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: