U.S. Public Diplomacy
Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use and Coordination of Research Gao ID: GAO-07-904 July 18, 2007U.S. strategic communication efforts are supported by media and audience research efforts conducted by the State Department (State), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), Department of Defense (DOD), and Open Source Center (OSC). GAO examined (1) how research is used to support U.S. strategic communication objectives; and (2) how agencies identify end-user needs, assess end-user satisfaction, and share available research. GAO examined program documents and met with key officials.
Agencies rely on an array of media monitoring products to support daily communication activities. DOD and USAID use program-specific research to design, implement, and evaluate the impact of thematic communication efforts created to influence the attitudes and behaviors of target audiences. In contrast, we found that State has generally not adopted a research-focused approach to implement its thematic communication efforts. For example, in a recent major thematic communication effort, 18 posts participating in an ongoing pilot initiative developed country-level communication plans focusing on the broad theme of countering extremism. Although broad attitudinal polling is available to inform these efforts, these plans were not supported by the types of program-specific research inherent in the "campaign-style" approach utilized by both DOD and USAID, which stipulates that communication efforts should follow a logical and predictable series of steps. The pilot country plans GAO reviewed did not include program-specific research such as attitudinal polling of specific target groups, focus group data on which messages would most resonate with target audiences, or detailed media environment analyses that could provide the basis for developing in-depth information dissemination strategies. State commitment to the development of a defined approach to thematic communications, centered on program-specific research, has been absent. However, there is evidence to suggest that State's approach is changing. A June 2007 interagency communication strategy developed under the guidance of State's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs describes a communication process model similar to the campaign-style approach, with the major exception that it does not describe how and to what extent research should be used to support each step in the communication process. U.S. government agencies conducting research on foreign audiences currently do not have systematic processes in place to assess end-user needs or satisfaction pertaining to research products, or to coordinate or share research. In the absence of systematic processes to understand the needs or level of satisfaction of policymakers, managers, and program staff, agencies generally rely on ad hoc feedback mechanisms, such as conversations with individual users and irregular e-mail submissions. Agencies utilize certain mechanisms to coordinate and share research information, for example, the Open Source Center aggregates media monitoring data from more than 30 organizations on its Web site. However, efforts to coordinate and share audience research data are hampered by the lack of interagency protocols for sharing information, a dedicated forum to periodically bring key research staff together to discuss common concerns across all topics of interest, and a clearinghouse for collected research. DOD is currently reviewing the organization and effectiveness of its media monitoring efforts and agency officials indicated that an improved approach to both internal and external coordination will be developed once a department-wide inventory of media monitoring activities is completed.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-904, U.S. Public Diplomacy: Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use and Coordination of Research
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-904
entitled 'U.S. Public Diplomacy: Actions Needed to Improve Strategic
Use and Coordination of Research' which was released on July 18, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2007:
U.S. Public Diplomacy:
Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use and Coordination of Research:
GAO-07-904:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-904, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
U.S. strategic communication efforts are supported by media and
audience research efforts conducted by the State Department (State),
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Broadcasting Board
of Governors (BBG), Department of Defense (DOD), and Open Source Center
(OSC). GAO examined (1) how research is used to support U.S. strategic
communication objectives; and (2) how agencies identify end-user needs,
assess end-user satisfaction, and share available research. GAO
examined program documents and met with key officials.
What GAO Found:
Agencies rely on an array of media monitoring products to support daily
communication activities. DOD and USAID use program-specific research
to design, implement, and evaluate the impact of thematic communication
efforts created to influence the attitudes and behaviors of target
audiences. In contrast, we found that State has generally not adopted a
research-focused approach to implement its thematic communication
efforts. For example, in a recent major thematic communication effort,
18 posts participating in an ongoing pilot initiative developed country-
level communication plans focusing on the broad theme of countering
extremism. Although broad attitudinal polling is available to inform
these efforts, these plans were not supported by the types of program-
specific research inherent in the ’campaign-style“ approach utilized by
both DOD and USAID, which stipulates that communication efforts should
follow a logical and predictable series of steps. The pilot country
plans GAO reviewed did not include program-specific research such as
attitudinal polling of specific target groups, focus group data on
which messages would most resonate with target audiences, or detailed
media environment analyses that could provide the basis for developing
in-depth information dissemination strategies. State commitment to the
development of a defined approach to thematic communications, centered
on program-specific research, has been absent. However, there is
evidence to suggest that State‘s approach is changing. A June 2007
interagency communication strategy developed under the guidance of
State‘s Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
describes a communication process model similar to the campaign-style
approach, with the major exception that it does not describe how and to
what extent research should be used to support each step in the
communication process.
U.S. government agencies conducting research on foreign audiences
currently do not have systematic processes in place to assess end-user
needs or satisfaction pertaining to research products, or to coordinate
or share research. In the absence of systematic processes to understand
the needs or level of satisfaction of policymakers, managers, and
program staff, agencies generally rely on ad hoc feedback mechanisms,
such as conversations with individual users and irregular e-mail
submissions. Agencies utilize certain mechanisms to coordinate and
share research information, for example, the Open Source Center
aggregates media monitoring data from more than 30 organizations on its
Web site. However, efforts to coordinate and share audience research
data are hampered by the lack of interagency protocols for sharing
information, a dedicated forum to periodically bring key research staff
together to discuss common concerns across all topics of interest, and
a clearinghouse for collected research. DOD is currently reviewing the
organization and effectiveness of its media monitoring efforts and
agency officials indicated that an improved approach to both internal
and external coordination will be developed once a department-wide
inventory of media monitoring activities is completed.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that (1) the Secretary of State formally adopt a
research-focused, ’campaign-style“ approach to thematic communications;
(2) State, BBG, DOD, and OSC systematically assess user needs and
satisfaction; (3) the Secretary of State, in conjunction with other
members of the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy
Coordinating Committee, establish protocols for sharing audience
research information as well as create a research staff forum and
clearinghouse of U.S. government-sponsored research; and (4) the
Secretary of Defense ensure that planned steps to improve the
coordination of media monitoring activities are implemented. Agencies
agreed with these recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-904].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess T. Ford, (202) 512-
4128 or fordj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
State Department Faces Challenges in Using Research Strategically:
Agencies Lack Systematic Methods to Assess User Satisfaction with
Research Efforts, and Interagency Coordination Strategies Are Limited:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Audience Research, Media Environment Analysis, and Media
Monitoring Activities by Agency:
Appendix III: Audience Research and Media Monitoring Resources for
Select Activity Centers:
Appendix IV: Elements of New British Approach to Government Strategic
Communications Could Help Inform U.S.
Appendix V: Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Audience Research:
Table 2: Media Environment Analysis:
Table 3: Media Monitoring:
Table 4: Audience Research Expenditures:
Table 5: Audience Research Staffing:
Table 6: Media Monitoring Expenditures:
Table 7: Media Monitoring Staffing:
Figures:
Figure 1: Key Elements of the Campaign-style Approach:
Figure 2: Opensource.gov Provides a Mechanism for Sharing of Research
Information:
Figure 3: State's Infocentral.gov Facilitates Sharing of Some Research
Information:
Abbreviations:
BBG: Broadcasting Board of Governors:
CENTCOM: Central Command:
DOD: Department of Defense:
ECA: Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau:
EUCOM: European Command:
FCO: Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
GIIT: Global Information and Influence Team:
IIP: International Information Programs Bureau:
INR: Intelligence and Research Bureau:
ISP: International Strategic Priorities:
OSC: Open Source Center:
PAO: Public Affairs Officer:
PDEO: Public Diplomacy Evaluation Office:
PSYOP: psychological operations:
QDR: Quadrennial Defense Review:
R&A: research and analysis:
SARA: Strategic Audience Research Archive:
SCL: Strategic Communications Laboratory:
SSD: Strategic Studies Detachment:
State: State Department:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
WHA: Western Hemisphere Affairs Bureau:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 18, 2007:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Lugar:
The attitudes of foreign citizens toward the United States have
worsened in recent years, with negative implications for America's
national security and economic interests. Communication efforts
designed to reverse this trend depend, in part, on the availability of
in-depth research on the foreign audiences the United States is seeking
to inform, engage, and influence. Led by the Department of State
(State), U.S. communication efforts encompass a range of disciplines,
including public diplomacy, public affairs, psychological operations,
and U.S. international broadcasting. While these communication
disciplines vary in terms of their target audiences, objectives, and
tactics, they share a common need for both broad and targeted research
to develop and implement communication strategies, programs, and
campaigns and to assess the impact of such government outreach efforts.
Government-sponsored research provides critical data to policymakers
and government communicators on a range of topics, including what
foreign media are saying about the United States, foreign audience
attitudes toward the United States, root causes for negative views
about the United States, how foreign citizens access and use
information, and what messages will most likely resonate with target
audiences and lead to desired attitude and behavior changes.
We reviewed current research activities of State and other key agencies
seeking to communicate with foreign audiences. Specifically, we
examined (1) how U.S. government agencies use research to support their
strategic communication objectives; and (2) how agencies identify end-
user needs, assess end-user satisfaction, and coordinate the sharing of
available research. We also provide information in appendix IV on a new
strategic communication model adopted by the British government that
could help broadly inform U.S. operations and related research
activities.
To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed agency documentation
pertaining to the scope and quality of conducted research. We conducted
interviews at State, the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), and the Department
of Defense (DOD) and met with senior managers, research directors, and
relevant program and budget staff. In addition, we met with officials
from the Open Source Center (OSC), which provides media translation and
analysis services to the interagency community, and officials from the
Central Intelligence Agency's Global Information and Influence Team
(GIIT), which seeks to promote interagency dialogue on research issues
of interest to government communicators.
We examined a number of agency-specific communication efforts in
Washington, D.C., to see how research is used to help develop
communication strategies and programs and evaluate results. We also
obtained information from State public affairs officers in Germany,
Jordan, India, Indonesia, Niger, Peru, the Philippines, and Yemen to
obtain a perspective on how research supports communication efforts in
the field. Finally, we convened a group of senior agency managers,
research directors, and representatives from academia and the private
sector to broadly discuss key challenges facing government
communicators and potential solutions to these challenges.
We conducted fieldwork at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and MacDill Air
Force Base in Tampa, Florida, where we met with psychological
operations (PSYOP) research support staff, as well as in London, where
we met with a range of government and private-sector officials to
discuss British government communication strategies and related
research efforts. We conducted our work from May 2006 through May 2007
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Agencies use a variety of media monitoring and audience research to
support daily as well as mid-to long-term communication activities. To
support daily communication activities designed to explain U.S. actions
and decisions to foreign audiences, U.S. agencies rely on an array of
media monitoring products which capture what is being reported about
the United States overseas. These daily activities include developing
speaking points, tracking and countering misinformation, and gauging
the success of outreach efforts. We found no evidence to suggest that
agencies suffered from a shortage of media monitoring data. Agencies
use research to support thematic outreach initiatives, which use a
central theme or message to influence the attitudes or behaviors of
target audiences. While DOD and USAID use extensive program-specific
research to design, implement, and evaluate the impact of their
thematic communication efforts, State generally does not. For example,
18 posts participating in a State-led pilot country initiative recently
developed country-level strategic plans focusing on the broad goal of
countering extremism. We reviewed most of these plans and found that
they were not supported by the type of program-specific research
inherent in the "campaign-style" approach to thematic communication
utilized by both DOD and USAID, which stipulates that communication
efforts should follow a logical and predictable series of steps. In
June 2007, the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy
Coordinating Committee[Footnote 1] released a U.S. National Strategy
for Public Diplomacy and Communication to guide and inform U.S.
communication efforts led by State. The strategy describes a
communication process model that is similar to the campaign-style
approach in terms of outlining key steps in the communication process.
