Independent Media Development Abroad
Challenges Exist in Implementing U.S. Efforts and Measuring Results Gao ID: GAO-05-803 July 29, 2005Independent media development led by the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) supports the national security goal of developing sustainable democracies around the world. Independent media institutions play a role in supporting commerce, improving public health efforts, reducing corruption, and providing civic education. According to the Freedom House's Freedom of the Press 2005 survey, despite important gains in some countries, the overall level of press freedom worldwide continued to worsen in 2004. GAO was asked to examine (1) U.S. government funding for independent media development overseas; (2) the extent to which U.S. agencies measure performance toward achieving results; and (3) the challenges the United States faces in achieving results. The Department of State generally concurred with our report and USAID offered technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate. In addition, State indicated that it plans to develop additional performance indicators and promote best practices in the future.
The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development obligated at least $40 million in fiscal year 2004 for the development of independent media, including activities such as journalism and business management training and support for legal and regulatory frameworks. About 60 percent of the fiscal year 2004 USAID and State obligations we identified supported independent media development projects in Europe and Eurasia. However, precise funding levels are difficult to identify due to a lack of agencywide budget codes to track media development obligations, differing definitions of independent media development, and complex funding patterns. State and USAID face challenges in designing performance indicators and accurately measuring and reporting results directly tied to the performance of U.S. independent media efforts. The tools most frequently used by State and USAID as performance indicators--Freedom House's Freedom of the Press survey and the IREX Media Sustainability Index--are useful for determining the status of the media in selected countries but are of limited utility in measuring the specific contributions of U.S.-sponsored programs and activities toward developing independent media in countries when used alone. Several country-specific and programmatic challenges can impede the implementation of media development efforts, including a changing political condition, sustainability of local media outlets, and coordination between donors and providers. Specifically, a country's changing political condition or lack of adequate civic and legal institutions can create challenges for a mission to plan, implement, and measure the results of its efforts. The sustainability of program recipients can also impede the overall success of efforts or specific activities at the country level. In addition, when coordination of activities is unstructured or informal, redundancies and confusion of responsibilities can impact project implementation.
GAO-05-803, Independent Media Development Abroad: Challenges Exist in Implementing U.S. Efforts and Measuring Results
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-803
entitled 'Independent Media Development Abroad: Challenges Exist in
Implementing U.S. Efforts and Measuring Results' which was released on
July 29, 2005.
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 Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate:
July 2005:
Independent Media Development Abroad:
Challenges Exist in Implementing U.S. Efforts and Measuring Results:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-803]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-803, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Independent media development led by the Department of State and the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) supports the national
security goal of developing sustainable democracies around the world.
Independent media institutions play a role in supporting commerce,
improving public health efforts, reducing corruption, and providing
civic education. According to the Freedom House‘s Freedom of the Press
2005 survey, despite important gains in some countries, the overall
level of press freedom worldwide continued to worsen in 2004.
GAO was asked to examine (1) U.S. government funding for independent
media development overseas; (2) the extent to which U.S. agencies
measure performance toward achieving results; and (3) the challenges
the United States faces in achieving results.
The Department of State generally concurred with our report and USAID
offered technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate.
In addition, State indicated that it plans to develop additional
performance indicators and promote best practices in the future.
What GAO Found:
The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development obligated at least $40 million in fiscal year 2004 for the
development of independent media, including activities such as
journalism and business management training and support for legal and
regulatory frameworks. About 60 percent of the fiscal year 2004 USAID
and State obligations we identified supported independent media
development projects in Europe and Eurasia. However, precise funding
levels are difficult to identify due to a lack of agencywide budget
codes to track media development obligations, differing definitions of
independent media development, and complex funding patterns.
State and USAID face challenges in designing performance indicators and
accurately measuring and reporting results directly tied to the
performance of U.S. independent media efforts. The tools most
frequently used by State and USAID as performance indicators”Freedom
House‘s Freedom of the Press survey and the IREX Media Sustainability
Index”are useful for determining the status of the media in selected
countries but are of limited utility in measuring the specific
contributions of U.S.-sponsored programs and activities toward
developing independent media in countries when used alone.
Several country-specific and programmatic challenges can impede the
implementation of media development efforts, including a changing
political condition, sustainability of local media outlets, and
coordination between donors and providers. Specifically, a country‘s
changing political condition or lack of adequate civic and legal
institutions can create challenges for a mission to plan, implement,
and measure the results of its efforts. The sustainability of program
recipients can also impede the overall success of efforts or specific
activities at the country level. In addition, when coordination of
activities is unstructured or informal, redundancies and confusion of
responsibilities can impact project implementation.
U.S. Independent Media Development Journalism Training Program in
Ukraine:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-803.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at (202) 512-
4268 or fordj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
U.S.-Sponsored Media Development Funding Levels Difficult to Determine
Independent Media Development Performance Measurement Efforts
Complicated by a Variety of Factors:
Country-Specific and Programmatic Factors Can Impact Media Development
Efforts:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Select International Organizations or Donors That
Implement Media Development Programs:
Appendix III: State Department and USAID Goals Related to Independent
Media:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff and Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Bureaus or Offices at State and USAID and Select U.S. NGOs and
Their Roles in Independent Media Development:
Table 2: U.S. Independent Media Development Priorities for Select
Countries:
Table 3: Performance Objectives and Indicators Related to USAID
Independent Media Development Efforts from Select Performance
Monitoring Plans:
Table 4: USAID Definition and Media Approach for Each Political
Society:
Table 5: Goals Related to Select Independent Media Development Programs
from Current State Mission Performance Plans:
Table 6: Objectives for Select Independent Media Development Programs
from Current USAID Country Strategies:
Figure:
Figure 1: U.S.-Sponsored Independent Media Development Projects and
Activities in Ukraine:
Abbreviations:
BBG: Broadcasting Board of Governors:
DCHA: Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance:
DG: Office of Democracy and Governance:
DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor:
E&E: Bureau for Europe and Eurasia:
ECA: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs:
EUR/ACE: Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and
Eurasia:
FSA: Freedom Support Act:
ICFJ: International Center for Journalists:
IIP: Bureau of International Information Programs:
IP: implementing partner:
IREX: International Research and Exchanges Board:
MDF: Media Development Fund:
MEPI: Middle East Partnership Initiative:
MSI: Media Sustainability Index:
NED: National Endowment for Democracy:
NGO: nongovernmental organization:
OMFU: Open Media Fund for Ukraine:
OSCE: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe:
OTI: Office of Transition Initiatives:
RAK: Bosnian Communications Regulatory Agency:
SEED: Support for East European Democracy Act of 1989:
State: U.S. Department of State:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
Letter July 29, 2005:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Chairman:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
U.S.-sponsored independent media development efforts support the
national security goal of developing sustainable democracies around the
world, while complementing U.S. public diplomacy efforts by encouraging
the development of sustainable media outlets with responsible and
professional reporting standards and editorial practices. Independent
media development projects include such activities as direct financial
assistance to media outlets, journalism and business management
training, and support for developing the legal and regulatory
frameworks necessary for a free and open press. Beyond serving as a
source of information, independent media institutions can play a role
in supporting commerce, improving the effectiveness of public health
efforts, reducing corruption, improving citizen access to information,
and providing civic education.[Footnote 1] However, despite important
gains in some countries, like Ukraine, the overall level of press
freedom worldwide continued to worsen in 2004, continuing a 3-year
decline.[Footnote 2] The declining level of press freedom has been
illustrated, for example, by cases of journalists being censored,
tortured, imprisoned, and murdered in response to published news
reports about their government.
The Department of State (State) and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) are primarily responsible for U.S. government media
development funding and activities. At your request, this report
examines: (1) U.S. government funding for independent media development
overseas, (2) the extent to which U.S. agencies measure performance
toward achieving results, and (3) the challenges the United States
faces in achieving results.
To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed documentation and spoke with
officials from State, USAID, and their primary partners, including the
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG),[Footnote 3] National Endowment
for Democracy (NED), International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX),
Internews, Eurasia Foundation, International Center for Journalists,
and The Asia Foundation.[Footnote 4] In addition to audit work
performed in the United States, we traveled to and reviewed
documentation on U.S.-sponsored independent media development projects
in Croatia, Ukraine, and Indonesia. We also sent questions to posts in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Georgia, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, and Mali. Our
analysis of key challenges included a review of several recent studies
covering independent media development. Appendix I provides a more
detailed description of our scope and methodology. We conducted our
evaluation in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards from June 2004 to July 2005.
Results in Brief:
State and USAID together obligated at least $40 million in fiscal year
2004 for the development of independent media, with USAID providing the
largest share. The majority--about 60 percent--of the fiscal year 2004
USAID and State obligations we identified supported independent media
development projects in Europe and Eurasia. Precise funding levels for
independent media development activities in countries overseas are
difficult to identify due to a lack of agencywide budget codes to track
media development obligations, differing definitions of independent
media development, and complex funding patterns.
State and USAID have a variety of independent media development efforts
under way; however, in some cases, they face challenges in designating
performance indicators and in accurately measuring and reporting
results directly tied to the performance of U.S. efforts. State
supports media efforts under the broader context of public diplomacy or
democracy building and has not widely established specific independent
media development performance indicators for overseas missions or for
specific media projects or activities at posts we reviewed; anecdotal
examples, rather than quantifiable measures, are frequently used to
demonstrate success. USAID more frequently established performance
measures for its missions and individual media development projects.
Examples of performance indicators used for USAID missions we visited
and reviewed included the audience share of media outlets, the
sustainability of those outlets, the number of journalists trained, and
the quality of programming developed. We also found that the tools most
widely used by State and USAID as performance indicators--Freedom
House's Freedom of the Press survey and the IREX Media Sustainability
Index--are useful for measuring the state of the media in countries but
they are of limited utility in measuring the specific contributions of
U.S.-sponsored projects toward developing independent media in
countries when used alone.
Several country-specific and programmatic challenges can impede the
implementation of media development efforts. Foremost, a nation's
changing political condition or lack of adequate civic and legal
institutions can impact a mission's ability to plan and implement its
media activities and measure the results of its efforts. The
sustainability of project recipients can also impede the overall
success of projects or specific activities at the country level. For
example, in Croatia, a U.S.-sponsored national television network,
which linked several local stations' news programs together to compete
with the state media's nationwide newscasts, is struggling to survive
in part because the network did not develop the advertising revenue and
profit-sharing structures necessary to sustain it. In addition, when
coordination of activities is unstructured or informal, redundancies
and confusion can impact efforts. For example, due to a lack of
coordination between various agency officials in Washington, D.C., and
in Indonesia, two nongovernmental organizations (NGO), one funded by
State and the other by USAID, each received funds to rebuild some of
the same radio stations destroyed during the recent Indian Ocean
tsunami. While USAID has taken actions to improve coordination, funding
for regional conferences and program evaluations is limited.
Background:
The United States has, for many years, funded various agencies'
educational, visitor, and democracy-assistance programs that promote
democratic ideals, including freedom of the press. Although considered
a fundamental human right by many, freedom of the press remains
unrealized in many parts of the world, particularly in countries
governed by repressive regimes. Journalists continue to be censored,
tortured, imprisoned, and murdered for publishing articles or
broadcasting information about their government. Media assistance
emerged as a significant aspect of development work in the 1980s and
1990s, particularly following the end of the Cold War and the
dissolution of the former Soviet Union. Media development aid has
evolved from relatively modest activities with minor donations of
equipment and training tours for journalists to, in some cases, long-
term, multifaceted projects with millions of dollars invested over the
life of the project.
Independent media development efforts are not clearly defined, but are
commonly understood to include activities such as:
* training[Footnote 5] or educating local or indigenous reporters and
editors on subjects such as media ethics, professionalism,
accountability, investigative journalism, media business management and
marketing, strategies for transforming state broadcasters into public
service networks, and legal defense or legal regulatory issues;
* developing media or press centers;
* developing journalism schools and curriculum;
* ensuring the financial sustainability and independence of media
outlets, through loan programs, advertising development, grants for
commodities, and other means;
* supplying equipment or helping to build infrastructure needed to
ensure media independence, including technical capacity;
* developing professional journalist, publisher, or broadcast
associations;
* developing networks of independent media, such as sharing
arrangements, which link production, distribution, and management of
material;
* supporting the establishment of legal and regulatory frameworks and
advocacy groups that protect freedom of the press;
* promoting an understanding of professional media practices and the
role of free and independent media in society; and:
* engaging diplomatically to advance the development of press freedoms
or media-related institutions, laws, and regulatory frameworks.
A Number of Agencies and Organizations Implement or Fund a Range of
Media Development Efforts:
The Department of State and USAID are primarily responsible for funding
and overseeing U.S. media development projects and activities. State
and USAID do not have separate global or agency-specific independent
media development strategies and goals; rather, State and USAID often
consider independent media development part of broader agency goals.
State's independent media development efforts are generally used as
tools within broader public diplomacy and democracy building
efforts.[Footnote 6] USAID's independent media development efforts are
generally designed to promote the development of civil society and
increase citizen access to information.
A commonly agreed upon definition of independent media development
programs does not exist among State, USAID, and other donors. Rather, a
variety of U.S. projects and activities support independent media in
various countries overseas through individual contracts, grants, or
cooperative agreements with NGO partners, or through other established
U.S. programs, such as exchange programs administered by embassy public
affairs sections. In addition, donors frequently use different
approaches for developing independent media. For example, State offers
training opportunities to a select number of individuals in the media
sector or offers small grants to organizations for media development.
NED provides small, short-term grants to media or advocacy
organizations in many countries. In contrast, USAID has developed a
more comprehensive, multiyear, multiproject approach to developing
independent media in many countries that addresses the training and
education of journalists, financial sustainability of local
organizations, and development of the supporting legal and regulatory
frameworks.
Five primary U.S. nongovernmental organizations--IREX, Internews, the
International Center for Journalists, Eurasia Foundation, and The Asia
Foundation--assist U.S. donors by implementing media development
projects and offering funding or programmatic activities to local media
organizations. In addition, due to political sensitivities in the
region, USAID has awarded contracts to private organizations for media
development projects in the Middle East. Examples of possible
independent media development recipients include media outlets, media
organizations, and local nongovernmental organizations; professional
associations; journalism schools or universities; and policymakers. In
addition, there are several international organizations that support
media development. (See app. II). See table 1 for a description of the
roles of each bureau or office at State and USAID and select U.S. NGOs
in independent media development.
Table 1: Bureaus or Offices at State and USAID and Select U.S. NGOs and
Their Roles in Independent Media Development:
Donors:
Department of State: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
(DRL);
Roles: Funds and administers projects that develop legal and regulatory
frameworks in support of free and independent media in countries with a
history of government-run media. Provides a number of democracy-
building grants for specific media development activities or to support
specific media outlets.
Department of State: Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to
Europe and Eurasia (EUR/ACE);
Roles: Provides funding and oversight for Freedom Support Act (FSA) and
Support for East European Democracy (SEED) funds allocated to embassy's
public affairs sections and USAID for journalism training and other
media development activities.
Department of State: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA);
Roles: Funds, oversees, and administers select grants for programs that
foster mutual understanding between the United States and other
countries, including international educational and citizen exchange
media development efforts that promote personal, professional, and
institutional ties between private citizens and organizations in the
United States and abroad.
Department of State: Bureau of International Information Programs
(IIP);
Roles: Funds, oversees, and provides select support to
Speaker/Specialist and Professional-in-Residence programs, which
develop international understanding of professional media practices in
democratic societies, as well as of the importance of press freedom and
of developing knowledge of media-related institutions, laws, and
regulatory frameworks.
Department of State: Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI);
Roles: Supports efforts to promote free uncensored press in the Middle
East by funding, overseeing, and administering grants for projects that
improve the quality of reporting, train journalists, and support the
growth of independent self-regulating sectors of media sustainability.
Department of State: U.S. embassy public affairs sections;
Roles: Responsible for coordinating, overseeing, and administering
select grants for State's independent media efforts at U.S. missions
overseas. Efforts, including academic and citizen exchange programs,
speakers programs, international visitors programs, and book
translations, are designed to improve the professionalism of the media,
while at the same time increasing mutual understanding among citizens.
Department of State: Regional bureaus;
Roles: Oversee U.S. embassy public affairs sections' media efforts in
each region, including the Middle East Partnership Initiative media
activities.
USAID: Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance
(DCHA);
Roles: Manages programs in fragile states by strengthening democratic
systems, nongovernmental organizations, and other elements of civil
society. Both the Office of Democracy and Governance and the Office of
Transition Initiatives oversee media development projects.
USAID:
* Office of Democracy and Governance (DG);
Roles: Coordinates and administers grants for long-term independent
media development efforts overseas and works to strengthen commitment
to an independent and politically active civil society in developing
countries. The range of groups receiving USAID Democracy and Governance
assistance includes coalitions of professional associations, civic
education groups, women's rights organizations, business and labor
federations, media groups, bar associations, environmental activist
groups, and human rights monitoring organizations.
USAID:
* Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI);
Roles: Primarily responsible for coordinating and administering grants
for USAID short-term media development efforts. Designed to provide
fast, flexible assistance in response to rapidly changing conditions on
the ground, such as in postconflict situations.
USAID: Bureau for Europe and Eurasia (E&E);
Roles: Oversees and coordinates USAID independent media development
country efforts and administers grants for regional media projects in
Europe and Eurasia.
USAID: USAID Overseas Missions;
Roles: Funds and administers comprehensive or targeted independent
media development efforts at the country level with program design and
technical support provided by various USAID bureaus.
NED: National Endowment for Democracy (NED);
Roles: Funds and oversees in- country subgrants that promote freedom of
information, human rights, electronic communication, nontraditional
communication, media monitoring, and media law reform through local,
grassroots organizations.
Providers:
U.S. nongovernmental organization: Eurasia Foundation;
Roles: Funds and oversees subgrants and provides technical assistance
to grassroots organizations that promote civil society, including media
development in 12 countries of the former Soviet Union.
U.S. nongovernmental organization: Internews;
Roles: Supports open media worldwide by implementing State and USAID
grants and cooperative agreements to foster independent media in
emerging democracies and training journalists and station managers in
the standards and practices of professional journalism.
U.S. nongovernmental organization: International Research and Exchanges
Board (IREX);
Roles: Implement State and USAID grants and cooperative agreements that
focus on (1) professionalism in reporting or journalism training, (2)
democratic media legislation, (3) support for local media associations,
and (4) media business management for sustainability.
U.S. nongovernmental organization: International Center for Journalists
(ICFJ);
Roles: Provides global training programs and resources for journalists
with 30 percent USAID funding and 70 percent private donor funding.
ICFJ's workshops cover reporting, editing, production, ethics, and
business management.
U.S. nongovernmental organization: The Asia Foundation;
Roles: Supports the development of an open Asia- Pacific region by
providing funding to local organizations for programs that help improve
governance and law, economic reform and development, and international
relations. Provides subgrants to directly assist media in areas such as
management training, regulatory analysis, equipment supply, media
ethics, direct technical assistance, media law and regulatory reform,
and networking.
Sources: State, USAID, and U.S. NGOs.
[End of table]
U.S.-Sponsored Media Development Funding Levels Difficult to Determine:
Our analysis of available documents revealed that together, State and
USAID obligated at least $40 million in fiscal year 2004 to support a
number of independent media development efforts. According to State, it
obligated approximately $14 million for media development projects for
fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 7] State also transferred more than $700,000
to the BBG[Footnote 8] for fiscal year 2004 independent media
development obligations. USAID was not able to provide global budget
obligations figures for its 2004 support of independent media. However,
we calculated that USAID obligated at least $25.6 million in fiscal
year 2004.[Footnote 9] USAID's largest independent media contractors--
Internews and IREX--received fiscal year 2004 obligations of $14.1
million and $11.3 million, respectively. In addition, the Asia
Foundation identified that it received $175,000 in fiscal year 2004
obligations provided by USAID. Although we were not able to confirm
these figures, USAID officials told us that they obligated an average
of $33 million per year for independent media development efforts since
1991 in amounts ranging from approximately $13 million in fiscal year
1992 to $61 million in fiscal year 1999.
