Many of BBG’s Language Services Overlap with Another BBG Service, but Annual Review Does Not Systematically Consider Overlap’s Cost or Impact

Nearly two-thirds of the BBG language services—that is, offices that  produce content for particular languages and regions—overlap with  another BBG service by providing programs to the same countries in the  same languages. Nearly Two-Thirds of BBG’s Language Services Overlap with Another BBG Service

We identified 23 instances of overlap, involving 43 of BBG’s 69 language  services (62 percent), where two services provide programming to the  same countries in the same languages. For example, in 8 instances  involving 16 services, a VOA service and an RFA service overlapped. In almost all countries, the overlapping entities  BBG officials noted some benefits of its overlapping language services,  such as the availability of news from various sources in countries of  strategic interest to the United States. However, these officials acknowledged that overlap among its  language services reduces the funding available for other BBG  broadcasts, including those that may have greater impact. associated with maintaining the 43 overlapping language services is  about $149 million, or nearly 20 percent of BBG’s total appropriations for  fiscal year 2011. Specifically, we found that U.S. commercial  broadcasters transmit in 7 of the 59 BBG languages and target different  audiences, and other democratic nations’ government-supported  broadcasters transmit in over half of BBG languages, but each represents  the unique perspectives and interests of its respective country. More Than Half of BBG Languages Are Used by Other International Broadcasters, Although Their Objectives Differ

BBG and the other international broadcasters we reviewed broadcast in  many of the same languages, although their objectives differ. BBG’s Annual Language Service Review Does Not Systematically Consider Activities of Other International Broadcasters

The International Broadcasting Act contains 18 standards and principles  for U.S. international broadcasting, including that U.S. international  broadcasting shall not duplicate the activities of private U.S. broadcasters  or of other democratic nations’ government-supported broadcasting  entities. BBG’s annual language service review generally considers the broadcast  alternatives available to targeted audiences by identifying the most  significant broadcasters in each market BBG serves. However,  the language service review process does not systematically identify the  languages used, and the countries served, by other major democratic  nations’ international broadcasters and U.S. commercial broadcasters. Further, it does not assess the extent to which these broadcasters  provide similar or complementary alternatives to BBG broadcasts. However, without regularly  reviewing and documenting the activities of other international  broadcasters, BBG risks missing opportunities to better allocate its  resources. Conclusions

U.S. public diplomacy efforts rely on U.S. international broadcasting to  communicate directly with audiences in countries with limited journalism  alternatives. However, by not systematically considering the  cost and impact of overlap in its annual language service reviews—BBG’s  primary method of prioritizing broadcast languages and planning resource  allocations—the agency risks missing opportunities to reduce overlap as  appropriate, strengthen impact, and improve coordination among its  entities. In addition, BBG noted that  its strategic plan for 2012-2016 recognized the existence of overlapping  language services and that it had introduced proposals to reduce  unnecessary overlap. Other key contributors to this report are  listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines the extent to which (1) Broadcasting Board of  Governors (BBG) language services overlap with one another, and (2)  BBG broadcasts in the same languages as other international  broadcasters. In particular, we reviewed the United  States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended, and other  laws relevant to the five BBG entities—federal entities the Voice of  America (VOA) and Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), and nonprofit  grantees Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. (MBN), Radio Free  Asia (RFA), and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).
Why GAO Did This Study

U.S. international broadcasting is intended to communicate directly with audiences in countries with limited journalism alternatives and to inform, engage, and connect people around the world. BBG oversees two U.S. government entities--Voice of America and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting-- and three nonprofit grantees that act as surrogates for local media--Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc.; Radio Free Asia; and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In 2003, GAO found overlap among BBG's language services. In its strategic plan for 2012- 2016, BBG recognizes the need to reduce language service overlap.
GAO was asked to review issues related to international broadcasting. This report examines the extent to which (1) BBG language services overlap with one another and (2) BBG broadcasts in the same languages as other international broadcasters. GAO reviewed laws, reports, and other documents related to U.S. international broadcasting; analyzed information on the BBG entities; and interviewed representatives of the five BBG entities and international broadcasters.

What GAO Found

Nearly two-thirds of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) language services--offices that produce content for particular languages and regions-- overlap with another BBG service by providing programs to the same countries in the same languages. GAO identified 23 instances of overlap involving 43 of BBG's 69 services. For example, in 8 instances involving 16 services, a Voice of America service and a Radio Free Asia service overlapped. Almost all overlapping services also broadcast on the same platform (i.e., radio or television). BBG officials noted that some overlap may be helpful in providing news from various sources in countries of strategic interest to the United States; however, they acknowledged that overlap reduces the funding available for broadcasts that may have greater impact. BBG budget information indicates that BBG spent approximately $149 million in fiscal year 2011 to maintain language services broadcasting in the same countries and languages--nearly 20 percent of its total appropriations. However, BBG has not estimated the potential savings and efficiencies from reducing unnecessary overlap. Further, BBG's annual language service review--its primary means of prioritizing broadcast languages and planning resource allocations--does not systematically consider the cost and impact of overlap. As a result, BBG may be missing opportunities to reduce overlap as appropriate, strengthen impact, and improve BBG entity coordination.
More than half of BBG's broadcast languages are used by other international broadcasters--U.S. commercial international broadcasters and other major democratic nations' government-supported international broadcasters--although these broadcasters' objectives differ from BBG's. The U.S. commercial broadcasters that GAO identified transmit in seven of the BBG languages and target different audiences, with for-profit aims. Other democratic nations' broadcasters, including Germany's Deutsche Welle and the United Kingdom's BBC, transmit in 35 of the 59 BBG languages, although each broadcaster represents the unique perspectives and interests of its respective country. BBG's annual language service review generally considers the broadcast alternatives available to targeted audiences by identifying the most significant broadcasters in each market BBG serves. However, the review process does not systematically identify the languages used and the countries served by other international broadcasters, and it does not assess the extent to which these broadcasters provide similar or complementary alternatives to BBG broadcasts. As a result, BBG risks missing additional opportunities to better allocate its resources.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that BBG systematically consider in its annual language service reviews (1) the cost and impact of overlap among BBG entities' language services and (2) the activities of other international broadcasters. BBG agreed with GAO's recommendations and reported taking initial steps to implement them.