Formal recognition of this model is a positive development and opens
the possibility that State communication staff will begin to adopt a
more rigorous approach toward their thematic communication efforts.
However, the model remains a suggested tool and does not describe how
and to what extent research should be used to support each step in the
communication process.
Agencies conducting research do not have systematic processes in place
to assess whether they are meeting their users' needs,[Footnote 2] and
efforts to coordinate and share collected information are limited.
Agencies generally assess user satisfaction through ad hoc methods and
based on anecdotal information, such as conversations with individual
users and irregular feedback submitted via e-mail. As a result, these
agencies have no assurance that their work meets the needs of most of
their users. Agencies rely on several mechanisms to exchange
information gathered through their research activities. For example,
the OSC shares media monitoring products from multiple agencies on its
Web site and provides liaisons to other agencies to promote the sharing
and exchange of information and monitoring techniques. In addition,
State aggregates its audience polling data on a central Web site
available to the interagency community. Despite these mechanisms,
agency officials expressed general concern about the limited sharing of
information and coordination across agencies. Government efforts to
share and coordinate research data are hampered by the lack of
interagency protocols for sharing information, a forum to periodically
bring key research staff together to discuss common concerns across all
topics of interest, and a clearinghouse for collected information. DOD
officials and a new DOD strategic communication plan specifically
highlighted the need for evaluating and improving DOD's coordination of
media monitoring activities, both within the department and with other
U.S. agencies. Major improvements are planned in both these areas.
To help ensure that State's outreach initiatives are informed by
targeted research, we recommend that the Secretary of State adopt a
research-based "campaign-style" approach to implement thematic
communication and provide guidance on using "actionable" research to
inform these efforts. To improve the extent to which the government's
research efforts meet users' needs, we recommend that State, BBG, DOD,
and the OSC implement systematic strategies to assess user needs and
satisfaction. To facilitate the coordination and sharing of collected
information within the U.S. government, we recommend that the Secretary
of State, with other members of the Strategic Communication and Public
Diplomacy Policy Coordinating Committee, develop protocols for sharing
audience research information, establish a research staff forum, and
create a clearinghouse of U.S. government-sponsored research. We also
recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that planned
improvements to DOD's internal and external media monitoring
coordination efforts are implemented.
In commenting on a draft of this report, State, DOD, and the BBG
generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. State noted
certain practical concerns associated with wholesale adoption of the
campaign-style approach to thematic communication. The BBG endorsed the
need to establish a clearinghouse of U.S. government-sponsored research
but added that the Board reserves the right to withhold selected
research information meant for internal use only. USAID had no
comments. Agency comments are reprinted in appendixes V through VII.
Background:
Prior reports by GAO[Footnote 3] and the Defense Science Board[Footnote
4] have noted the importance of actionable research to guide and inform
U.S. government strategic communication efforts directed at foreign
audiences. Actionable research is research that supports specific
information campaigns and provides the basis for selecting a defined
target audience, developing customized messages, designing tailored
information dissemination strategies, and assessing whether agency
communication objectives have been achieved.[Footnote 5] In contrast,
more generic research efforts, such as broad national attitude polls,
can provide a useful context for U.S. communication activities,
although such research does not provide a meaningful basis for
developing and implementing targeted information campaigns designed to
achieve specific communication objectives.
Government Focuses on Three Types of Research:
Actionable and generic research is generated through (1) audience
polls, studies, and focus groups; (2) media environment analyses to
understand media outlets, industry leaders, and preferences in a given
country; and (3) daily monitoring of media outlets around the world to
determine what is being said about the United States. Detailed program
descriptions and resource commitment data for each of these categories
is provided in appendixes II and III.
Audience Polls and Studies:
State and BBG are the primary producers of audience research among U.S.
government agencies, but other agencies also conduct their own audience
research activities. State conducts and contracts for broad public
opinion polling and focus groups in over 50 countries each year through
its Office of Research,[Footnote 6] which has an annual research budget
of approximately $3 million.[Footnote 7] BBG, with a research budget of
about $10 million per year, has a contract with a private sector
company to conduct audience surveys, focus groups, in-depth interviews,
and listener and monitor panels to support its broadcasting activities
throughout the world.[Footnote 8] Additionally, while USAID does not
have a central research office that conducts audience research, staff
at some missions contract for polling and focus groups to support
specific, targeted public awareness campaigns. Finally, DOD's 4th
Psychological Operations Group Strategic Studies Detachment at Fort
Bragg, North Carolina, and the Joint Psychological Operations Support
Element at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, conduct target
audience analyses to inform DOD's psychological operations (PSYOP)
efforts; moreover, some of the combatant commands have recently
initiated their own polling and focus group efforts.
Media Environment Analyses:
State, BBG, and OSC all conduct media environment analyses. All three
agencies have conducted specific studies of media environments around
the world, both at the country and regional levels. For example, State
recently commissioned studies of the media in seven European countries
that examined the overall media environments, assessed television and
radio usage, profiled key television channels and radio stations, and
identified influential programs. Additionally, BBG and State both
maintain electronic archives of country-level media environment
information.
Media Monitoring Activities:
Several U.S. agencies monitor foreign media outlets, including print
and broadcast media and the Internet. OSC conducts the bulk of U.S.
government media monitoring activities, although DOD, State, USAID, and
BBG all conduct media monitoring as well. OSC analysts both in the
United States and in overseas bureaus provide a variety of media
monitoring products, including translations, as well as summaries and
analysis of media coverage. Additionally, multiple entities within DOD,
including the combatant commands, conduct and contract for media
monitoring. For instance, in 2006, DOD's Strategic Command awarded a
contract for media monitoring focused on the Global War on Terror,
which is worth up to $67.8 million over multiple years. Within State,
two offices conduct media monitoring in Washington, D.C., the Media
Reaction Division of State's Office of Research, which focuses on
editorial commentaries in print media; and the Rapid Response Unit,
which monitors foreign media to inform U.S. responses to significant
stories and issues overseas. Some State and USAID field staff also
conduct media monitoring, often focused on topics of particular
importance in their specific embassies or countries. Finally, one of
BBG's grantees conducts some media monitoring in the countries in which
it broadcasts.
Three Categories of Strategic Communication Efforts:
Agency research efforts support three categories of communication as
defined by Joseph Nye--one of America's leading academics on strategic
communication efforts used to advance U.S. business and national
security interests. Nye divides U.S. strategic communication efforts
into daily communications, outreach initiatives related to specific
themes, and long-term relationship building efforts in support of
broader U.S. strategic communication objectives.[Footnote 9] Daily
communications involve explaining U.S. foreign and domestic policy
decisions to the media, as well as preparing for public response to
crises and countering misinformation. Thematic outreach initiatives
focus on communicating simple themes, such as the shared values of the
United States and the Muslim world. According to Nye, these themes can
be developed using a campaign-style approach, with linked events and
various communications planned over a period of time. The third
category, building long-term relationships with key individuals over
many years, generally consists of programs such as exchanges,
scholarships, training, and conferences. These programs typically do
not include a detailed audience research component beyond pre-and post-
survey evaluations to gauge whether the attitudes and opinions of
participants changed as a result of participation in the program.
Examples of such programs include State's Fulbright Academic Exchange
Program and International Visitor Leadership Program.
Actionable Research Is Required for Campaign-Style Approach:
In our 2003 report,[Footnote 10] after consulting with representatives
of some of America's largest public relations firms, we described the
elements of a typical public relations strategy, which we refer to as
the "campaign-style" approach (see fig. 1). The campaign-style approach
has been identified by the private sector and government agencies as a
leading practice for carrying out thematic communication initiatives.
One overarching tenet of this approach is that each step in the
communications process must be supported by actionable research. Using
this approach, program planners define their program objectives and
develop initial core messages based on these objectives. Next, they
identify target audiences, refine the messages, and develop detailed
strategies and tactics to reach these audiences. They then develop and
implement a detailed communication plan that incorporates the program's
objectives, messages, and target audiences. The final step is to
monitor progress and adjust strategies and tactics accordingly. As
shown in Figure 1, each step in the process is supported by actionable
research.
Figure 1: Key Elements of the Campaign-style Approach:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Within this approach, agency research needs vary, depending on whether
their communication efforts are designed to broadly inform target
audiences or specifically influence attitudes and behaviors, the latter
of which requires more in-depth, actionable research. USAID and BBG
communication efforts are primarily intended to inform foreign
audiences. USAID's communication mission, based on the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, is to inform host country audiences about U.S.
development assistance, and BBG aims to promote and sustain freedom and
democracy by broadcasting accurate and objective news and information
about the United States and the world to audiences overseas. To
influence attitudes toward the United States, State pursues three
strategic communication objectives that include (1) offering foreign
publics a vision of hope and opportunity rooted in the most basic
values of the United States, (2) isolating and marginalizing
extremists, and (3) promoting understanding regarding shared values and
common interests between Americans and peoples of different countries,
cultures, and faiths.[Footnote 11] DOD aims to advance national
interests and objectives by not only informing key audiences and
influencing their attitudes but also by changing behavior, such as
encouraging civilians to report terrorist activities.
State Department Faces Challenges in Using Research Strategically:
For daily communications, agencies rely on an extensive array of
government-sponsored media monitoring research to develop a broad
understanding of key issues, prepare briefing points, track and counter
misinformation, and gauge outreach. For their thematic outreach
initiatives, DOD and USAID use actionable research to support a
campaign-style approach to communications--which we have broadly
endorsed based on input from public relations experts. In contrast, we
found State does not generally use such research in its thematic
outreach initiatives, and it has not adopted a campaign-style
communication approach that would require the use of such research. In
addition, State officials have noted the lack of actionable, in-depth
research available to them, and public diplomacy staff receive little
training on how to identify and use such research. A June 2007
interagency communication strategy developed under the guidance of
State's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs opens
the possibility that State communication staff may begin to adopt a
more systematic approach toward their thematic communication efforts.
The new strategy describes a communication process model similar to the
campaign-style approach, with the major exception that it does not
describe how and to what extent research should be used to support each
step in the communication process.
Agencies Use Media Monitoring Products to Support Daily Communications:
U.S. government officials have access to a large selection of research
from media monitoring products produced by three major suppliers--DOD,
OSC, and State. While end-user satisfaction with the scope and quality
of available media monitoring data remains uncertain, we found no
immediate evidence to suggest that agencies lacked such data.[Footnote
12] Some examples of these products include weekly media summaries by
DOD's Strategic Command, OSC media aids, and a daily media report
developed by State.