We found that the largest portion of the State and USAID fiscal year
2004 obligations for independent media development--about 60 percent of
all the agency obligations we could identify--funded efforts in Europe
and Eurasia. The Middle East, which has the lowest level of press
freedom, according to Freedom House's 2005 Press Freedom survey,
received only about 2 percent of the total fiscal year 2004 obligations
we could identify. Agency officials said that the larger funding levels
for Europe and Eurasia are attributable to the democracy assistance
funding provided through the Freedom Support Act and the Support for
East European Democracy Act of 1989[Footnote 10] and the high priority
given to independent media development projects by the Office of the
Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia. According to
State officials, independent media development funding levels for the
Middle East are expected to increase in the future due to an expansion
of efforts through the Middle East Partnership Initiative. In addition,
USAID officials said they expect that USAID will provide up to four
times the amount of media development funding to individual countries
in the Middle East in the near future--with the U.S. Mission in Egypt
already in the process of launching a $15 million media project.
Officials at one mission in Central Europe expressed concern that such
a funding shift could be detrimental to the ultimate success of media
development efforts in European countries that have fragile and
changing media environments.
Due to a variety of factors, it is difficult to accurately determine
U.S. funding obligations for independent media development efforts.
USAID media development funding is difficult to track globally over
time because the agency has not implemented consistent agencywide
budget codes to document its obligations for cooperative agreements,
grants, and contracts for independent media projects and
activities.[Footnote 11] Rather, USAID's financial systems are designed
to collect obligation information at the higher strategic objective
level, where, we were told by USAID officials, there are
inconsistencies in coding independent media activities because
definitions for budget codes and strategic objectives have changed over
the years. However, USAID officials told us they are currently in the
process of developing systems to better track agencywide obligations
data for individual program components under each strategic objective,
including for independent media development efforts. State Department
funding is also difficult to track because State does not keep
systematic records or budget codes of its obligations at the level of
independent media development activities and posts consider varying
activities to embody independent media development. Finally, complex
donor funding arrangements, including in some cases multiple project
implementers and subgrantees, can obscure funding relationships and
make it difficult to accurately determine the overall level of U.S.
financial support, as well as the number of specific efforts provided
in individual countries.
Independent Media Development Performance Measurement Efforts
Complicated by a Variety of Factors:
State and USAID have a variety of independent media development efforts
under way. State has not widely established specific independent media
development performance indicators for the overseas missions we
reviewed or for specific media projects or activities sponsored by its
embassy public affairs sections. USAID frequently established specific
independent media development performance indicators for its missions
and for specific independent media development projects we reviewed.
Both agencies commonly used the IREX Media Sustainability Index (MSI)
and Freedom House's Press Freedom surveys to measure performance--where
indicators were established; however, our analysis found these indexes
to be of limited utility in measuring the contributions of specific
media activities, or the efforts of entire missions toward developing
independent media in particular countries, when used alone.
State and USAID Sponsor a Number of Media Efforts:
State and USAID support a wide range of media projects and activities,
from training journalists to supporting media law reform. In the
countries we visited--Croatia, Ukraine, and Indonesia--we spoke with
several individuals who said that they had benefited from U.S.
government media support. For example, we met with members of a
consortium of five local NGOs advocating passage of Indonesia's Freedom
of Information Act and working with the Parliament to get it placed on
the agenda. In Croatia, we visited a U.S.-funded national association
of journalists whose mission is to raise the professional standards of
its 2,000 members. In Ukraine, we met with individuals of a U.S.-
sponsored organization that has provided 220 training programs, in
subjects ranging from technical production to media management, to over
2,800 media professionals. We also spoke with a number of journalists
in all three countries who had visited television, radio, and newspaper
operations throughout the United States as part of embassy exchange
programs. See table 2 for a description of current U.S. independent
media development efforts and priorities in countries we selected for
in-depth analysis.
Table 2: U.S. Independent Media Development Priorities for Select
Countries:
Case study country: Croatia;
Independent media development priorities: Promote independent media
through exchange and training programs to expose Croatian journalists
and editors to U.S. practices.
Case study country: Ukraine;
Independent media development priorities: Employ bilateral engagements,
including sustained high-level demarches, in support of a free press,
access to information, and journalists' rights to freely exercise their
profession; coordinate with the EU and G-7 and other key countries,
donors, and institutions on matters including assistance and policy;
support grassroots media initiatives such as expansion of Internet
access by regional media, substantive newspaper supplements, and TV
documentaries through embassy, USAID, NGO, and foundation projects;
provide technical assistance for projects that strengthen independent
media and increase the availability of quality news, journalist
advocacy, financial viability, and managerial capacity of independent
media; finance legal assistance for journalists and media outlets;
improve the legal and regulatory frameworks for media, including access
to information, laws protecting free speech, and fair professional
practices for media; foster the growth of NGOs that promote media
freedom.
Case study country: Bosnia-Herzegovina;
Independent media development priorities: Assist viable private sector
broadcast and print media to provide a broad range of objective
programming; provide technical assistance and political support to
Bosnian Communications Regulatory Agency (RAK), Press Council,
Association of Electronic Media, journalist associations, and media
training providers; support domestic production.
Case study country: Kyrgyzstan;
Independent media development priorities: Work with government
officials to press for reform of media and libel laws and to reduce
pressure against independent media; support independent media through
programs to provide independent printing facilities, legal counsel,
institutional support to journalists' associations, and training in new
media technology; support journalists' professional associations and
their capacity to monitor and document press freedom infringements and
advocate on these issues with the government; monitor violations of
press freedom and report on policy and trends affecting media; teach
objective journalism and management skills to increase media outlets'
professional and economic viability; support programs that encourage
political dialogue and debate, such as discussion clubs and TV/radio
talk shows, and ensure that remote areas also have access to such
programs; increase the accessibility to diverse forms of information
about political, economic, and social issues for all citizens
throughout the country; support spread of Internet access throughout
the country.
Case study country: Haiti;
Independent media development priorities: Strengthen the independent
press; strengthen media independence and community radio networks;
increase citizen awareness of their rights and responsibilities to the
extent that citizens apply this knowledge in everyday experiences;
strengthen journalists' ability to report on issues related to
democratic development and to advocate for greater freedom of the
press.
Case study country: Georgia;
Independent media development priorities: Foster the development of an
increasingly vibrant civil society; assist in building a vibrant and
diverse civil society, including political parties, independent and
responsible media, and constituency-based NGO coalitions, to advocate
for reforms in Georgia and to partner with the new government in
carrying out key reforms; increase journalistic professionalism through
U.S. and locally based assistance for print and broadcast media.
Case study country: Egypt;
Independent media development priorities: Initiate new projects to
support journalism training on free, fair, and accurate reporting
through both classroom work and internships with U.S. news media.
Case study country: Indonesia;
Independent media development priorities: Professionalize media through
exchange and training programs; U.S. Fulbright lecturers, students and
researchers outreach on the topic of free and responsible media;
provide Small Democracy Grants to bolster free and independent media.
Source: State Department.
[End of table]
Performance Indicators for State's Independent Media Development
Efforts Not Widely Established:
While State's independent media activities conducted at overseas
missions support U.S. objectives in these countries, performance
indicators were not widely established for the activities, making it
difficult for State to accurately measure and report their value. At
four of the nine countries we reviewed, State had developed some media-
related performance indicators to measure the overall results of the
missions' independent media development efforts. For instance, for
Kyrgyzstan, State currently measures the results of the embassy's
efforts in developing independent media and improving the availability
of political information in several ways, including by surveying
whether editors and journalists that receive support become more
skilled in reporting and editing political news. However, aside from
counting the number of participants, specific performance indicators
for individual embassy-sponsored independent media projects or
activities were not widely established in the cases we reviewed. For
example, embassy officials in Croatia said there were no measurable
performance indicators tracked for their journalism exchanges and other
media-related public diplomacy efforts.
Several State Department officials told us that posts rely heavily on
their knowledge of the activities and anecdotal reports of
accomplishments to evaluate performance. In some instances, embassy
public affairs sections submit reporting cables to State Department
bureaus and offices or enter descriptions of media projects or
activities and anecdotal information into a database managed by the
Bureau of International Information Programs. State's Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor (DRL) bureau has, in some cases, used quantifiable
indicators, including the number of local radio stations that broadcast
sponsored programs or the number of articles written as a result of
journalist training seminars, to measure the performance of independent
media projects related to democracy assistance, in addition to
gathering descriptive or anecdotal information on accomplishments.
State officials told us that embassies are more likely to develop
independent media-specific performance indicators for evaluating
results when independent media is a priority at the post and specific
performance goals are set in mission-planning documents.[Footnote 12]
For example, the current mission plan for Kyrgyzstan includes a stated
goal of helping to build independent media that reports objectively and
freely. Officials also said that posts are not currently required to
develop specific indicators for individual public diplomacy projects
and activities; however, a requirement for the establishment of such
measures is currently being considered. Additionally, officials in
State's Middle East Partnership Initiative office told us the office
plans to develop measures for the effectiveness of its new media
assistance project in the Middle East, but could not provide details
because the initiative is still being designed. State officials we
spoke with told us it is difficult to develop performance indicators
with limited staff and funding, as well as the inherent difficulties in
determining when and how results will occur for public diplomacy-
related efforts.
USAID Performance Indicators for Independent Media Development Efforts
Frequently Established:
In the cases we reviewed, USAID performance indicators for independent
media efforts were frequently established at the country or USAID
mission level and for individual projects. For example, six of the nine
USAID missions we reviewed established performance indicators in their
current planning documents for their missions' independent media
performance objectives. In addition, all missions we obtained
documentation from had established performance indicators for country-
specific projects.[Footnote 13] USAID officials told us that the
establishment of specific independent media performance objectives is
left to the discretion of the local USAID mission and that some
missions with active independent media development projects or
activities may not choose to designate media-related performance
objectives based on their relative priorities, or they may view media
development as a crosscutting issue or as a tool for accomplishing
other specific objectives.[Footnote 14] See table 3 for a list of the
objectives and performance indicators for USAID missions in the
countries we reviewed.
Table 3: Performance Objectives and Indicators Related to USAID
Independent Media Development Efforts from Select Performance
Monitoring Plans:
Country: Ukraine;
Performance objective: Availability of quality information increased;
Mission performance indicators:
* Media sustainability index (MSI);
* Quantity of information produced by partner regional outlets (print
and broadcast);
* Quality of information produced by partner regional outlets (print
and broadcast).
Country: Croatia;
Performance objective: Sustainable and balanced commercial media;
Mission performance indicators:
* An increased rating for Croatia on the overall average for media
sustainability (MSI);
* Freedom House's Press Freedom survey score;
* An increased rating for Croatia on the MSI, attribute 3: Multiple
news sources provide citizens with reliable and objective news.
Performance objective: Journalists' professional standards improved;
Mission performance indicators:
* An increased rating for Croatia on the MSI, attribute 2: Journalism
meets professional standards of quality.
Performance objective: Management and business capacity of media
organizations strengthened; Mission performance indicators:
* An increased rating for Croatia on the MSI attribute 4: Independent
media are well-managed businesses, allowing editorial independence.
Country: Bosnia-Herzegovina;
Performance objective: Viable private- sector broadcast and print media
provide broad range of objective programming; Mission performance
indicators:
* Number of people who buy independent news publications;
* Audience share of independent broadcast media.
Country: Kyrgyzstan;
Performance objective: Increased availability of information on civic
rights and domestic public issues; Mission performance indicators:
* MSI.
Performance objective: Increased news programming; Mission performance
indicators:
* Average daily minutes of nonstate electronic media local news
programming.
Performance objective: Improved financial management systems in
targeted media entities; Mission performance indicators:
* Technical quality of local nongovernmental broadcast news;
* Quality of independent broadcast management.
Country: Georgia;
Performance objective: Alternative media represents citizen concerns on
key issues; Mission performance indicators:
* Percentage of citizens who respond that the media fairly represent
the views of all citizens;
* Percentage of stories/articles by USAID- assisted media outlets
representing two or more viewpoints.
Country: Mali;
Performance objective: Increase pubic access to quality development
information in targeted areas; Mission performance indicators:
* Percentage of Malians having access to at least one local radio
station;
* Internet access costs.
Performance objective: Regulatory and policy environment responsive to
public interest; Mission performance indicators:
* Appropriation of Internet management by a neutral institution;
* Internet access costs reduced;
* Mean time to obtain radio licenses reduced.
Performance objective: Policies and procedures proposed for adoption;
Mission performance indicators:
* Internet regulatory policies proposed;
* Radio licensing procedures proposed.
Performance objective: Improved quality of development information;
Mission performance indicators:
* Percentage of radio broadcasts that employ appropriate communication
techniques.
Performance objective: Enhanced institutional capacity to produce
development information; Mission performance indicators:
* Number of information content producers trained;
* Percentage of radio stations in targeted areas having trained staff
in program production.
Country: Haiti;
Performance objective: Civil society organizations positively influence
policies; Mission performance indicators:
* (No specific media indicators identified in mission performance
monitoring plan).
Country: Indonesia;
Performance objective: (Strengthening independent media is a cross-
cutting objective, crossing all mission performance objectives);
Mission performance indicators:
* (No specific media indicators identified in mission performance
monitoring plan).
Country: Egypt;
Performance objective: Establish and ensure media freedom and freedom
of information; Mission performance indicators:
* (Under development).
Source: USAID.
[A] Indicates USAID intermediate results, subintermediate results, or
lower-level results categories.
[End of table]
State and USAID Missions Use Broad Indexes of Country Press Freedom
That Cannot Measure Performance of U.S. Efforts:
In the cases we reviewed, State and USAID often selected media indexes,
such as the Media Sustainability Index (MSI) and Freedom House's Press
Freedom survey, to measure the results of their independent media
development efforts. The MSI and the Press Freedom survey assess the
freedom of media in a country; however, when used alone as performance
indicators, media indexes are of limited utility in measuring the
specific contributions of specific activities or combined U.S. efforts
toward developing independent media in particular countries.
State and USAID Rely Frequently on Media Indexes to Measure
Performance:
State and USAID commonly use media indexes to measure the performance
of independent media efforts. In cases we reviewed where State had
specifically defined performance indicators for its independent media
development efforts, Freedom House's Press Freedom survey and MSI were
frequently used by the mission for measuring results. In the cases we
reviewed, all four State missions that designated performance
indicators relied on media indexes to measure the performance of their
efforts.[Footnote 15] For example, the U.S. Mission to Bosnia-
Herzegovina designated the MSI as its primary performance indicator for
its independent media efforts. USAID missions we reviewed also
frequently used the MSI and the Press Freedom survey as measures of
performance. Of six USAID missions that established indicators for
their performance goals, three used the media indexes as performance
indicators. Some missions, including the USAID Missions to Ukraine and
Kyrgyzstan, used the MSI along with other measures they had created to
measure the accomplishment of performance objectives.[Footnote 16]
However, the USAID Mission to Croatia used the media indexes alone to
measure performance objectives related to independent media
development. In addition, the only performance indicators established
for the USAID media project in Croatia were the four broad MSI
components, including "journalists professional standards improved in
Croatia" and "multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable and
objective news." USAID officials told us that the MSI index is
generally promoted and used as an independent media development
performance indicator in Europe and Eurasia and that it is generally
used in coordination with more specific indicators of activities to
determine program performance.
Broad Indicators Assess Media Freedom, Not Necessarily a Measure of
U.S. Efforts:
Media indexes used alone are of limited use for determining the
performance of U.S. independent media development programs. Commonly
used media indexes--such as the Press Freedom Survey and MSI in
particular--cannot pinpoint the effects of U.S. government programs,
and are general indicators rather than precise measures. These indexes
use reasonably consistent methodologies to measure broad concepts such
as press freedom and media sustainability. However, because the indexes
focus on broad concepts that are affected by a wide variety of social,
political, and economic factors, they have limited utility for purposes
of identifying the effects of particular U.S. media development
programs. The indexes do provide general measures of trends and allow
for some cross-country comparisons. However, IREX has only been
collecting data on the MSI for 3 years, which makes it impossible to
evaluate longer term trends and establish baselines for efforts that
began before 2001. Another concern is the time lag in the data of 1
year from scoring to publication.
Freedom House and IREX officials told us that the Press Freedom survey
and MSI were not designed to measure the performance of U.S. media
development programs. According to a senior Freedom House official, the
Press Freedom survey was initially intended to inform debate and
discussion about the state of media development in particular
countries, and potentially could be used to prod particular countries
to liberalize their media. Freedom House's Press Freedom survey has
been used to assess the freedom of the media in more than 100 nations
since 1981. The Press Freedom survey evaluates countries' legal,
political, and economic environments, scoring between 8 and 12
subcategories. According to IREX officials, the MSI was designed, with
the support of USAID, to be used for making prioritized decisions on
funding. IREX's Media Sustainability Index has assessed the
sustainability of independent media in about 20 countries in Europe and
Eurasia since 2001.[Footnote 17] The MSI measures five objectives--free
speech, professional journalism, plurality of news sources, business
management, and supporting institutions--each of which includes between
7 and 9 subcategories. Freedom House and IREX officials both stated
that use of the indexes for anything other than what they were designed
for imply an unwarranted precision to their measures.
Some State and USAID officials indicated that they do not think media
indexes alone are comprehensive indicators for measuring mission or
project performance and supported the development of additional
measures in some cases. However, they also told us that it is difficult
to develop their own independent media development performance
indicators for several reasons. In addition to funding constraints,
agencies noted that there are also difficulties separating media
efforts from broader goals and determining when and how results will
occur for democracy-related or public diplomacy programs.[Footnote 18]
Some USAID officials in the field noted that USAID officials in
Washington, D.C., supported using the MSI as a primary performance
indicator and some USAID officials noted they viewed using the MSI as a
cost-effective means to provide a common indicator to measure and
compare the results of efforts in Europe and Eurasia.
Country-Specific and Programmatic Factors Can Impact Media Development
Efforts:
In all the cases we reviewed, countries faced changing political
conditions or deficiencies in the legal, regulatory, or professional
environments, which created challenges for planning and implementing
independent media development efforts. In some cases, programmatic
factors, such as unsustainable local partner organizations or lack of
coordination at overseas missions, affected overall U.S. efforts or
specific projects or activities in a country. The following media
development challenges represent a sample of those frequently mentioned
during our review.
Country-Specific Factors, Such as a Changing Political Society or
Inadequate Legal, Regulatory and Professional Environments, Can Impact
Media Development Efforts:
A country's political conditions can impact efforts to plan and
implement independent media development projects and activities. In
January 2004, USAID surveyed its independent media development efforts,
as well as those supported by other donors, and determined that
different programmatic approaches are required for five different types
of political societies, which USAID classified as: (1) closed, (2)
semidemocratic/developing, (3) war-torn, (4) postconflict, and (5)
transition. For semidemocratic, postconflict, or transitional countries
making progress toward democracy or no longer experiencing conflict,
USAID has identified a variety of activities to support the development
of an independent media. However, in closed or war-torn societies,
USAID determined it can do very little because the environments are
unsuitable for outside intervention. See table 4 for definitions of
political societies and further detail on the appropriate programmatic
media strategies identified by USAID.
Table 4: USAID Definition and Media Approach for Each Political
Society:
Political society: Closed;
Definition: Closed societies are governed by monarchs, military
dictators, or ideologues with a relatively closed political system and
underdeveloped economy. Free press is almost nonexistent in these
societies;
USAID media approach: USAID or other international agencies have not
designed or implemented major projects for independent media
development in closed societies. The situation is likely to change
because of the growing interest in promoting democracy in the Middle
East.
