State Has Expanded Its Efforts in Muslim- majority Countries Since September 11

Since September 11, State has expanded its efforts in Muslim-majority  countries that are considered strategically important in the war on  terrorism. State has also launched a number of new initiatives targeting  broader, younger audiences—particularly in predominantly Muslim  countries—and plans to continue these initiatives in the future. The absence of an  integrated strategy could impede State’s ability to direct its multifaceted  efforts toward concrete and measurable progress. State Does Not Have an Integrated Public Diplomacy Strategy

After September 11, State acknowledged the lack of, and need for, a  strategy that integrates all of its diverse public diplomacy activities and  directs them toward common objectives. However, the strategy is still in  the development stage. The lack of an interagency strategy complicates the task of conveying  consistent messages and thus achieving mutually reinforcing benefits. State Lacks Measurable Indicators of Progress Toward Public Diplomacy Goals

State is not systematically and comprehensively measuring progress  toward its public diplomacy goals. Its overseas performance measurement  efforts focus on anecdotal evidence and program outputs, rather than  gauging progress toward changing foreign publics’ understanding and  attitudes about the United States. Public affairs officers responding to our  survey reported that their missions had insufficient staff to conduct  systematic program evaluations. State Faces Other Significant Challenges

State’s public diplomacy efforts face some additional significant  challenges. Public affairs officers also reported that  burdensome administrative and budgetary processes often divert their  attention from public diplomacy programs. A significant number of Foreign  Service officers involved in public diplomacy efforts overseas lack  sufficient foreign language skills. About  58 percent of the officers responding to our survey reported that the  amount of time available for such training is inadequate. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the planning, coordination, execution, and assessment of U.S.  public diplomacy efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of State  develop and widely disseminate throughout the department a strategy  that considers the techniques of private sector public relations firms in  integrating all of State’s public diplomacy efforts and directing them  toward achieving common and measurable objectives;  consider ways to collaborate with the private sector to employ best  practices for measuring efforts to inform and influence target audiences,  including expanded use of opinion research and better use of existing  research;  designate more administrative positions to overseas public affairs  sections to reduce the administrative burden;  strengthen efforts to train Foreign Service officers in foreign languages;   program adequate time for public diplomacy training into State’s  assignment process. We also met with officials in State’s Office  of the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, the Bureau  of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the Bureau of Public Affairs, the Office  of International Information Programs, and regional bureaus in  Washington, D.C.
To assess whether State has an overall strategy for its public diplomacy  programs and how it measures the effectiveness of these programs, we  reviewed relevant planning, program, and other documentation; analyzed  survey results; and met with cognizant State, academic, and private sector  officials.
Why GAO Did This Study

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, focused attention on the need to improve public diplomacy efforts to cultivate a better public opinion of the United States abroad. However, recent opinion research indicates that many foreign publics, especially in countries with significant Muslim populations, view the United States unfavorably. GAO examined changes in the State Department's (State) public diplomacy efforts since September 11, whether State has an overall strategy for its public diplomacy programs, how it measures their effectiveness, and challenges it faces in implementing these programs.

What GAO Found

Since September 11, State expanded its public diplomacy efforts in Muslim-majority countries considered to be of strategic importance in the war on terrorism. It significantly increased program funding and the number of Foreign Service officers in South Asia and the Near East. It also launched new initiatives targeting broader, younger audiences--particularly in predominantly Muslim countries--and plans to continue them in the future. After September 11, State acknowledged the lack of, and the need for, a comprehensive strategy that integrates all of its diverse public diplomacy activities. Such a strategy is still in the development stage. The absence of an integrated strategy could impede State's ability to direct its multifaceted efforts toward concrete and measurable progress. Furthermore, an interagency public diplomacy strategy has not been completed that would help State and other federal agencies convey consistent messages and achieve mutually reinforcing benefits overseas. State is not systematically and comprehensively measuring progress toward its public diplomacy goals. Its overseas performance measurement efforts focus on anecdotal evidence and program outputs, rather than indicate progress in changing foreign publics' understanding and opinions of the United States. State's efforts face significant challenges, including insufficient time and staff to conduct public diplomacy tasks. Public affairs officers responding to our survey said that burdensome administrative and budgetary processes divert their attention from public diplomacy programs. In addition, about 21 percent of Foreign Service officers in language-designated public diplomacy positions overseas lack sufficient foreign language skills. We also found that about 58 percent of public affairs officers responding to our survey believe the amount of time to attend public diplomacy training is inadequate.