Officials use this information to (1) develop a broad understanding of
issues, (2) brief agency management and spokespersons, (3) track and
counter misinformation, and (4) gauge the success of their news
placement activities. According to State officials, field staff use the
daily media report and other Washington, D.C.-based products to quickly
inform themselves about events in other parts of the world, provide
guidance to higher-level officials about media coverage of key events
in the region, and develop background information and potential
speaking points. DOD staff receive various media monitoring products,
including media summaries and analyses from combatant commands, to
augment their knowledge of events in their region and help develop
communication strategies and speaking points. USAID missions and BBG
monitor foreign media on an ad hoc basis to supplement the activities
of DOD, OSC, and State.
DOD and USAID Use Actionable Research to Guide Thematic Communication
Efforts:
Agencies use research to support thematic outreach initiatives, which
are designed to communicate a central theme or message with the goal of
influencing the attitudes or behaviors of target audiences. DOD has
developed a formal process for its tactical psychological operations
(PSYOP) that generally follows the campaign-style approach, including
the need to support each step in the process with actionable research
data. These steps include developing clear objectives, testing
messages, identifying targeted and complex dissemination strategies,
and measuring effectiveness. In addition, because of the high turnover
of soldiers, the need to train soldiers quickly, and the number of
recruits who lack higher education, DOD has developed a rigorous
training process for PSYOP soldiers, including extensive documentation.
In one example of DOD's use of the campaign-style approach cited in a
DOD training manual, PSYOP planners addressed parents of young children
in a specific country to convince them to increase their reporting of
insurgent activities. PSYOP planners used audience research to more
clearly understand this target audience's vulnerabilities and fears.
Based on their findings, they developed messages to appeal to the
target audience, such as statements about how reporting insurgent
activity increases security and how it is the most direct way parents
can protect their children. They also assessed the best ways to reach
the target audience, including broadcast media, handbills, and face-to-
face communication. Finally, they conducted pre-and post-campaign
testing of a random sample of 100 parents to measure the effectiveness
of their efforts. This testing found that DOD's communication efforts
directly contributed to increased reporting of insurgent activities.
USAID also relies on actionable research in conjunction with its use of
a campaign-style approach to support its public awareness campaigns.
USAID requires its communications specialists, known as Development
Outreach and Communication Officers, to develop written communication
strategies for USAID missions that include goals, objectives, messages,
action plans and budgets, as well as methods to measure the impact of
communication efforts. These field-based specialists develop and
implement information campaigns to inform audiences about USAID's work,
and USAID staff commission audience research to support these efforts.
Development Outreach and Communication Officers attend in-depth
training that emphasizes best practices in using audience research to
support outreach campaigns. According to USAID, the last training
session focused on public opinion polling and communication measurement
and evaluation. USAID also provides its communication officers with a
practical, field-oriented "survival manual" encouraging staff to
monitor local media and analyze local polls. The manual was recently
revised to include guidance on using communication research
instruments, particularly polling, as well as criteria for assessing
the quality of research instruments and a standard set of research
questions.
One example of USAID's use of research for its campaign-style approach
occurred in Jordan, where the mission's communication objectives called
for increasing Jordanians' knowledge of USAID programs and improving
the image of U.S. assistance among Jordanians. The mission identified
primary, secondary, and tertiary target audiences and commissioned two
surveys and a series of focus groups to gauge awareness of USAID and
perceptions of U.S. assistance. Based on findings that the vast
majority of respondents, particularly the poor and less educated, could
not identify USAID programs, the mission decided to focus its outreach
program on these groups. The mission contracted with a public relations
firm to develop its outreach campaign, then used audience research to
measure results and refine the campaign.
State Generally Does Not Use Actionable Research or a Campaign-Style
Approach to Support Its Thematic Initiatives:
In contrast to USAID and DOD and the approach we endorsed in our 2003
report,[Footnote 13] we found that State generally does not use
actionable research to support its thematic communication efforts, and
it has not adopted a campaign-style approach that would require using
actionable research at each step in the communication process.[Footnote
14] According to State officials, overall program development continues
to be challenged by a lack of actionable, in-depth research that could
help identify and develop culturally appropriate messages and
dissemination vehicles. Field-based public affairs staff we contacted
reported that they generally did not attempt to segment their target
audiences or conduct in-depth research into these audiences because of
a lack of funding and time. For example, the State-led pilot country
initiative involving 18 posts, which is designed to counter extremism,
is not supported by actionable research data. Rather, State's public
affairs officers have generally been allowed to pursue this thematic
communication effort using any combination of public diplomacy tools
they believe to be appropriate. We also found that research conducted
in support of the department's public diplomacy mission is largely
generic in nature and is not tied to specific information campaigns at
the country level. Finally, we noted a general lack of guidance and
training provided to field staff on how to obtain and utilize
actionable research to support their thematic communication efforts.
Pilot Country Initiative Not Driven by Actionable Research:
Posts participating in the pilot country initiative have developed
country strategies that list broad objectives and potential programs in
each country to support the overall theme of countering violent
extremism. We reviewed most of these country strategies and found that
although broad attitudinal polling was available to inform these
efforts, the strategies lacked actionable research to support decisions
regarding audience targeting, message development, information
dissemination strategies, and post-campaign evaluation and follow-up.
The plans we reviewed did not include references to attitudinal polling
of specific target groups, focus group data on which messages would
most resonate with target audiences, or detailed media environment
analyses that could provide the basis for developing in-depth
information dissemination strategies. For example, State requested that
pilot country posts develop lists of key influencers in their
respective country, such as journalists, musicians, or civil society
leaders. However, while the pilot country posts have put together these
lists, they have not extensively researched their audiences to support
the implementation of specific planned programs. Similarly, according
to State officials, posts involved in the pilot country initiative have
not crafted or tested messages based on in-depth research. Finally, we
found that while State staff have identified broad goals for pilot
countries, such as fostering positive views of the United States and
increasing outreach to youth, these plans consistently lacked
measurable objectives related to target audience attitude or behavior
change, making it more difficult to use actionable research to support
or assess program objectives.
State's Audience Research Focuses on Broad Public Opinion Polling:
Most of the audience research produced by State is broad survey
information rather than specific information that could be used to
develop or improve programs aimed at narrow audiences. While Bureau of
Intelligence and Research (INR) polls are available to U.S. government
staff, public diplomacy officers we spoke with in Washington, D.C., and
overseas noted these polls are of limited use in developing an in-depth
understanding of specific groups within a population. Our analysis of
12 INR polls conducted in Indonesia, Jordan, and several other Arab
countries in 2005 and 2006 found that while the polls focused on broad
political issues such as opinions of U.S. policy and bilateral
relations, they generally did not focus on cultural, religious,
educational, or linguistic influences, which could be used at the
program level to design specific communication campaigns. The lack of
such in-depth research may, in part, be attributed to the limited
resources available to the Office of Research and the need to focus on
its annual schedule of public opinion polls, which are used by a wide
range of U.S. government agencies.
State Guidance and Training Is Limited:
State guidance stresses the importance of research but does not
formally endorse a campaign-style approach to thematic communications.
In a cable providing guidance to posts on how to develop their fiscal
year 2008 Mission Performance Plans, State highlighted the importance
of selecting well-researched target audiences. In addition, some field
staff involved in the pilot country initiative told us they have
requested support from Washington, D.C., to identify and obtain such
research. However, State has not followed up with guidance on how to
conduct or obtain such research, and it is not clear whether it will
provide such guidance for the newly configured Mission Strategic Plans
that will be produced starting in 2009. State's most recent guidance to
posts on the Mission Strategic Plan issued in 2007 did not provide any
advice on selecting target audiences. Although State addresses elements
of the campaign-style approach in the Foreign Service Institute
training it provides to new public diplomacy staff, this training does
not provide guidance about the extent to which staff should use this
approach in their thematic outreach initiatives. In addition, the
training that public diplomacy officers receive focuses almost
exclusively on INR research and does not teach officers how to identify
and assess other sources of actionable, in-depth research.[Footnote 15]
In June 2007, the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy
Coordinating Committee released a U.S. National Strategy for Public
Diplomacy and Strategic Communication that describes a communication
process model--the "ABCDE model"--that is similar to the campaign-style
approach. While the release of the strategy is a positive development,
the strategy presents the model as a suggested approach rather than
clearly endorsing it for broad use in thematic outreach initiatives. In
addition, the model does not describe how and to what extent research
should be used to support the initiatives, although we have noted in
past reports[Footnote 16] that research should inform each step of the
campaign-style approach.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors Uses Research to Help Its Broadcast
Services Develop and Evaluate Programs:
BBG uses audience research and media environment analysis to help its
broadcast services plan and evaluate their programs. According to BBG
officials, the agency's specific mandate of broadcasting accurate and
objective news and information sets it apart from other strategic
communication efforts. BBG's language services' news and feature
programs are broadcast as regular communications, some of which focus
on ongoing themes such as democracy and life in the United States. In
addition, individual broadcasters attempt to develop and maintain long-
term relationships with their broad audiences. Although BBG does not
carry out thematic outreach campaigns as part of its regular
activities, it does conduct in-depth research into its audiences and
their listening habits. Research staff at BBG's International
Broadcasting Bureau work with BBG's contractor to conduct surveys on
audience size and media usage, focus groups with topics selected by a
given language service, and evaluations of individual broadcast
programs. The data from this research are used to design programs,
analyze BBG's competition, provide the basis for performance reporting,
target specific audiences, and determine if the news on BBG programs is
considered credible. This research helps BBG staff and management
evaluate their programs and make research-based decisions about
changes. For example, when developing a pilot show, Voice of America-
Indonesia staff discussed the idea with the affiliate that was to air
the pilot and reviewed existing quantitative, qualitative, and
evaluative research. In another example, BBG used focus groups of
Jordanians and Palestinians to help them develop Radio Sawa, the U.S.
government's Arabic-language radio station. According to BBG officials,
these focus groups and other research in the Middle East revealed the
need for profound change in how the U.S. approached broadcasting in the
region and, in this case, that the station should present a mixture of
music and news.[Footnote 17]
Agencies Lack Systematic Methods to Assess User Satisfaction with
Research Efforts, and Interagency Coordination Strategies Are Limited:
Agencies generally use informal and ad hoc approaches to obtain
information about whether their research efforts meet their
users'[Footnote 18] needs and, therefore, cannot be sure that their
research products are actually useful to public diplomacy and
communications officers on a regular basis. However, some agencies have
taken steps toward a more systematic assessment of user satisfaction.
Agencies depend on a variety of strategies to exchange information
about their research activities. However, overall information sharing
remains limited, particularly regarding general audience research
activities as well as media monitoring conducted by DOD. Notably, the
government lacks interagency protocols for sharing information, a forum
to periodically bring key research staff together to discuss their
common interests and concerns, and a clearinghouse to facilitate the
sharing of audience research among agencies. DOD has recognized the
need to better organize and coordinate its media monitoring activities
and efforts are under way to catalogue the full extent of DOD's media
monitoring efforts. Also, plans exist to develop an improved approach
to coordinating this research both within and outside the department.