Political society: Semidemocratic/developing;
Definition: Countries that appear to have made tangible progress toward
democratization, but where stagnation and even backsliding occur, are
considered semidemocratic developing societies. Independent media
remains extremely fragile in such countries, and journalists work under
trying conditions. Subtle forms of censorship and self-censorship
continue, and the legal and regulatory environment is not conducive to
a free press;
USAID media approach: USAID and other international actors can
undertake a wide variety of media projects, but strong political and
diplomatic pressure is necessary to push for independent media in
semidemocratic societies. If multiple donors work together, they
increase the chances of gaining political support for independent media
development.
Political society: War-torn;
Definition: This category refers to countries with ongoing civil wars.
Such societies tend to have highly authoritarian regimes and predatory
social and political structures. Civil wars give the ruling regime a
pretext to stifle whatever little freedom media enjoyed in the past;
USAID media approach: USAID and other donors can do very little in such
conditions, as the whole political environment, intellectual climate,
and economic conditions are not suitable for outside interventions.
Political society: Postconflict;
Definition: This category refers to countries where conflict has ended,
leading to the establishment of a legitimate government. One
distinguishing characteristic of these societies is that tremendous
opportunities exist for establishing democratic institutions and
practices;
USAID media approach: Examples of the types of projects that can be
undertaken in these countries include the following: establishing a
legal framework for free media, supporting the government in
establishing appropriate regulatory bodies, training journalists,
assisting independent media outlets, and establishing civil society
organizations that articulate the interests of journalists and a free
press.
Political society: Transition;
Definition: This category primarily refers to relatively socially and
economically advanced societies in which the political order has
collapsed, opening the way for liberalization and democratization;
USAID media approach: As in postconflict societies, unprecedented
opportunities for promoting independent media exist in these countries.
Practically all of the programming strategies suggested for
postconflict societies have been followed in transition countries.
Source: USAID.
[End of table]
We examined independent media development projects in nine different
countries--Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Georgia, Haiti,
Indonesia, Krygyzstan, Mali, and Ukraine--each experiencing differing
domestic political conditions that limit the impact of these projects.
In some of the cases we reviewed, changes in domestic conditions or the
status of political societies occurred following the onset of
independent media development activities, creating further challenges
in implementing efforts in these countries. For example, in Haiti--a
nation experiencing civil conflict--violent demonstrations and protests
prior to the departure of the president prevented some USAID- funded
media development projects from continuing because staff were
physically unable to get to work. Officials told us that several radio
stations suffered extensive damage from looters, and community radio
stations reported several cases where police, as well as government
officials loyal to the president, tried to use their power to silence
independent media voices. After the president's departure, all
nonessential USAID staff were ordered to evacuate the country, and the
media project was on hold for nearly a month.
In countries with deficient legal, regulatory, or professional
environments, agencies can face challenges in implementing independent
media development projects and activities. All nine of the countries we
reviewed faced challenges due to deficiencies in at least one of these
areas, which impacted efforts to train the media, build the capacity of
the media outlets, and improve the freedom of the press within the
country. In particular, these deficiencies have led to such challenges
as limited press freedom due to direct government control over the
media industry; changing legal and regulatory frameworks; limited
training opportunities; and lack of skilled journalists due to
widespread problems in professional and educational systems. Agency
officials provided examples of how such deficiencies have impacted
their programs:
* Limited press freedom. Prior to the revolution in Kyrgyzstan, the
Kyrgyz government maintained a tight hold on broadcast frequencies,
prevented new stations from obtaining frequencies, and canceled
frequencies of certain independent outlets. Agency officials said that
journalists were afraid to broadcast on certain topics for fear of
harassment or prosecution. In Georgia, most television stations are
owned by oligarchs, many of whom support the new government. According
to embassy officials in Tbilisi, working journalists exercise self-
censorship for fear that reports critical of the government would be
unpopular with their owners.
* Changing legal and regulatory frameworks. Although Ukraine's new
president stated publicly his support for a free mass media, State
officials said Ukraine's legal and regulatory environments still need
assistance. Though legislation has been enacted to improve freedom of
the press and oversight of the media industry, these changes have not
been consistently applied by Ukrainian judges and media outlets.
Therefore, journalists can still be pressured by government officials
and oligarchs to report information in a certain way, and media
outlets' legal status and license to operate remain in question.
* Limited training opportunities. Since 1993, Mali's constitution has
made it relatively easy to obtain radio broadcast licenses for FM
frequencies. However, officials noted that that there are currently no
in-country professional training institutions for broadcast media. As a
result, individuals have to go outside of Mali to receive training, or
obtain informal training from their peers and colleagues.
* Lack of skilled journalists. In Croatia, most journalists have little
academic or professional training. Agency officials stated that
although independent media is evolving, journalists still report biased
news and information, do not check their facts or sources, do not
follow up or correct their errors, and skew the focus of articles to
accomplish personal agendas.
According to USAID's January 2004 media assistance study, USAID has
funded a range of activities designed to further promote legal and
regulatory reforms, though undemocratic structures, politicians, and
slow-to-change traditions have made the creation of enabling laws,
policies, and practices difficult or impossible in some cases.
Assistance projects and training efforts have been designed to mitigate
legal, regulatory, and professional deficiencies, though progress of
these programs has been slow. Agency officials from missions in several
countries we examined provided examples of approaches to addressing
unregulated media environments, including the following:
* Limited press freedom. In order to limit editorial interference by
state bodies, USAID's media project in Kyrgyzstan currently supports
local efforts to draft a new broadcasting law, which would include
stipulations for the transformation of state television and radio to a
public broadcasting system. To dilute the editorial influence of
oligarchs who own the vast majority of TV stations in Georgia, USAID's
implementing partner in Tbilisi introduced a television rating system,
which produced verifiable ratings that made the commercial market far
more attractive to advertisers. The increased interest of advertisers
in the media market has made nonbusiness-based policies more costly for
oligarch owners.
* Changing legal and regulatory frameworks. USAID's media development
project in Ukraine has established a Media Law Institute that will
provide journalists with an outlet for legal defense and consultations
when faced with political pressure. The center also plans to train
local lawyers and judges on media law reform, and to publish bulletins
about changes in legislation.
* Limited training opportunities. The USAID Mission to Mali has tried
to address the lack of professional media training institutions by
supporting a technical training facility, bringing professionals to
Mali to conduct training sessions, and sending broadcast and print
journalists as well as key members of the government and civil society
to an anticorruption ethics training seminar.
* Lack of skilled journalists. Croatia's USAID media development
project focused on developing the capacity of the national journalist
association, including conferences to improve journalists'
professionalism, their capacity for reporting, and their relationships
with other sectors of society, such as the police and judiciary.
Additionally, University of Zagreb's journalism school partnered with
the U.S. Embassy to participate in academic exchange programs,
international visits, and speaker programs.
Programmatic Factors Can Affect Media Development Efforts:
The sustainability of local organizations can impact the overall
results of media development efforts or the success of specific
projects and activities in a country. Additionally, limited
coordination and lack of communication with local recipients at some
posts have impacted some projects and activities by causing confusion
of responsibilities or duplication of efforts.
Sustainability of Local Organizations Can Affect Long-Term Media
Development Results:
The success of media development projects and activities can be
impacted by the sustainability of local partners. We found that seven
of the nine countries we reviewed had cases where local media outlets
had difficulty ensuring their financial sustainability as their U.S.
funding decreased. Sustainability challenges were primarily due to a
poor economic environment or lack of sufficient business management
training. Specific examples include the following:
* Poor economic environment. An official from the USAID Mission in
Haiti stated that because many independent radio stations are community
owned, the stations cannot increase their operating budgets or replace
expensive pieces of equipment without first increasing the financial
resources available to the entire community. Additionally, the self-
sustainability of private media outlets in Bosnia-Herzegovina continues
to be a major problem due to widespread crime and corruption and a
national unemployment rate of about 40 percent.
* Lack of business management training. According to one local
television station owner in Croatia, a U.S.-sponsored national
television network, designed to link several local station's news
programs, is struggling to survive because the network did not develop
the advertising revenue and profit-sharing structures necessary to keep
it financially sustainable. USAID acknowledged that this may be the
case, but they viewed the network project as a success because it had
served to provide an alternative, independent news program to the state-
controlled TV network during an earlier period of political transition.
To respond to these programmatic challenges, some USAID officials
offered the following suggestions:
* Poor economic environment. The USAID Mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina
has focused on encouraging local business development strategies, and
currently financially supports the survival of only a select number of
media outlets. The USAID Mission in Mali told us that because of the
country's high poverty rate, they conduct workshops for radio stations
in order to provide them with small-business concepts that can be used
to generate additional outside revenues, like the sale of solar power
to provide lighting or the creation of centers to provide the community
with computer services and Internet access.
* Lack of business management training. Since 2002, Georgia's USAID
media project has worked to promote the sustainability of print and
broadcast media outlets by improving their business management skills
and establishing an independent and credible national system of
television audience measurement. As a result of better information on
the profile of viewers, TV advertising in Georgia increased from $3
million to $7 million in 2004 and is expected to increase to $13
million by 2006.
Various studies have also offered suggestions for addressing the
sustainability of media outlets. A working paper by the Netherlands
Institute of International Relations on "International Media
Assistance" suggested allowing more time during the life of a project
to focus on sustainability. Another report published by USAID, Media
Assistance: Policy and Programmatic Lessons, suggested that in
postconflict societies, only media outlets willing to take concrete and
concerted steps toward economic independence should be given technical
or financial assistance. According to this study, USAID has implemented
several activities that promote the financial independence or
sustainability of media outlets, but these activities have achieved
only limited success.
Limited Coordination at Some Locations Can Result in Confusion of
Responsibilities and Duplication of Efforts:
While not as widespread as other programmatic challenges, we found that
four of the nine countries we examined were challenged by coordination
issues, such as an unclear chain of command and limited communication,
which resulted in confusion over the responsibilities of donors and
providers of media development, duplication of efforts, or periods of
program inactivity. For example, the director of a Croatian media
development project worked with three different U.S. donors, with no
clear chain of command established. Thus, the director was unsure to
whom he should report under certain circumstances, resulting in
difficulty in reacting to urgent needs. In another case we reviewed,
State and USAID had unknowingly funded different NGOs that were working
independently to rebuild the same radio stations that had been
destroyed during the recent tsunami in Indonesia, leading to on-the-
ground project conflicts. Officials at the USAID Mission to Indonesia
told us this duplication of effort resulted from their lack of
awareness of a grant awarded by State's DRL bureau in Washington, D.C.,
that was similar to the grant USAID awarded.[Footnote 19] Poorly
maintained roads, combined with poor phone and Internet access,
contributed to communication and coordination challenges faced by the
USAID Mission in Haiti and the community radios it supports; this, in
turn slowed USAID's training activities, the delivery of equipment, and
other activities. USAID officials said they are planning to install
Internet and phone lines in rural areas to improve the situation.
One example of effective coordination can be found in Ukraine. Ukraine
is challenged by a complicated network of donors, providers, and
recipients (see fig. 1), multiple ongoing projects, various funding
sources, and agencies funding the same organizations and similar
activities. For example, four separate organizations, including the
U.S. Embassy (via the Media Development Ffund), Internews Network (via
a cooperative agreement via the USAID mission), the International
Renaissance Foundation, and NED (via its annual grant from State),
currently provide U.S.-sponsored funding or programmatic activities to
the advocacy and media monitoring organization Telekritika. However, in
Kiev, USAID and State officials have worked well together to minimize
coordination problems by keeping track of donor awards on a Web site
and attending donor coordination meetings on a monthly basis. According
to USAID officials, the Web site "Marketplace for Donors" is funded
jointly by State (the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, public affairs section) and
the International Renaissance Foundation.
Figure 1: U.S.-Sponsored Independent Media Development Projects and
Activities in Ukraine:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Media evaluations have made specific suggestions to improve the
coordination of donors, providers, and recipients of independent media
development programming in order to minimize the confusion of
responsibilities and duplication of efforts. An evaluation by the
University of Oxford, "Mapping Media Assistance," suggested donors and
providers coordinate the distribution of their limited resources in a
systematic and logical manner, based on their areas of specialization.
The Netherlands Institute of International Relations working paper on
"International Media Assistance," suggested establishing a strategic
coordination mechanism, like the European Media Agency for the European
Union, that could serve as a clearinghouse and evaluator of all media-
related assistance proposals for the targeted countries.
To address challenges in coordination, USAID funds regional media
conferences and has conducted a limited number of independent media
program evaluations, so that participants can share lessons learned;
however, these efforts face funding constraints. USAID has funded six
independent media development regional conferences in Europe and
Eurasia and one multiregional conference over the past 8 years. These
conferences have brought together journalists, media development
donors, providers, and civil society organizations to discuss issues in
journalism that transcend borders. USAID has also designated the Bureau
for Policy and Program Coordination to conduct several assessments of
independent media programs in various countries and identify lessons
learned and best practices. In addition, USAID bureaus and missions
have conducted several different types of studies on independent media
efforts, including midterm assessments, final reports, and program
evaluations. According to the Policy and Program Coordination bureau
director, USAID's independent media evaluations have created a body of
knowledge and lessons learned on subjects ranging from conflict areas
to transitional countries. However, USAID media officials noted that
the discontinuation of funding for conferences and limited funding
levels for evaluations could reduce the amount of collaboration and
sharing of lessons learned officials said is necessary to enhance media
development programming efforts. Additionally, several media officials
indicated that in some instances insufficient funding for USAID program
evaluations has forced media development providers to fund their own
evaluations through their project budgets, thus reducing funds
available for development activities. Although USAID requires its
evaluations to be posted on the Development Experience Clearinghouse to
make them accessible to other posts, one senior official said it was
unclear to what degree the lessons learned from evaluations are shared
or used by missions. For example, one official in Croatia said that
program evaluations are shared only within the region due to concerns
that other countries' approaches may not be relevant.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of State and the
USAID Administrator for their review and comment. State generally
concurred with our report, and USAID offered technical comments that
were incorporated, as appropriate. In addition, State indicated that it
plans to develop additional performance indicators and promote best
practices in the future. The comments provided by State are reprinted
in appendix IV, and comments by USAID are reprinted in appendix V.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of
Congress. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of State and the
Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. We will
also make copies available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4268 or [Hyperlink, fordj@gao.gov]. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed documentation and spoke with
officials from the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), the Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG), and key U.S. nongovernmental organization (NGO) partners,
including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International
Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), Internews, The Asia Foundation,
the Eurasia Foundation, and the International Center for Journalists.
In addition, we reviewed USAID's guidance for performance measurement.
Department of Defense media activities were not included in the scope
of our work as its primary focus in the media field is on conducting
psychological operations.
In addition to audit work performed in the United States, we traveled
to and reviewed documentation on U.S.-sponsored independent media
development programs in Croatia, Ukraine, and Indonesia. These
countries were primarily selected based on geographic representation;
preliminary estimates on funding and years of assistance
provided;[Footnote 20] and the range of programs offered. During travel
to Croatia, Ukraine, and Indonesia, we met with State Department and
USAID officials; multiple nonprofit, private donor, and multilateral
officials; and program recipients to discuss issues of coordination,
funding, measuring of program effectiveness, and challenges faced when
implementing foreign independent media development programs. We also
sent questions to and reviewed select documentation from posts in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Georgia, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, and Mali.
Agency Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Obligations:
In order to determine estimates for agency fiscal year 2004
obligations, we obtained data from State, USAID, the BBG, and select
NGOs. Assessments of the reliability of the data yielded mixed results,
but provided an overall indication of the minimum level of funding for
the agency.
USAID and Select NGOs:
USAID's historic budget obligations from USAID's Democracy, Conflict,
and Humanitarian Assistance bureau proved to be unreliable because (1)
USAID historic budget records on media development programs are
incomplete after 1996 because agencywide budget codes related to media
activities were discontinued at this time; (2) USAID budget records
were not finalized for fiscal year 2004; and (3) historic funding codes
could not be recoded or configured to accurately reflect the specific
activities of missions falling under our definition of independent
media development. In addition, although USAID officials indicated that
individual missions currently track spending for various program
components--including media development--independent media projects can
often be defined differently or be intermixed within broader civil
society projects; thus, missions may record media funding levels
inconsistently. Given this determination, we instead obtained USAID
fiscal year 2004 obligations from NGOs that USAID identified as the
main implementers of independent media development projects. In
particular, we gathered documentation separately from the International
Center for Journalists, Internews, The Eurasia Foundation, the Asia
Foundation, and IREX. USAID officials told us that the true figure for
USAID fiscal year 2004 obligations is likely significantly higher than
our estimate because (1) we were not able to obtain documentation from
all NGOs that received independent media development grants from USAID
headquarters;[Footnote 21] (2) we were not able to obtain data on
fiscal year 2004 obligations awarded directly by USAID missions to
local NGOS; and (3) we may not have captured all budget accounts that
funded obligations for fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 22]
State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy:
We gathered State Department fiscal year obligation data by obtaining
documentation from the following bureaus or offices: Democracy Human
Rights and Labor (DRL), the Office of the Coordinator of U.S.
Assistance to Europe and Eurasia (EUR/ACE), Educational and Cultural
Affairs (ECA), International Information Programs (IIP), Middle East
Partnership Initiative (MEPI), and State's regional bureaus.[Footnote
23] We requested the bureaus and offices include 2004 budget
obligations that met our definition of media assistance programs and
exclude programs funded by the State Department via interagency
transfers to USAID or BBG. To assess the reliability of the obligation
data, we (1) posed a standard set of questions to State officials, and
(2) reviewed the list provided for consistency with our definition of
media assistance programs. According to State officials, some variation
existed in the techniques used to compile the programs and budget
obligations. For example, some bureaus or agencies relied on electronic
databases to gather information, while others did not have these
systems. We found the list of programs to be consistent with the media
assistance program definition in our request. We determined that the
data provided by State were sufficiently reliable to provide an
estimate of 2004 budget obligations for media assistance programs. We
were not able to specifically determine NED's fiscal year 2004
obligations from State for independent media development projects
because NED receives several broad grants each year for its work to
support democratic initiatives. However, we were able to obtain
information from NED on the amount in subgrants for media development
activities it awarded during fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 24]
Broadcasting Board of Governors:
We determined fiscal year 2004 obligations data provided by the BBG to
be sufficiently reliable following an interview with BBG officials to
assess data reliability. The key factors in making the determination
were that BBG (1) used one budget account for the program area, and (2)
routinely performed checks on the reliability of the database used.
Review of Media Development Indexes:
To address our objective of examining agency performance measurement
for independent media development efforts, we also (1) reviewed
available agency, country, and program-level performance documentation
for the case study countries; and (2) assessed the principle media
development indexes--Freedom House's Press Freedom survey and the IREX
Media Sustainability Index (MSI). Our analysis of the Press Freedom
survey and the IREX MSI included interviews with officials at the
organizations responsible for the indexes and interviews with State and
USAID officials to determine the strengths and limitations of the data.
Challenges to Media Development:
To address the challenges that the United States faces in implementing
media development activities and achieving results, we interviewed or
requested information from State and USAID officials in Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Georgia, Haiti, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan,
Mali, and Ukraine. State and officials at all nine missions were asked
to list the challenges their mission has dealt with while implementing
media development programs and provide specific examples of how each
challenge impeded the effectiveness of their program. The officials
were also asked to explain the steps their mission took to mitigate
these challenges. Although the challenges provided could not be
generalized worldwide, we believe that the steps taken to mitigate the
challenges, or lessons learned, should be shared globally. Lastly, we
reviewed several media development studies published between 2000 and
2005 by State, USAID, the Knight Foundation, University of Oxford,
Freedom House, IREX, Foreign Affairs, Netherlands Institute of
International Relations, UNESCO, the United Kingdom's Department for
International Development, World Bank Institute Development Studies,
and Routledge Group. We did not review these studies for sufficiency of
methodology.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Select International Organizations or Donors That
Implement Media Development Programs:
Select non-U.S. donors: European Commission;
Program description: Provides major source of funding for media
development at the European level as part of its larger program of
human rights and democratization. Includes both macroprojects,
implemented in partnership with international organizations (like the
Office of Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE) that work with
local entities, and microprojects that directly fund local
organizations.
