and philanthropy of private organizations in the United States, she began soliciting donations for her nongovernmental organization from private businesses in Russia. In addition, almost all alumni said that since the exchange, they had contacted other Open World alumni in other regions within Russia. Many of them had been invited to and had attended alumni conferences or other alumni events such as computer training seminars and professional development workshops. In addition, over half the alumni we interviewed had used the Internet to view Open World’s Web site or keep in touch with contacts made during their exchange experience. The American Corners facilities that we visited in Petrozavodsk and Samara, whose directors had participated in Open World, have become a hub for alumni who use the facilities’ computers for Internet access and other services. The majority of the alumni we interviewed said that their views of the United States changed in some way after the exchange. For example, one alumnus said she was unable to accurately visualize the United States before participating in the program and had developed the impression from Cold War propaganda that Americans had few opportunities and little hope for the future. Some alumni expected Americans to be hostile and were surprised by their friendliness. Open World surveys showed that, for the most part, delegates reported that the program improved their understanding of American institutions to some degree.