Agencies Generally Rely on Anecdotal Information about User
Satisfaction:
Although two agencies systematically gather input from users, agencies
generally use informal methods to assess whether users' needs are being
met. State's Office of Research and BBG's research offices[Footnote 19]
consult with some of their users as they develop their annual research
agendas. In particular, as staff in the Office of Research develop
their plan for audience research each year, they solicit input from
public diplomacy staff at the bureau level, as well as their own
analysts, to gather information about research priorities. At BBG, the
yearly research agenda is developed in consultation with individual
broadcasters and language services. However, agencies generally gather
such information through informal methods, such as irregular e-mail
messages, informal conversations, agency meetings, and customer comment
tools on their Web sites. For example, the OSC gathers user feedback
through interagency meetings, dialogue with individual agency staff,
and a feedback link on its Web site. Additionally, DOD's combatant
commands and the 4th Psychological Operations Group Strategic Studies
Detachment primarily rely on direct, one-on-one feedback provided
through conversations and e-mail.[Footnote 20] While approaches like
these may provide some useful anecdotal information, they do not offer
a comprehensive picture of user satisfaction.
Some Agencies Have Taken Steps Towards More Systematically Assessing
User Satisfaction:
During our small group exercise, agency participants told us that
determining their users' needs and developing useful research products
are among their major challenges. Additionally, all three BBG research
directors indicated that a more systematic assessment of whether user
needs are being met would be valuable. Further, both State's Rapid
Response Unit and OSC are considering establishing more systematic
strategies to assess whether their work is meeting their users' needs.
Specifically, the Rapid Response Unit has worked with evaluation staff
in the Public Diplomacy Evaluation Office (PDEO) to develop a customer
survey that would be distributed to all recipients of Rapid Response
Unit products and would assess whether recipients use the products, how
they use them, and whether they believe the products are useful. While
State previously opted to delay the distribution of the survey until
the Rapid Response Unit, which was established in September 2005,
became more established, officials from both the unit and the PDEO told
us they believe it would be appropriate to conduct the survey in the
near future. Similarly, OSC plans to hire a contractor to help it
develop a more systematic strategy for assessing user satisfaction and
expects this work to begin later this year.
OSC and State Have Taken Steps to Coordinate and Share Information, but
Officials Report Limited Access to Audience Research Data:
Both OSC and State have established mechanisms to facilitate
interagency coordination and sharing of research information. OSC has
implemented a variety of methods intended to foster interagency
collaboration and information sharing, focusing on media monitoring and
media environment analysis. First, OSC supports sharing media
monitoring information through its Web site, which currently hosts
products from over 30 organizations, including State's Rapid Response
Unit and DOD's Strategic Command.[Footnote 21] Second, OSC staff
provide assistance to agencies seeking to develop their own media
monitoring capacity by providing technological support and guidance. In
exchange for this support, agencies are asked to share their media
monitoring products with OSC, which then makes them available on its
Web site (see fig. 2). Finally, OSC staff work as liaisons with other
U.S. agencies, providing direct support for media monitoring activities
and creating additional avenues for interagency communication. For
example, one OSC staff member served on detail in State's Rapid
Response Unit, supporting the development of the unit's capacity to
monitor Arabic media and providing a link between OSC and State.
Figure 2: Opensource.gov Provides a Mechanism for Sharing of Research
Information:
[See PDF for image]
Source: http://www.opensource.gov.
[End of figure]
In addition, State's Interagency Strategic Communication Fusion Team
and Infocentral Web site[Footnote 22] provide mechanisms for
coordination and information sharing focused on strategic communication
activities, including related research. The Fusion Team brings program-
level officers together on a weekly basis to discuss ongoing and
proposed efforts, including research activities, across the federal
government. For example, the Fusion Team has hosted presentations on
OSC's efforts and DOD's PSYOP activities. Additionally, State's Bureau
of International Information Programs maintains the Infocentral Web
site (see fig. 3), which provides U.S. government staff with guidance
and information related to strategic communication efforts, including
polling results from State's Office of Research and media monitoring
products from the Rapid Response Unit.
Figure 3: State's Infocentral.gov Facilitates Sharing of Some Research
Information:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Infocentral.gov.
[End of figure]
While both the fusion team and Infocentral provide opportunities to
coordinate agency activities and share information, they are focused on
broad strategic communication efforts and not specifically on research.
Although OSC has established some initiatives to enhance coordination
of media monitoring and media environment analysis, no comparable
entity or mechanism facilitates the comprehensive coordination and
sharing of audience research information across U.S. government
agencies. Instead, individual agencies conduct their own audience
research and provide limited access to many of their products. For
instance, BBG's Strategic Audience Research Archive, a source of
information on audiences and media throughout the world, is not
currently accessible to U.S. government staff outside of BBG, although
agency officials said it would be useful for their work. Agency
officials indicated they have only limited knowledge of and access to
the audience research being conducted by other agencies and were
supportive of developing new strategies to facilitate the sharing of
audience research information. In a positive development, State's
Office of Research chairs a new interagency working group on research
and analysis, which met for the first time at the beginning of May. The
working group focuses on supporting communication efforts to counter
terrorism but may be expanded to facilitate coordination and sharing of
research among U.S. government agencies across a broader range of
public diplomacy and strategic communication efforts.
Agency coordination efforts are hampered by the lack of both
interagency protocols for sharing information and a forum to
periodically bring key research staff together to discuss common
concerns across all topics of interest. The Strategic Communication and
Public Diplomacy Policy Coordinating Committee has acknowledged the
need for a centralized source of U.S. government audience research data
for use by staff at all U.S. agencies, and BBG officials at our small
group exercise expressed a willingness to share some of the contents of
its audience research archive with staff from other agencies.
Efforts to Improve DOD Coordination of Media Monitoring Activities:
Coordination of media monitoring also is a challenge for DOD. DOD
conducts a number of media monitoring activities, and officials from
throughout DOD, including the combatant commands, as well as the Joint
Chiefs, expressed concerns that monitoring activities are not
coordinated, awareness of all of the monitoring work being conducted
within the department is limited, and duplication is likely. We
identified multiple instances in which two commands monitored the same
media at the same time, and two commands have hired the same contractor
to provide media monitoring services. This duplication may suggest that
DOD is paying for the same information twice. While some duplication of
monitoring activities can be valuable to the extent that it helps
ensure comprehensive coverage, the concerns raised by DOD officials
indicate that at least some of the existing duplication may be the
result of limited coordination rather than strategic choice.
To improve coordination of monitoring activities, DOD officials from
multiple combatant commands suggested several possible approaches,
including creating a single Web portal to share media monitoring
information, or managing media monitoring contracts at the department
level rather than in the individual commands and components, as it is
currently done. In addition, through the implementation of its 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review Strategic Communication Execution
Roadmap,[Footnote 23] DOD identified the need to reassess its media
monitoring efforts and indicated that it intends to improve
coordination as part of this process. Officials from the Office of
Defense Support to Public Diplomacy told us the department is currently
working to develop an agencywide inventory of all media monitoring
activities. Upon completion of that effort, DOD plans to develop a new
approach to guide its media monitoring activities, including working to
improve coordination of this work both within the department and with
other U.S. agencies.
Conclusions:
We found no evidence to suggest that program officials lack access to
the media monitoring information they need to perform their daily
communication activities. DOD's and USAID's thematic communication
efforts were guided by actionable research as part of a campaign-style
approach to communications that calls for such data. This heightened
the likelihood that their communication campaign objectives were
achieved. In contrast, we found that State's key pilot country
initiative was not supported by actionable research, in part because
State has not formally endorsed or adopted a campaign-style approach to
thematic communications. An interagency strategy that was released in
June 2007 describes a similar approach called the "ABCDE model," but it
does not specifically endorse this model for widespread use, and it
does not discuss the need for actionable research to support the model.
In addition, State officials have noted the lack of actionable, in-
depth research available to them, and public diplomacy staff receive
little training on how to identify and use such research. As a result,
State, which is the lead agency for strategic communication, cannot be
assured that its messages are targeted and delivered to the right
audiences to achieve maximum impact.
U.S. government research activities can provide valuable information to
support U.S. strategic communication efforts conducted by State, DOD,
USAID, and BBG. However, our analysis identified weaknesses in the
agencies' strategies for assessing user satisfaction and for
facilitating coordination within and among departments and agencies. In
the absence of systematic assessment methods, agencies cannot be sure
that their research activities and associated products actually meet
the needs of their users, and they lack valuable information that could
inform the substance of their activities and decisions on resource
allocations. Further, with limited mechanisms to coordinate their
activities and share collected information, agencies are unable to
fully leverage work conducted by others and may be duplicating efforts.
Multiple opportunities for improvement exist. Notably, the government
lacks interagency protocols for sharing information and a forum to
periodically bring key research staff together to discuss concerns
across all topics of interest. Specifically, with regard to audience
research, the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy
Coordinating Committee acknowledged the need to provide a centralized
source of U.S. government audience research data. Given the size of the
effort DOD is making in media monitoring, it is particularly important
that it coordinate these activities and share the information generated
to avoid unnecessary duplication and enable staff to leverage available
information. DOD's Strategic Communication Roadmap process has prompted
efforts to improve the department's media monitoring activities,
including the launch of a departmentwide inventory of media monitoring
activities and a stated intent to develop effective internal and
external coordination strategies once the inventory is completed.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help State adopt a more strategic approach to its communication
efforts, including the strategic use of research, we recommend that the
Secretary of State take the following two actions:
* Formally endorse and adopt a research-based campaign-style approach
to thematic communications.
* Provide public diplomacy staff with written guidance and related
training on the campaign-style approach, as well as how to identify and
use actionable research to support these efforts.
To help ensure that the government's research efforts meet the needs of
users, we recommend that State, BBG, DOD, and OSC implement systematic
strategies to assess user needs and satisfaction.
To improve the coordination of U.S. government research activities and
promote the sharing of information across agencies, we recommend that
the Secretary of State direct the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy
and Public Affairs, in conjunction with other members of the Strategic
Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy Coordinating Committee, take
the following two actions:
* Develop interagency protocols regarding the sharing of audience
research information, including establishing a forum that would bring
audience research staff together on a regular basis to discuss plans
and concerns across all topics of interest.
* Develop an electronic clearinghouse of U.S. government audience
research that could be accessed by staff throughout State, USAID, DOD,
and BBG, including BBG grantees. A key component of this clearinghouse
should be the body of research about audiences and media environments
collected in BBG's Strategic Audience Research Archive. In developing
this clearinghouse, OSC's model for sharing media monitoring
information should be considered.
We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that officials
from the Office of Support to Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
follow through on plans to develop a new approach to guide the
department's media monitoring activities, including working to improve
coordination of this work both within the department and with other
U.S. agencies.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written comments on a draft of this report from the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Department of Defense, and the
Department of State. Their comments are reproduced in appendixes V
through VII, respectively. Each agency generally concurred with the
report's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Regarding our
recommendation that the Department of State formally endorse and adopt
a research driven campaign-style approach to thematic communications,
State noted a preference for the new "ABCDE" model that incorporates
research, evaluation, and assessment as necessary steps in the process
of effective communication. State added that posts do not have
sufficient resources to obtain actionable research to support every
step of every thematic communication plan, as suggested by the campaign-
style approach.