Select non-U.S. donors: Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE);
Program description: Supports freedom of the press and freedom of
information by providing training for journalists and technicians,
setting up radio stations, and monitoring freedom of information in the
media. OSCE also assists and advises governmental authorities as well
as print and electronic media in their endeavour to reform the media
sector.
Select non-U.S. donors: Open Society Institute and Soros Foundations
Network;
Program description: Concentrates on projects addressing issues of
democratic media legislation, monitoring violations of media freedom,
protecting journalists, establishing self-regulation systems and strong
independent professional organizations, and raising the professionalism
of journalists and media managers. .
Select non-U.S. donors: United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO);
Program description: Provides training to journalists and technical
media staff to strengthen independent media, establishes independent
printing plants and print distribution networks, and develops public
service broadcasting--including the establishment of a regulatory
framework and support for TV productions and co-productions.
Select non-U.S. donors: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP);
Program description: Promotes global access to information by
strengthening the legal and regulatory environment for freedom and
pluralism information, supporting capacity strengthening, networking,
and elevation of standards of media at national and local levels;
raising awareness on rights to official access to information; and
developing communication mechanisms for vulnerable groups.
Select non-U.S. donors: World Bank;
Program description: Supports civil society with direct funding
support--often provided in partnership with other international aid
donors--to back programs such as information technology access and
human rights.
Source: Select non-U.S. donors.
Note: Media development funding from these various donors was not
readily available, not presented in similar formats, and not easily
verifiable.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: State Department and USAID Goals Related to Independent
Media:
Table 5: Goals Related to Select Independent Media Development Programs
from Current State Mission Performance Plans:
Country: Croatia;
Strategic goals: Democratic systems and practices/democracy and human
rights;
Performance goals, strategies, and media- related tactics: Goal:
Croatia completes democratic transition away from its socialist and
authoritarian past and puts in place democratic institutions needed for
integration into the Euro-Atlantic institutions; Strategy: Support
transparent and accountable democratic systems, full integration of
minorities into national and local political structures, combat
trafficking in persons, and improve the climate for independent media;
Media-related tactic: Promote independent media through exchange and
training programs to expose Croatian journalists and editors to U.S.
practices.
Country: Ukraine;
Strategic goals: Democratic systems and practices/democracy and human
rights;
Performance goals, strategies, and media- related tactics: Goal:
Ukraine meets Euro-Atlantic standards of democratic practice and human
rights; Strategy 1: Support the capacity of the citizenry to engage
effectively in promoting its rights and interests for a more democratic
Ukraine; Media-related tactic: Foster the growth of NGOs that promote
and defend human rights, religious freedom, and media freedom; Strategy
2: Encourage Ukrainian government institutions to become more
effective, transparent, and accountable to the citizens within an
overall rule of law framework; Media-related tactic: Develop and
maintain a wide range of contacts in government, academia, media, think
tanks, and the international community to advocate effectively and
monitor progress, both in the government and in society as a whole.
Strategic goals: International public opinion/public diplomacy and
public affairs;
Performance goals, strategies, and media-related tactics: Goal: Public
Opinion in Ukraine moves towards U.S./Western values; Strategy:
Strengthen the capacity of Ukrainian media and civic organizations to
present a balanced view of domestic and international events; Media-
related tactics: Employ bilateral engagements, including sustained high-
level demarches, in support of a free press, access to information, and
journalists' rights to freely exercise their profession; coordinate
with the European Union and G-7 and other key countries, donors, and
institutions on matters including assistance, policy, and demarches;
support grassroots media initiatives such as expansion of Internet
access by regional media, substantive newspaper supplements, and TV
documentaries through embassy, AID, NGO, and foundation projects;
provide technical assistance for projects that strengthen independent
media, journalist advocacy, and managerial capacity of independent
media; finance legal assistance for journalists and media outlets to
improve the legal and regulatory framework for media, including access
to information.
Country: Bosnia-Herzegovina;
Strategic goals: Democratic systems and practices/democracy and human
rights;
Performance goals, strategies, and media-related tactics: Goal: Bosnia-
Herzegovina is an accountable, transparent democracy with a robust
civil society and respect for human rights; Strategy: Increase citizen
participation in political/social decision making, particularly in
public sector reform. Media outlets provide useful information to
citizens as basis for making informed judgments and identify areas
where public pressure can be usefully applied; Media-related tactics:
Assist viable private sector broadcast and print media to provide a
broad range of objective programming; provide technical assistance and
political support to the Bosnian Communications Regulatory Agency
(RAK), Press Council, Association of Electronic Media, journalist
associations, and media training providers; support domestic
production.
Strategic goals: International public opinion/public diplomacy and
public affairs;
Performance goals, strategies, and media-related tactics: Strategy:
Influence public opinion and explain U.S. positions on global issues
including the war on terrorism, Iraq, and the Middle East; stress
democratic and economic themes related to European and Euro-Atlantic
integration, rule of law, trafficking in persons, development of an
independent and professional media, and private sector growth.
Country: Kyrgyzstand;
Strategic goals: Democratic systems and practices/democracy and human
rights;
Performance goals, strategies, and media-related tactics: Goal:
Encourage the growth of an active and informed civil society in the
Kyrgyz Republic; help build independent media that report objectively
and freely; encourage strong democratic institutions including an
independent parliament and independent judiciary; support active
independent political parties, rule of law, respect for human rights,
and free and fair and transparent elections; Strategy: Increase the
quality, quantity, and accessibility of information available to Kyrgyz
citizens; Media-related tactics: Work with government officials to
press for reform of media and libel laws and for decrease in pressure
against independent media; support independent media through programs
to provide independent printing facilities, legal counsel,
institutional support to journalists' associations, and training in new
media technology; support journalists' professional associations and
their capacity to monitor and document press freedom infringements and
advocate on these issues with the government; monitor violations of
press freedom and report on policy and trends affecting media; teach
objective journalism and management skills to increase media outlets'
professional and economic viability; support programs that encourage
political dialogue and debate, such as discussion clubs and TV/radio
talk shows, and ensure that remote areas also have access to such
programs; increase the accessibility to diverse forms of information
about political, economic, and social issues for all citizens; support
spread of Internet access throughout the country.
Country: Haiti;
Strategic goals: Stable conditions in fragile or failing
states/counterterrorism;
Performance goals, strategies, and media-related tactics: Goal: Support
the transition of Haiti in the context of a long-term effort to
strengthen democratic practices, invest in people through education and
training, and economic development; Strategy: Use of all mission
resources effectively to strengthen democratic institutions and
practices, promote the rule of law and good governance, and strengthen
civil liberties; Media-related tactics: Strengthen the independent
press; strengthen media independence and community radio networks.
Country: Georgia;
Strategic goals: Democratic systems and practices/democracy and human
rights;
Performance goals, strategies, and media- related tactics: Goal:
Georgia's democratic reforms are consolidated, resulting in adherence
to the rule of law, improved government transparency and
accountability, reduced corruption and broad public participation in
political life; Strategy: Foster the development of an increasingly
vibrant civil society. Assist in building a vibrant and diverse civil
society, including political parties, independent and responsible
media, and constituency-based NGO coalitions to advocate for reforms in
Georgia, and to partner with the new government in carrying out key
reforms; Media-related tactics: Increase journalistic professionalism
through U.S. and locally based assistance for print and broadcast
media.
Country: Egypt;
Strategic goals: American values respected abroad/public diplomacy and
public affairs;
Performance goals, strategies, and media-related tactics: Goal: U.S.
core values advanced in Egypt through the Middle East Partnership
Initiative and public diplomacy programs; Strategy: Foster pluralism
and democracy in Egypt; Media-related tactic: Initiate new program to
support journalism training on free, fair, and accurate reporting
through both classroom work and internships with U.S. news media.
Country: Indonesia;
Strategic goals: Democratic systems and practices;
Performance goals, strategies, and media-related tactics: Goal:
Indonesia consolidates political reforms, addresses the causes of
separatist and ethnic crises, and enhances protections for vulnerable
populations; Strategy: Help transform Indonesia's civilian governmental
institutions--including the parliament, ministries, and judicial
sector--into efficient, democratically functioning entities; Media-
related tactic: Professionalize media through exchange and training
programs.
Strategic goals: Mutual understanding;
Performance goals, strategies, and media-related tactics: Goal:
Increase understanding for American values, policies, and initiatives
to create a receptive environment in Indonesia; Strategy 1: Conduct a
variety of exchanges to increase mutual understanding and build trust
between American and Indonesia people and institutions; Media-related
tactic: U.S. Fulbright lecturers, students, and researchers outreach on
the topic of free and responsible media; Strategy 2: Ensure the basic
human values embraced by Americans are respected and understood by the
Indonesia public and institutions; Media-related tactic: Provide Small
Democracy Grants to bolster free and independent media.
Source: State Department.
[End of table]
Table 6: Objectives for Select Independent Media Development Programs
from Current USAID Country Strategies[A]:
Case study country: Ukraine;
Strategic objectives: Citizens increasingly engaged in promoting their
interests and rights for a more democratic market-oriented state;
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objective: Availability of quality information increased.
Case study country: Croatia;
Strategic objectives: More effective citizen participation and improved
governance;
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objectives: Sustainable and balanced commercial media; journalists'
professional standards improved; management and business capacity of
media organizations strengthened.
Case study country: Bosnia-Herzegovina;
Strategic objectives: A more participatory, inclusive democratic
society;
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objectives: Increased citizen participation in political and social
decision making; viable private-sector broadcast and print media
provide a broad range of objective programming.