We agree with State that posts should have the freedom to choose the
communication model (campaign-style, ABCDE, or any other relevant
model) that works best. Nonetheless, we reiterate that State has not
yet formally endorsed the use of research to guide post communication
efforts or explained how and to what extent research should be
incorporated in the models to support the development of post-specific
communication plans. We also acknowledge that resource constraints can
limit the extent of research conducted and that choices and trade-offs
must be made at times. We are encouraged, however, by State's cited
example that posts involved with the pilot country initiative
identified the need for additional research and that Congress has
approved $2 million in additional funding for this purpose.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors generally concurred with our report
recommendation that agencies institute systematic strategies to assess
end-user needs and satisfaction. BBG's response points out that while
research staff routinely query end users and managers regarding their
specific research needs, surveying users could yield more complete
feedback on the utility of provided research. BBG's response also
endorses GAO's recommendation regarding the need to establish a
clearinghouse of U.S. government-sponsored research; however, it adds
that BBG reserves the right to withhold selected research information
meant for internal use only.
Both State and DOD provided technical comments, which have been
incorporated throughout the report where appropriate. USAID received a
draft but had no comments.
We are sending copies of this report to relevant agency heads and to
other interested Members of Congress. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VIII.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We examined (1) what strategic communication objectives U.S. agencies
pursue and how research is used to support these objectives, and (2)
how agencies identify end-user needs, assess end-user satisfaction, and
coordinate the sharing of available research. We also provide
information in appendix IV on a new strategic communication model
adopted by the British government that could help broadly inform U.S.
operations and related research activities. Our review focused on the
efforts of the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), the Department of Defense (DOD), and
the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). We also reviewed the
activities of the Open Source Center, which is under the authority of
the Director of National Intelligence.
To assess how U.S. agencies use research to support their strategic
communication objectives, we examined agencies' communication efforts
and met with agency officials in Washington, including senior managers,
research directors, and relevant program staff. At State, we met with
senior officials in the Office of the Under Secretary for Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs; the Bureaus of International Information
Programs (IIP), Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), and
Intelligence and Research (INR); as well as with staff from all six
regional bureaus. Additionally, we obtained information from State
Public Affairs Officers (PAO) in order to get a perspective on how
research supports communication efforts in the field. Specifically, we
held a discussion session with a group of PAOs during State's Worldwide
PAO Conference in January 2007; distributed a questionnaire and held
semistructured interviews with PAOs in Germany, India, Niger, Peru, the
Philippines, and Yemen; and corresponded with post staff in Indonesia
and Jordan. We selected these countries based on a variety of factors,
including geographic location, presence of a significant Muslim
population,[Footnote 24] post size, recent visits by U.S. officials,
and inclusion in State's pilot country initiative.
At USAID, we met with officials in the Legislative and Public Affairs
Bureau and interviewed USAID mission staff in Indonesia and Jordan to
learn about how research is used as part of USAID's Development
Outreach and Communications Program. At DOD, we conducted fieldwork at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa,
Florida; spoke with DOD officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Special Operations Command, the Office of Defense Support to Public
Diplomacy, the 4th Psychological Operations Group, and the Joint
Psychological Operations Support Element to learn about how research is
conducted and used to support psychological operations; and
corresponded with staff in the combatant commands to gain an
understanding of how they use research to inform their communication
efforts. Finally, to learn how research is used at the BBG, we met with
senior BBG managers, as well as the research directors for the
International Broadcasting Bureau, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and
Radio Free Asia. Additionally, we met with staff who manage Voice of
America broadcasting in Indonesia and with the leadership of the Middle
East Broadcasting Networks.
To determine how the agencies assess user needs and satisfaction, and
coordinate their research efforts, we met with senior officials at
State's Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs, as well as the Bureaus of Public Affairs, Educational and
Cultural Affairs, and Intelligence and Research. We also interviewed
and corresponded with officials and staff at the Open Source Center,
DOD, USAID, BBG, and the Central Intelligence Agency's Global
Information and Influence Team. Additionally, we reviewed the research
materials available through the Open Source Center's Web site; IIP's
Infocentral Web site; and the BBG's Strategic Audience Research
Archive. Finally, we reviewed agency planning documentation and
research products.
To assess the extent to which the British government's new model can
inform U.S. research activities, we conducted fieldwork in the United
Kingdom. We met with government and private-sector officials in London
to discuss British government communication strategies and related
research efforts. We selected the British government for this case
study because the United States and the United Kingdom share many key
characteristics, including well-developed public diplomacy efforts,
parallel organizations and communication types, and similar
communication goals. Further, we have previously drawn upon the United
Kingdom for insights into public diplomacy activities.
Additionally, we convened a group of senior agency managers, research
directors, and representatives from academia and the private sector to
discuss key challenges facing U.S. government strategic communications
and related research efforts and identify potential solutions to
address these challenges. We selected participants based on their
expertise and experience with U.S. strategic communication efforts and
related research. The discussion included a short exercise designed to
build consensus around the key challenges related to conducting
audience research and media monitoring.
We conducted our work from May 2006 through May 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Audience Research, Media Environment Analysis, and Media
Monitoring Activities by Agency:
Agency research efforts include (1) audience attitude polls and
studies; (2) media environment analyses of media outlets, key industry
leaders, and preferences in a given country; and (3) daily monitoring
of media outlets around the world to determine what is being said about
the United States. Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide details on government
research efforts in each of these categories.
Table 1: Audience Research:
Department of State.
Agency/office: Bureau of Intelligence and Research;
Activity: The Office of Research conducts and contracts for public
opinion polls and focus groups, in over 50 countries each year, to
support U.S. government public diplomacy staff, as well as members of
the intelligence community. Research activities focus on both mass and
elite audiences and examine public opinion of the United States,
including foreign policy, as well as other issues of importance to
foreign audiences.
Agency/office: Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA)[A];
Activity: WHA commissioned the Office of Research, INR to conduct focus
groups in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela in 2005 and
to purchase polling questions on a regional public opinion survey in
2006. These activities have focused on public opinion regarding
democracy and democratic government, the United States, and economic
development.
Agency/office: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA);
Activity: ECA conducts focus groups, in-depth interviews, and surveys
with program participants to evaluate the impact of bureau programs,
including exchanges.
Agency/office: U.S. embassies;
Activity: Some embassy staff conduct informal surveys and focus groups
and contract for additional research support on a limited basis.
Broadcasting Board of Governors.
Agency/office: International Broadcasting Bureau[B]; Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty; Radio Free Asia;
Activity: The research offices manage their audience research through a
BBG-wide master contract with InterMedia for surveys, focus groups, in-
depth interviews, and listener/monitoring panels to assess broadcast
coverage, media consumption habits, and audience ratings in over 100
countries, with a general focus on areas in which the BBG broadcasts.
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Agency/office: Select missions;
Activity: Missions in Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, and
West Bank/Gaza contracted for polling and focus groups in 2005 and 2006
to support specific, targeted public awareness campaigns through the
Development Outreach and Communications Program.
Department of Defense.
Agency/office: 4th Psychological Operations Group, Strategic Studies
Detachment (SSD);
Activity: SSD analysts conduct target audience analysis, assessing how
to communicate specific messages to identified target audiences, to
support psychological operations around the world. Analysts draw upon a
variety of inputs in conducting these analyses, including knowledge of
religious, linguistic, and cultural factors, as well as polling data
and in-country research.
Agency/office: Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, Research
& Analysis Directorate (R&A);
Activity: R&A analysts conduct target audience analysis, assessing how
to communicate specific messages to identified target audiences, to
support psychological operations around the world, with a general focus
on transregional psychological operations.
Agency/office: European Command (EUCOM);
Activity: In close cooperation with the Office of Research, INR, EUCOM
recently contracted for polling in nine Trans Saharan countries to
support influence and information operations to counter terrorism.
Agency/office: Central Command (CENTCOM);
Activity: CENTCOM recently contracted for issue-specific polling and
focus groups within the command area of responsibility.
Central Intelligence Agency.
Agency/office: Global Information and Influence Team (GIIT);
Activity: GIIT conducts polling with an undisclosed focus in an
undisclosed number of countries.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[A] We spoke with public diplomacy staff from all of the regional
bureaus within the Department of State. None reported conducting
audience research of their own, and the Bureau of Western Hemisphere
Affairs is the only bureau that reported contracting for audience
research.
[B] The International Broadcasting Bureau has responsibility for
research for the Voice of America, Radio/TV Marti, and the Middle East
Broadcasting Networks.
[End of table]
Table 2: Media Environment Analysis:
Agency/office: Department of State, Bureau of International Information
Programs (IIP);
Activity: In 2005, IIP created its "Media Matrix," an internal Web site
and database that tracks information about key media outlets in
individual countries around the world. Embassy staff are responsible
for inputting and maintaining the information.
Agency/office: Department of State, Public Diplomacy Hubs;
Activity: In 2006, State contracted for a multi-country media
environment analysis in Europe. The contractor provided analysis of key
media outlets, their audiences, and other environmental factors
influencing media.
Agency/office: Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG);
Activity: The BBG contracts for the development and maintenance of the
Strategic Audience Research Archive (SARA), which is an electronic
archive that provides country-and region-level media and audience
profiles in each of the language areas targeted by the BBG.
Agency/office: Director of National Intelligence, Open Source Center;
Activity: Analysts have produced media guides in over 30 cities,
countries, and regions around the world. Media guides provide
information regarding key media outlets and their audiences within
individual countries and regions.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[End of table]
Table 3: Media Monitoring:
Director of National Intelligence.
Agency/office: Open Source Center;
Media monitored: Print, radio, television, blogs, chat rooms;
Activity: Monitors media around the world and provides a variety of
summary and analysis products.
Department of Defense.
Agency/office: Office of the Secretary of Defense;
Media monitored: Television and Web sites;
Activity: Contracts for media monitoring focused on countering Islamic
extremism and produces daily summaries and some additional topic-
specific special products.
Agency/office: Strategic Command;
Media monitored: Print;
Activity: Contracts for monitoring of print media in 50 countries
around the world, and provides daily and weekly summaries, as well as
special reports.
Agency/office: European Command;
Media monitored: Print, television, radio, blogs;
Activity: Contracts for monitoring of media within the command area of
responsibility and other regions based on command interest, and
provides daily summary products.
Agency/office: Central Command;
Media monitored: Print, television, blogs;
Activity: Conducts region-based monitoring with an emphasis on
extremist activity and provides daily summary products.
Agency/office: Pacific Command;
Media monitored: Print, television, radio, blogs, chat rooms;
Activity: Conducts and contracts for monitoring of media within the
command area of responsibility, and provides a variety of summary
products.
Agency/office: Northern Command;
Media monitored: Print, television, radio, blogs;
Activity: Conducts and contracts for monitoring and provides daily
summary products.
Agency/office: Southern Command;
Media monitored: Print, television, radio, blogs;
Activity: Conducts and contracts for monitoring of news and opinion and
provides daily, and weekly products.
Agency/office: Transportation Command; Media monitored: Print,
television, radio, blogs; Activity: Conducts monitoring focused on
defense issues and their impact on the command mission; does not
provide products based on monitoring.
Agency/office: Joint Forces Command;
Media monitored: Print;
Activity: Conducts monitoring focused on the global war on terror, and
provides daily summary products.
Department of State.
Agency/office: Media Reaction Division, Office of Research, INR;
Media monitored: Print;
Activity: Monitors print commentaries around the world, and provides
daily summaries and special products.
Agency/office: Rapid Response Unit;
Media monitored: Print, television, blogs;
Activity: Monitors media around the world to inform U.S. government
responses and messaging. Produces a daily one-page media summary, along
with regional summaries.
Agency/office: Digital Outreach Team;
Media monitored: Blogs;
Activity: Contracts for monitoring of blog content as part of an effort
to counter terrorist use of the Internet.
Agency/office: Select regional bureaus[A];
Media monitored: Varies;
Activity: Conduct formal and informal monitoring in conjunction with
post-level activities.
Agency/office: U.S. embassies;
Media monitored: Varies;
Activity: Monitor national and international media outlets to support
embassy and Washington, D.C.-based activities.
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Agency/office: Individual missions;
Media monitored: Varies;
Activity: Conduct media monitoring both in-house and via contractors,
focusing on coverage of USAID activities.
Broadcasting Board of Governors.
Agency/office: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty;
Media monitored: Print, television, radio;
Activity: Conducts monitoring of media in target broadcast countries
and regions, and provides daily and weekly products.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[A] We spoke with public diplomacy staff from all of the regional
bureaus within the State Department. Staff in the Bureaus of East Asian
and Pacific Affairs, Western Hemisphere Affairs, South and Central
Asian Affairs, and Near Eastern Affairs reported conducting some media
monitoring.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Audience Research and Media Monitoring Resources for
Select Activity Centers:
Agencies devote varying levels of resources to research in support of
U.S. strategic communication efforts.[Footnote 25] In general, funding
for audience research appears to be more limited than for media
monitoring. Of the agencies we reviewed, the State Department (State)
and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) are responsible for the
largest share of the spending on audience research, with the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of
Defense (DOD) devoting relatively little funding to these efforts. With
regard to media monitoring, DOD has made a significant investment, with
the Strategic Command and the Office of Defense Support to Public
Diplomacy each reporting annual expenditures on media monitoring that
exceeded State's total annual spending for audience research and media
monitoring activities combined in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Tables 4
through 7 provide additional details regarding agency spending and
staffing for both audience research and media monitoring.
Table 4: Audience Research Expenditures[A]:
Dollars in thousands.
Department of State, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Office of
Research;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,922;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,422.
Department of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs;
Fiscal year 2005: 60;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.
Broadcasting Board of Governors[B];
Fiscal year 2005: 11,476;
Fiscal year 2006: 9,828.
Select USAID Missions (6 total);
Fiscal year 2005: 220;
Fiscal year 2006: 112.
Department of Defense, 4th Psychological Operations Group Strategic
Studies Detachment;
Fiscal year 2005: 175;
Fiscal year 2006: 175[C].
Department of Defense, Central Command;
Fiscal year 2005: 0;
Fiscal year 2006: 200[D].
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[A] Expenditure totals include direct costs, including contractor
costs, but do not include staff costs associated with conducting or
overseeing these activities.
[B] BBG totals reflect expenditures for all research activities,
including those conducted by the International Broadcasting Bureau,
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. Additionally,
they include over $8 million per year for the board's master contract
with InterMedia, some of which pays for media environment analyses.
[C] Expenditure values for the Strategic Studies Detachment are
estimates because SSD funding is not tracked separately from the
overall budget for the 4th Psychological Operations Group.
[D] This total for CENTCOM was for a contractor responsible for
researching open source and subscriber-based polling, not for
conducting polling.
[End of table]
Table 5: Audience Research Staffing:
Agency/office: Department of State, Bureau of Intelligence and
Research, Office of Research;
Number of staff: 35.
Agency/office: Broadcasting Board of Governors;
Number of staff: 13.
Agency/office: Department of Defense, 4th Psychological Operations
Group Strategic Studies Detachment;
Number of staff: 36.
Agency/office: Department of Defense, Joint Psychological Operations
Support Element Research & Analysis Directorate;
Number of staff: 10.
Agency/office: Department of Defense, European Command;
Number of staff: 1[A].
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[A] This staff person devotes only 20 percent of her/his work time to
audience research efforts.
[End of table]
Table 6: Media Monitoring Expenditures:
Dollars in thousands.
Department of State.
Rapid Response Unit;
Fiscal year 2005: $222;
Fiscal year 2006: $323.
Digital Outreach Team;
Fiscal year 2005: 0;
Fiscal year 2006: 249[A].
Department of Defense.
Office of Defense Support to Public Diplomacy;
Fiscal year 2005: 3,500;
Fiscal year 2006: 6,900.
Strategic Command;
Fiscal year 2005: 7,500;
Fiscal year 2006: 9,300.
European Command;
Fiscal year 2005: 225;
Fiscal year 2006: 200.
Pacific Command;
Fiscal year 2005: 960;
Fiscal year 2006: 2,036.
Northern Command;
Fiscal year 2005: 31;
Fiscal year 2006: 36.
Southern Command;
Fiscal year 2005: 0;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[A] Total expenditures for IIP paid for two contractors to support the
Digital Outreach Team. While IIP reported this spending for both
audience research and media monitoring, the description of the Digital
Outreach Team provided by State staff indicates that the activities
being conducted are consistent with our definition of media monitoring,
though not audience research. Additionally, the funds listed were not
spent exclusively on media monitoring.
[End of table]
Table 7: Media Monitoring Staffing:
Department of State.
Agency/office: Rapid Response Unit;
Staff: 7[A].
Agency/office: Digital Outreach Team;
Staff: 2[B].
Agency/office: Media Reaction Division;
Staff: 5.
Agency/office: Selected embassies;
Staff: Range from 6-12[C].
Department of Defense.
Agency/office: European Command;
Staff: 11.
Agency/office: Central Command;
Staff: Approximately 38.
Agency/office: Pacific Command;
Staff: 57.
Agency/office: Northern Command;
Staff: 6[D].
Agency/office: Southern Command;
Staff: 2.
Agency/office: Transportation Command;
Staff: 3.
Agency/office: Joint Forces Command;
Staff: 1[E].
Director of National Intelligence.
Agency/office: Open Source Center;
Staff: Approximately 500[F].
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[A] Not all of these staff members work in the Rapid Response Unit full
time. Additionally, the Rapid Response Unit is supported by three
contractors, one detailee from the Open Source Center, and one analyst
(part time) from the Media Reaction Division of INR's Office of
Research.
[B] One of these staff members is dedicated to the Digital Outreach
Team full time, while the other only spends about one-quarter time on
the team. Additionally, the team has hired two contractors to observe
and analyze content of foreign Arabic-and English-language discussion
forums and blogs.
[C] Staff members at our selected embassies devote varying amounts of
their work time to media monitoring efforts, ranging from 2 to 30 hours
per week.
[D] Northern Command estimates that these staff spend a combined total
of approximately 4 hours per day conducting media monitoring work.
[E] Joint Forces Command estimates that this individual spends
approximately half of his work time conducting media monitoring
activities.
[F] Of the Open Source Center staff, approximately 200 are located
within the United States and about 300 are overseas.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Elements of New British Approach to Government Strategic
Communication Could Help Inform U.S.
British government officials cited several major changes to their
strategic communication activities that have broad implications for the
effectiveness of their outreach efforts and specific implications for
the scope and nature of research conducted to support these changes.
Major changes implemented by the British government include (1)
adopting a common set of strategic priorities, (2) closer integration
of strategic planning and research across key agencies based on a
consistent framework for program development and evaluation, (3) a
focus on behavior change performance goals, and (4) the creation of new
public diplomacy tools to supplement traditional activities such as
exchange programs. The State Department's (State) communication efforts
mirror some of these practices but diverge in several key respects. For
example, State uses public diplomacy to help improve the general image
of the United States and to support specific foreign policy objectives,
such as countering extremism. British officials stated that their
public diplomacy efforts will now focus on promoting specific foreign
policy objectives as opposed to nation-branding efforts. These areas of
divergence offer possible insights for U.S. strategic communicators
that could help guide strategic refinements and prompt related changes
to research strategies and outputs.
United Kingdom Recently Completed Reviews of Its Strategic
Communication Efforts:
Two major reviews of British strategic communication efforts have
identified opportunities for improvement. First, a January 2004 report
by the Phillis Commission[Footnote 26]concluded that the importance of
communications to government and modern society requires that such
efforts are approached in a systematic and coordinated manner. In
response, the British government appointed a Permanent Secretary for
Government Communications and established a new cabinet-level support
group, called the Government Communications Network, to promote
communication best practices throughout the British government,
including agencies communicating with foreign audiences. A second
review, led by Lord Carter of Coles and completed in December 2005,
reported that British public diplomacy efforts had improved since 2002,
but that additional advances were needed, including a clearer
articulation of the purpose of these efforts, greater clarification of
the roles and responsibilities of key government agencies,[Footnote 27]
and the adoption of an improved system for measuring and evaluating
program impact. In order to deliver greater accountability, the Carter
team called for the creation of a new Public Diplomacy Board, which
would be responsible for agreeing on a communication strategy, advising
on resource allocation decisions, and ensuring performance measurement
and monitoring. In response, the Public Diplomacy Board[Footnote 28]
was formed in April 2006 to provide strategic and program guidance to
key government agencies engaged in strategic communication, with a
focus on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the British
Council, and the BBC World Service.[Footnote 29] Significantly, it was
stressed that the BBC World Service only has observer status on the
board and retains absolute editorial independence over its operations
and reporting.
Public Diplomacy Board Endorses Significant Changes to British
Strategic Communication Practices:
The Public Diplomacy Board has endorsed a new approach to government
outreach efforts that includes adopting a common set of strategic
priorities, closer integration of strategic planning and research
across key agencies based on a consistent framework for program
development and evaluation, a focus on behavior change performance
goals, and the creation of new public diplomacy tools. These four
changes are consistent with the findings and recommendations of the
2004 and 2005 reviews noted above and a December 2006 report by a
private contractor hired by the board to help guide the development and
evaluation of government communication efforts. Under the direction of
the Public Diplomacy Board, Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff will
pilot test this new approach using three of the British government's
International Strategic Priorities (ISP) in select countries.[Footnote
30] A senior British official explained that audience research will be
used to develop communication programs and related evaluation
techniques in each pilot country. A research evaluation expert has been
hired to work with post staff to develop research plans tailored to
each country's specific needs and the target ISP. Research will
generally be conducted at the post level to ensure that it is relevant
and directly supports program objectives.
Focus on International Strategic Priorities:
The first concept endorsed by the board was that public diplomacy
activities should focus on supporting the British government's policy
objectives--or International Strategic Priorities formulated by the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office--rather than on promoting the image of
the United Kingdom as a brand. The board has concluded that any
attempts to manage the image of a developed country are largely doomed
to failure given the scope and complexity of the task relative to
available resources. One board member noted in a written response to
GAO that the public diplomacy field needed major innovations, including
new skill sets and perspectives, to become a key component in the art
of peaceful international relations. This individual noted that public
diplomacy should help a government achieve its foreign policy
objectives, rather than spending money on "propaganda" and image
making.