Case study country: Georgia;
Strategic objectives: More effective, responsible, and accountable
local governance;
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objectives: Independent media highlights citizens' concerns and informs
communities on key issues; Objectives for activities: Increased media
professionalism to provide objective information at both the national
and local level; better business management of local media outlets and
increased financial management; improved legal and regulatory framework
that supports free speech and access to information.
Case study country: Kyrgyzstan;
Strategic objectives: Strengthened democratic culture among citizens
and target institutions;
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objectives: Increased availability of information on civic rights and
domestic public issues; increased news programming and improved
financial and management systems in targeted media entities.
Case study country: Haiti;
Strategic objectives: Genuinely inclusive democratic governance
attained;
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objective: Civil society organizations positively influence policies.
Case study country: Indonesia;
Strategic objectives: Effective democratic and decentralized
governance; (Independent media development is considered a cross-
cutting issue);
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objectives: Expanding participatory, effective and accountable local
governance; Objectives for activities: Civil society organizations and
other stakeholders such as universities, religious-based organizations,
business associations, labor associations, and the media develop the
capacity to effectively participate in local decision-making and
advocacy processes.
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objectives: Consolidating the reform agenda; Objectives for activities:
Unions and press councils provide policy advice and advocate on behalf
of media legislation, undertaking litigation to seek compliance with
media laws and regulations, and the provision of legal aid and services
in the defense of journalists and the media industry; work with civil
society organizations to support the laws that give media freedom;
support media initiatives that promote transparency and freedom of
information.
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objectives: Addressing conflict and encouraging pluralism; Objectives
for activities: Media Coverage in conflict areas becomes objective and
noninflammatory; support program that gives information to the tsunami
affected area.
Case study country: Mali;
Strategic objectives: Increase pubic access to quality development
information in targeted areas;
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objectives: Regulatory and policy environment responsive to public
interest.
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objectives: Policies and procedures proposed for adoption.
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objectives: Improved quality of development information; enhanced
institutional capacity to produce development information.
Case study country: Egypt;
Strategic objectives: Initiatives in governance and participation
strengthened;
Performance objectives and objectives for activities: Performance
objectives: Establish and ensure media freedom and freedom of
information.
Source: USAID.
[A] Strategic objectives and performance objectives (also called
intermediate results) are included that we judged to be related to
mission independent media development efforts.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
JUL 15 2005:
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, "INDEPENDENT
MEDIA DEVELOPMENT ABROAD: Challenges Exist in Implementing U.S. Efforts
and Measuring Results," GAO Job Code 320306.
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
Morris Jacobs, Senior Advisor, Office of Planning and Resources for
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, at (202) 647-0444:
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Sid Kaplan (Acting):
cc: GAO - Melissa Pickworth;
R - Tim Isgitt:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
INDEPENDENT MEDIA DEVELOPMENT ABROAD: Challenges Exist in Implementing
U.S. Efforts and Measuring Results (GAO-05-803, GAO Code 320306):
The Department wishes to thank GAO for the opportunity to review this
report in draft.
We believe the report represents a solid effort to identify the
challenges facing the U.S. Government in its efforts to support the
development of independent media around the world. As the report notes,
this is a key component of our strategy to help build sustainable
democracies around the world, and by doing so to enhance our own
national security.
We agree with GAO's assessment of the difficulties inherent in
measuring the effectiveness of independent media programs, particularly
at the field or post level. The Department is currently developing a
new set of performance indicators for public diplomacy and is looking
to include media development and outreach activities as part of that
framework. Specifically, the recently-established Office of Policy,
Planning and Resources in the Office of the Under Secretary for Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs plans to launch a program evaluation of
media training programs in fiscal year 2006. This will include an
assessment of performance at the field level, and to that end we are
working to gather performance data.
We understand that some tools used by State and USAID to measure the
impact of our media development support --IREX and Freedom House
studies of national media sustainability --track country performance
rather that specific program performance. However, we do believe that
if the United States is the only or most significant donor in the field
of independent media development, it is possible to take some degree of
credit for sectoral improvement. While we cannot take full credit or
responsibility for national measures of success, we can plausibly state
that our programs have had impact where we see country progress based
on these and similar measurements.
Finally, we note the coordination issues contained in the report. We
plan to use some of this information in the future to highlight "best
practices" for our posts and program elements. This issue will also
figure in our discussions with USAID as we revise our current joint
Strategic Plan.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
USAID:
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:
July 19, 2005:
Mr. Jess Ford:
Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Ford:
I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International Development's
(USAID) formal response on the draft GAO report entitled Independent
Media Development Abroad: Challenges Exist in Implementing U.S. Efforts
and Measuring Results, [GAO-05-803]. (July 2005):
Extensive comments have been submitted under separate cover from
relevant Bureaus in Washington, including the Europe and Eurasia
Bureau, and from the Office of Democracy and Governance in the
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance Bureau. Additional
comments have been provided from USAID missions in Europe and Asia.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this
review.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven G. Wisecarver:
Acting Assistant Administrator:
Bureau for Management:
U.S. Agency for International Development:
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW:
Washington, DC 20523:
www.usaid.gov:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Jess T. Ford, (202) 512-4268:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Diana Glod, Melissa Pickworth, Julia A. Roberts, and Joe Carney made
key contributions to this report. Martin de Alteriis, Ernie Jackson,
Amanda K. Miller, and Valerie J. Caracelli provided technical
assistance.
(320306):
FOOTNOTES
[1] World Bank, World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions
for Markets (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
[2] As measured by Freedom House's global average score from the
Freedom of the Press 2005 survey.
[3] Due to its limited efforts, we did not examine the BBG's media
development programs.
[4] Department of Defense media activities, such as those in Iraq and
Afghanistan, were not included in the scope of our work, as its primary
focus for independent media is psychological operations and
postconflict media reconstruction.
[5] Includes activities such as in-country training, third-country
training, long-term study, training of trainers, and in-country
residencies by expatriate experts.
[6] One senior State official told us there is currently no separate
interagency strategy guiding U.S. democracy assistance programs.
Moreover, as identified in our recent GAO report on public diplomacy,
no U.S. strategic communications strategy currently exists to guide
agency public diplomacy efforts. See GAO, Interagency Coordination
Efforts Hampered by the Lack of a National Communication Strategy, GAO-
05-323 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4, 2005).
[7] State department officials provided us these figures directly after
requesting information from relevant bureaus and posts regarding their
2004 obligations for independent media.
[8] The BBG has an interagency agreement with USAID through which it
receives an interagency transfer from State's Office of the Coordinator
of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia to support a limited number of
media training programs.
[9] We were not able to compile global fiscal year 2004 obligations
using initial budget records USAID provided because we determined that
they were not sufficiently reliable due to insufficient or inconsistent
media activity coding and lack of updated global data for the fiscal
year. We subsequently obtained documentation or records on fiscal year
2004 obligations made by USAID from the main NGO providers that receive
independent media development grants from USAID headquarters, including
the International Center for Journalists, IREX, The Asia Foundation,
and Internews. For more information on how these figures were developed
and data limitations, see appendix I.
[10] See Public Law 102-511 and Public Law 101-179, respectively.
[11] USAID officials told us that individual missions currently track
spending for various program components, including media development;
however, because independent media projects can often be defined
differently or be intermixed within broader civil society projects, all
missions may not be recording media spending in the same manner.
[12] Media development efforts are frequently designated by the mission
as a tactic or strategy for accomplishing broader performance goals
related to Democracy and Human Rights or Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs. See table 6 in appendix III for related goals and strategies
for our case study countries.
[13] Seven of the nine USAID missions provided us with documentation on
performance indicators for specific independent media projects; we did
not obtain relevant documentation from the USAID missions in Egypt and
Mali.
[14] If performance objectives (referred to as strategic objectives or
intermediate results by USAID) are established, USAID missions are
required to establish performance indicators for those goals.
[15] Media-specific indicators were established in current planning
documents for the U.S. missions to Ukraine, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia. In addition to the MSI and Freedom House Press
Freedom Survey, Freedom House's Nations in Transit Independent Media
Survey scores were used.
[16] The USAID mission to Ukraine has hired a special marketing
consultant to develop specific indicators of performance, including
measures of the quality and quantity of news and information produced
by partner media outlets, consumer satisfaction with partner media
outlets, financial viability of partner outlets, and awareness of legal
rights and responsibilities of journalists and media owners. Funds were
set aside in the cooperative agreement for the development of such
data.
[17] Countries or territories assessed in the MSI include Albania,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova,
Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and
Uzbekistan.
[18] State provided a list of some suggested measures for missions,
including using the following as indicators when relevant independent
media development goals are established: opposition parties have access
to state-run media, independent media outlets are established, and
mechanisms are established to provide citizens with information to make
objective decisions about political and social choices.
[19] In May 2005, USAID Indonesia completed its media strategy that
sets out broad strategic parameters with respect to media programming,
including some attention on the tsunami-affected region of Aceh.
[20] With the exception of two countries that we were not able to
obtain initial estimates for, case studies and follow-up countries were
selected that had estimated U.S. investments of over $1 million for
independent media development.
[21] We obtained documentation or records on fiscal year 2004
obligations made by USAID from the main NGO providers that receive
independent media development grants from USAID headquarters, including
the International Center for Journalists, IREX, the Asia Foundation,
and Internews. In addition, we obtained information from the Eurasia
Foundation on the amount in subgrants it awarded during fiscal year
2004.
[22] Some agency budget accounts fund obligations for only 1 fiscal
year, over 2 fiscal years, or until funds are expended (also called "no-
year" money). In some instances, we were not able to associate an
obligated amount to a particular fiscal year.
[23] State's East Asia and Pacific bureau reported actual expenditures.
Agency officials indicated that these expenditures were approximations
because of the time of year that the data were collected.
[24] The data showed that during fiscal year 2004, NED awarded
approximately $6.5 million in subgrants for independent media
development projects.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