Under this new approach, public diplomacy will become a tool to help
achieve intermediate and long-term foreign policy goals, such as
climate control and countering terrorism, where targeted communication
efforts can reasonably be expected to have a measurable impact on
target audience behaviors. One British government official noted that,
in limited circumstances, it makes sense to attempt to influence
foreign publics to hold more favorable views of the British government,
culture, and people and cited the example of Visit Britain, an
initiative that explicitly seeks to project a positive image of the
United Kingdom to attract tourists. It was also noted that
nongovernment players such as private businesses can and should play an
active role in image building efforts.
Integration and Coordination of Strategic Planning and Evaluative
Research:
The board and its contractor have adopted a model of public diplomacy
that requires the close integration and coordination of strategic
planning and evaluative research across key agencies. First, by design
the board includes representatives from FCO, the British Council, and
BBC World Service to facilitate the coordination of government
communication efforts toward common strategic goals and objectives.
Second, the board's contractor reports that the partner agencies have
agreed to establish shared communication strategies, which will be
implemented jointly overseas, and focus on narrowly defined target
audiences where genuine impact can be reasonably expected. Finally, the
contractor has developed a shared evaluation and research system that
will provide uniform performance information and allow the board to
manage toward common and clear objectives. Both the shared
communication strategies and the common evaluation and research system
will be supported by a framework, called a logic model, that ties
inputs and outputs to desired public diplomacy outcomes. Each partner
organization will assume responsibility for monitoring inputs and
outputs, and evaluation of intermediate and longer-term outcomes will
be shared among the three public diplomacy partners. The board will
review and analyze partner reporting data and analysis and use it to
refine ongoing strategies, plan new strategies and activities, and
report to Parliament on the effectiveness of its shared strategy
approach and the ultimate effectiveness of the British government's
public diplomacy efforts.
Within the context of this established framework, the contractor's
report outlines a number of research instruments that can be used to
assess progress toward each type of intermediate outcome: (1) opinion
and behavior tracking research, (2) media monitoring, (3) tracking of
objective outcomes, and (4) evaluative research. Assessing progress
against longer-term outcomes will be based on a narrative report,
supported by externally generated indicators where available. Analysis
will be needed to suggest whether progress on intermediate outcomes is
contributing as expected to achieving the longer-term outcomes.
Focus on Behavior Change:
A common theme from board members, other British government officials,
and outside experts was that government communication efforts should
focus on changing target behaviors based on detailed audience research.
A senior FCO public diplomacy official told us that "if you can't
change behavior, there is no point in doing public diplomacy." The same
official added there is no point in doing audience research if specific
communication objectives are lacking.
The central importance of research in focusing on behavior change was
reiterated by a private-sector group in London called Strategic
Communications Laboratory (SCL), which provides consulting and program
services to both governments and private groups. SCL officials we met
with told us that communication efforts typically do not come into
focus until desired behavior changes are identified. SCL officials also
stressed the critical importance of understanding group behavior since
individuals take social cues and behavior norms from the groups they
belong to.
Identification of New Public Diplomacy Tools:
With a new approach to public diplomacy, the board has seen the need
for new tools to complement traditional activities such as press
releases, conferences, art exhibits, and exchanges. As noted by one
board member, "most foreign services continue to work with a limited
range of fairly conventional public diplomacy tools and techniques,
some of which are little more than simple media relations, clumsily
adapted from the private sector, and poorly suited to the modern
world." While traditional tools will not be abandoned, the board wants
government communicators to think more creatively about how to reach
foreign publics and not rely exclusively on the same mechanisms they
have used to reach these audiences in the past. With these aims in
mind, a Public Diplomacy Laboratory has been set up under the auspices
of the Public Diplomacy Board to tap into a wide range of contributors,
including marketing experts, journalists, interactive specialists,
writers, propaganda scholars, psychologists, anthropologists and
sociologists, political scientists, and others.
State Department Strategic Communication Efforts Diverge in Several
Ways along Four Key Principles:
Comparing the four key principles endorsed by the British government's
Public Diplomacy Board with State Department practices reveals some
similarities and certain key differences. First, unlike the United
Kingdom, the State Department follows a dual set of objectives, which
encourages the use of public diplomacy as both a tool designed to
change public attitudes towards the United States and to promote U.S.
foreign policy objectives. Second, while various attempts have been
made to develop and coordinate U.S. agency strategic planning,
evaluation, and research activities, these efforts remain largely
separated. Third, State focuses on attitude-based program outputs and
outcome measures and does not set explicit behavior change objectives.
Fourth, State has not launched an effort comparable to the British
government's Public Diplomacy Laboratory to identify new public
diplomacy tools.
Focus on International Strategic Priorities:
State's public diplomacy encompasses a dual set of objectives--one
focused on using public diplomacy as a tool to promote specific foreign
policy objectives, and another on using public diplomacy to promote a
more positive image of the United States. This dual nature of U.S.
public diplomacy efforts is reflected in the strategic framework
established by the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs in 2005, which lists three top priorities: (1) support the
President's Freedom Agenda with a positive image of hope, (2) isolate
and marginalize extremists, and (3) promote understanding regarding
shared values and common interests between Americans and peoples of
different countries, cultures, and faiths. According to the framework,
the department will achieve these goals using five tactics--engagement,
exchanges, education, empowerment, and evaluation--implemented through
various public diplomacy programs and other means. This framework
provides a focal point for such key initiatives as the pilot country
initiative designed to counter extremism in 18 target countries. What
is not clear, however, is how the Under Secretary's strategic framework
links to State and USAID's joint strategic plan and related annual
mission planning activities, which are driven by a related but
different set of expectations and priorities.
This dual view of the purpose of public diplomacy is also reflected in
State-USAID's 2004-2009 joint strategic plan, and in State's annual
mission performance planning guidance. The joint strategic plan lists
12 discrete objectives focused on such topics as counterterrorism,
democracy and human rights, and promoting mutual understanding through
U.S. public diplomacy efforts. The plan makes clear that public
diplomacy and public affairs can be pursued both to increase
understanding for American values, policies, and initiatives to create
a receptive international environment, and to promote specific foreign
policy objectives. In addition, State's mission performance planning
guidance allows public diplomacy staff in the field to integrate public
diplomacy into strategic plan goals, focus on public diplomacy as a
stand alone performance goal, or do both.[Footnote 31]
Integration and Coordination of Strategic Planning and Evaluative
Research:
Compared to the system developed in the United Kingdom, which defines
an explicit partnership arrangement among FCO, British Council, and BBC
World Service, U.S. agencies involved with strategic communication
efforts remain largely separate despite numerous attempts to improve
coordination.[Footnote 32] U.S. government agency efforts to improve
the coordination of strategic planning include the following: (1) the
Secretary of State or designee serves as member of the Broadcasting
Board of Governors (BBG); (2) BBG annually consults with State
regarding its country priorities; (3) the Department of Defense
recently established a new Office of Defense Support to Public
Diplomacy to improve coordination with State's outreach efforts; and
(4) the government has convened a series of policy coordinating
committees culminating in the current Strategic Communication and
Public Diplomacy Policy Coordinating Committee, chaired by the Under
Secretary, which recently released an interagency communication
strategy.
While these mechanisms have facilitated some improvements in
interagency coordination within the U.S. government, they do not
replicate the unified board approach adopted in the United Kingdom. For
example, under the British system, BBC World Service, while having only
an observer role, is a strategic contributor to the Public Diplomacy
Board and is expected on an ongoing basis to demonstrate in broad terms
how its efforts support the International Strategic Priorities of the
British government. We found no comparable arrangement or expectation
exists for the BBG and its assorted broadcast entities.
State has taken significant steps to incorporate an evaluation
framework that is almost identical to the logic model developed for the
Public Diplomacy Board. However, one key difference is that State's
model applies only to State's operations and does not extend to key
partners, as is the case with the Public Diplomacy Board. In September
2005, State hired the Performance Institute[Footnote 33] to review its
evaluation system and develop a logic model for application to its
public diplomacy operations. The Performance Institute delivered its
final report in October 2006, and State has begun to incorporate the
model into its program design and evaluation efforts. Finally, State
recently launched a pilot performance measurement project that is
designed to collect, document, and quantify reliable annual and long-
term performance measures to support government reporting requirements.
Some of the prototype tools developed for this initiative, such as
State's new media tracker, appear similar to the research tools
developed by the Public Diplomacy Board's contractor. Other planned
efforts, such as the Public Diplomacy Board's plans to track behavior
change, are not incorporated in State's plans.
Focus on Behavior Change:
While State officials participating in our small group panel argued
that ultimately all public diplomacy efforts are directed at behavior
change, we found no evidence that State has explicitly factored
expected behavior change into its operations--as part of setting
communication strategies and objectives, designing programs, or
evaluating results.[Footnote 34] Our review of State's strategic plan,
mission performance planning guidance, Results Act planning documents,
and planning reports required by the Office of Management and Budget
reveals that the department's focus remains on tracking outputs (such
as the number of exchange participants and speaker programs), measuring
broad attitudinal changes in foreign publics, and measuring specific
attitudinal changes in selected cases, such as exchange program
participants.
Identification of New Public Diplomacy Tools:
The current Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs has
indicated a willingness to try new communication approaches where
appropriate. However, we are unaware of any effort similar to the
Public Diplomacy Laboratory where an explicit attempt has been made to
bring together creative thinkers, from across a range of disciplines,
on an ongoing basis to brainstorm new and creative approaches to U.S.
public diplomacy.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors:
Broadcasting Board Of Governors:
United States Of America:
June 21, 2007:
Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director, International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
The Broadcasting Board of Governors welcomes the opportunity to comment
on the draft GAO report "Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use and
Coordination of Research."
We note that the report focuses largely on research and media
monitoring in support of public diplomacy and strategic communication
in areas other than U.S. international broadcasting. Indeed, GAO
acknowledges that the BBG's "specific mandate of broadcasting accurate
and objective news and information sets it apart from other strategic
communication efforts."
This said, we appreciate GAO's finding that "the BBG uses audience
research and media environment analysis to help its broadcast services
plan and evaluate their programs." GAO has reviewed BBG research
efforts in several previous reports and thus has had considerable
background on the strategic development of our research program. We
believe that a six-fold increase in research spending - from $1.5
million in 2001 to over $9 million in 2007 - has created today a far
more research-driven and performance-oriented culture throughout the
BBG.
The BBG agrees with some qualification with GAO's finding, "(U.S.
government) agencies lack systematic methods to assess user
satisfaction with research efforts." As regards BBG research, the
report recognizes that BBG research personnel routinely query end users
in the broadcast services as well as managers regarding their specific
research needs. Still, we agree that actually surveying users could
yield more complete feedback on the utility of the research product.
Finally, the BBG also supports with minor qualification GAO's
recommendation calling for "sharing audience research information as
well as (creating) a research staff forum and clearinghouse of U.S.
government-sponsored research." The report refers to the body of market
and audience research in BBG archives and notes that it could become a
key component of such a clearinghouse. In its 2008-2013 strategic plan,
the BBG calls for greater sharing of our research data. The important
caveat would be that the BBG would reserve the right to withhold
selected research information meant for internal use only, such as
evaluations of programming that included the critique of on-air
personalities.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James K. Glassman:
Chairman:
330 Independence Avenue, SW:
Room 3360:
Cohen Building:
Washington, DC 20237:
(202) 203-4545:
FAX (202) 203-4568:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Washington, D.C. 20301-2000:
Policy:
Jun 25 2007:
Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director, International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
This responds to the GAO Draft Report, GAO-07-904. 'U.S. Public
Diplomacy: Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use and Coordination of
Research' dated June 5, 2007 (GAO Code 320427).
The Office of Support to Public Diplomacy (SPD) and Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) concur with the
recommendation in the report.
The detailed response to the report recommendation is provided in the
enclosure. Suggested technical changes have been provided separately.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Alisa Stack-O'Connor:
Principal Director:
Support to Public Diplomacy:
Enclosure:
As Stated:
GAO Draft Report Dated June 5, 2007 GAO-07-904 (GAO Code 320427):
"U.S. Public Diplomacy: Actions Needed To Improve \strategic Use And
Coordination Of Research"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendation:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
ensure that officials from the Office of Defense Support to Public
Diplomacy follow through on plans to develop a new approach to guide
the department's media monitoring activities, including working to
improve coordination of this work both within the department and with
other U.S. Agencies.
Response: The SPD and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Public Affairs) concur with the recommendation.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
Jun 22 2007:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "U.S. Public
Diplomacy: Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use and Coordination of
Research," GAO Job Code 320427.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Bud
Jacobs, Senior Advisor, Bureau of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs,
Office of Planning and Resources, at (202) 647-0444.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Bradford R. Higgins:
cc: GAO - Audrey Solis:
R/PPR - Sean McCormack:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report U.S. Public Diplomacy:
Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Use and Coordination of Research
(GAO-07-904, GAO Code 320427):
The Department of State is grateful for the opportunity to comment on
this draft GAO report. We believe that the report is timely and adds
substantially to our thinking on this subject.
The Department is pleased that the report acknowledges the inclusion of
the "ABODE" communications process model in the U.S. National Strategy
for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication. As the report notes,
this model is very close to the "campaign plan" model for thematic
communication proposed by GAO in this and in previous reports, and we
have encouraged our posts and other agencies to use it as they plan
their strategic communications activities. While we agree with GAO that
the "campaign plan" model is useful, we do not believe that the
Department, our regional bureaus, or our posts have the resources
necessary to obtain actionable research data for every step of every
thematic campaign plan that might be developed. For our purposes, we
believe that the "ABODE" model, which incorporates research, evaluation
and assessment as a necessary step in the process of effective
communication, is a more useful tool. However, as they develop thematic
communication plans, our regional and functional bureaus, and our
posts, are free to adopt GAO's "campaign plan" model, the "ABODE"
model, or any other model that includes the critical steps of
identifying the audience, establishing objectives, creating core
messages, and assessment and evaluation.
We would, however, like to make some suggestions with respect to the
draft's treatment of Under Secretary Hughes' pilot country project and
local media and marketing analysis. While it is correct that the posts'
draft plans do not include specific requests to do media analysis and
market research, our tasking to them asked for programmatic suggestions
to counter extremism. In fact, the posts did request funding for local
analysis. Under Secretary Hughes convened a conference of pilot country
PAOs in Paris in October 2006, and there was so much interest in this
topic that $2 million was included in the 2007 Emergency Supplemental
for the Global War on Terror. We are very pleased that this funding was
approved, and look forward to utilizing this funding in support of the
pilot country project.
We are working with INR to decide on allocations of this money among
the pilot countries.
It is important to note that the inter-agency national strategy is the
framework and point of departure for developing regional and country-
specific strategic communication plans. The first step in implementing
the national strategy is for agencies participating in the Policy
Coordinating Committee (PCC) to develop their own agency plans, and
that work is underway.
We believe that the draft report's other two recommendations for the
State Department - that State, BBG, DOD, and the Open Source Center
assess user needs and satisfaction; and that the PCC on Strategic
Communication and Public Diplomacy establish a clearinghouse for U.S.
government-sponsored research - make sense. We will take them under
consideration and determine how best to implement them. We would note,
however, that there may be substantial resource implications for each
recommendation, and that will be a crucial-issue for us to resolve as
we move forward.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Jess T. Ford, (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Audrey Solis, Assistant
Director; Rick Boudreau; Joe Carney; Kate France Smiles; Michael ten
Kate; and Eve Weisberg made significant contributions to this report.
Wilfred Holloway, Ernie Jackson, Karen O'Conor, Andrew Stavisky, and
Elizabeth Wood provided technical assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Policy
Coordinating Committee was formed in 2006 to help focus and coordinate
U.S. public diplomacy efforts.
[2] Users of research products include senior-level managers,
policymakers, country-level staff, and other individual analysts.
[3] GAO, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts to Engage
Muslim Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face
Significant Challenges, GAO-06-535 (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006) and
U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Expands Efforts but Faces
Significant Challenges, GAO-03-951 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 2003).
[4] Defense Science Board, Report of the Defense Science Board on
Strategic Communication (Washington, D.C.: September 2004).
[5] Without such actionable research, agency communication efforts
represent little more than educated guesses of what is likely to
influence foreign cultures where target audiences have views of the
United States that are potentially informed by a complex mix of
psychological, historical, political, cultural, religious, and other
factors.
[6] State's Office of Research is located in the Bureau of Intelligence
and Research but receives funding from the Under Secretary for Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs and serves members of the intelligence
community and public diplomacy staff.
[7] State also recently requested an additional $2 million to begin
conducting further, more targeted opinion polling to inform its efforts
to reach target audiences and develop effective messages in a limited
number of countries.
[8] BBG's contractor, InterMedia, conducts audience research in support
of the International Broadcasting Bureau, Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. These offices each also maintain a small
research staff of their own.
[9] Joseph S. Nye, Jr., BBS Public Affairs, Soft Power: The Means to
Success in World Politics, (2004), 107.
[10] GAO-03-951.
[11] These objectives were adopted by the Under Secretary of State for
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in 2005.
[12] Later in this report, we note that agencies generally lack
adequate information on user needs and satisfaction regarding media
monitoring and other research products.
[13] GAO-03-951.
[14] We identified at least one exception to this statement. State's
Greetings from America program presents American society and culture
from the point of view of Indonesian and Pakistani exchange students
studying in the United States. State has used research to tailor its
programming to its audiences' interests and adjusted messages based on
online feedback. According to State, research commissioned by the
public affairs section in Indonesia showed that the program helped
increase understanding of and positive attitudes toward the United
States among local youth.
[15] Because of the challenges in identifying such in-depth research,
posts also rely on what they have called "informal" audience research,
such as obtaining verbal feedback from participants at an embassy
event. However, it is difficult to gauge the accuracy of informal
audience research, and it is possible that by limiting themselves to
such research agencies may be missing key trends and influences.
[16] GAO-03-951 and GAO-06-535.
[17] See GAO, U.S. International Broadcasting: Management of Middle
East Broadcasting Services Could Be Improved, GAO-06-762 (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006).
[18] As discussed above, users of research generally include senior-
level managers and country-level staff, as well as policymakers and
individual analysts.
[19] Separate research offices exist in the International Broadcasting
Bureau, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia.
[20] USAID does not measure user satisfaction because research is
conducted and used at the mission level, with users directly involved
in the development, design, and execution of research activities. As
such, it would not be helpful to have users survey their own
satisfaction with the research they designed and commissioned.
[21] While OSC focuses its activities on media monitoring and media
environment analysis, its Web site includes audience research reports
from State's Office of Research.
[22] Access to both Infocentral and OSC Web site is restricted to the
U.S. government.
[23] In September 2006, the department issued its Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) Strategic Communication Execution Roadmap to define
planned improvements, objectives, timelines, and oversight requirements
to ensure that QDR objectives relating to communicating with foreign
publics are achieved. The roadmap outlines three overarching
objectives: (1) define the respective roles and responsibilities of
primary support capabilities within DOD, including public affairs,
psychological operations, military diplomacy, and military support for
public diplomacy; (2) properly resource these primary support
capabilities; and (3) institutionalize DOD strategic communication
processes. Additionally, DOD seeks to develop a process to integrate
and support strategic communication efforts within DOD and align its
efforts with broader U.S. government activities.
[24] We identified countries meeting this criterion based on ECA
Bureau's list of 58 countries and territories with significant Muslim
populations, as previously reported in GAO,U.S. Public Diplomacy: State
Department Efforts to Engage Muslim Audiences Lack Certain
Communication Elements and Face Significant Challenges, GAO-06-535
(Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006).
[25] We were unable to provide comprehensive data on total expenditures
for U.S. government research activities due to a variety of factors,
including the large number of activity centers, a lack of specific
budget line-items for research activities in many instances, and the
fact that staff often devote only part of their work time to research
activities. We do not list resources for media environment analysis
separately because they are relatively limited, and these analyses
mostly draw upon information gathered through audience research and
media monitoring activities.
[26] Named for its Chairman, Bob Phillis, the group's report sought to
address a perceived breakdown in trust between the government, the
media, and the general public, resulting in a general failure of
government communicators to dialogue effectively with target audiences.
[27] The report defines the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO),
British Council, and BBC World Service as the government's three key
public diplomacy partners.
[28] Other members of the board, which is led by FCO's Minister for
Public Diplomacy, include FCO's Director of Communication,
representatives from the British Council and BBC World Service, and two
independent members (one advertising expert and one country branding
expert). The board sets common strategic objectives for the public
diplomacy community, makes recommendations on resource allocations,
monitors ongoing performance data, and provides feedback to partner
agencies to ensure that performance measurement becomes embedded in
each organization's culture.
[29] Primary responsibility for British public diplomacy efforts rests
with the FCO's Public Diplomacy Group which is also responsible for
overseeing grants-in-aid to the British Council--which manages cultural
affairs, exchanges, and English-language training--and to BBC World
Service--which provides news and information to a worldwide audience.
The Ministry of Defense, the Department for International Development,
and Visit Britain (the British government's leading tourism promotion
body) each play supporting roles in promoting British government public
diplomacy objectives.
[30] A total of 10 International Strategic Priorities (ISPs) have been
formulated by FCO. Pilot countries will focus on climate control,
democratic development, and promoting U.K. business investment. Pilot
country strategies have been developed and implementation is expected
to begin this year. Results will be evaluated and adjustments made
before program efforts are expanded to additional countries and ISPs.
[31] For the fiscal year 2008 planning cycle, posts can pursue public
diplomacy as a stand-alone goal, integrate public diplomacy into other
mission goals such as counter terrorism efforts, or both. When treated
as a stand-alone goal, posts are expected to generate related
performance indicators and targets. However, when public diplomacy
efforts are integrated with other strategic goals, posts are not
required to develop related performance targets and indicators.
[32] U.S. interagency efforts currently include both DOD and USAID. In
contrast, the British system does not currently incorporate counterpart
organizations, but it may in the future, according to British
officials.
[33] The Performance Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based contractor
that specializes in the development of evaluation models for government
clients.
[34] One senior USAID official noted that if and when State decides
that its public diplomacy efforts should seek to change target audience
behaviors, USAID would be available to assist with this effort. This
official noted that the "social marketing" discipline provides a
framework for communication efforts designed to change social
behavior(s). USAID's Development Outreach and Communication Officers do
not engage in social marketing since USAID's mission is restricted to
telling America's assistance story. However, other parts of USAID use
social marketing communication techniques extensively to promote
desired behavior change involving such issues as personal health
decisions.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
