This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-374 
entitled 'U.S. International Broadcasting: Enhanced Measure of Local 
Media Conditions Would Facililate Decisions to Terminate Language 
Services' which was released on February 26, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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, Comittee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate:

February 2004:

U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING:

Enhanced Measure of Local Media Conditions Would Facilitate Decisions 
to Terminate Language Services:

GAO-04-374:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-374, a report to the Chairman, Committee on 
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate 

Why GAO Did This Study:

In its fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress, the Broadcasting 
Board of Governors (the Board) proposed the elimination of 17 Central 
and Eastern European language services managed by the Voice of America 
and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) in order to free 
resources for higher- priority initiatives such as the war on 
terrorism. GAO was asked to examine (1) how the Board determines which 
language services should be proposed for reduction or termination and 
(2) the extent to which local media conditions are considered before a 
termination proposal is made. In addition, GAO’s report provides 
summary analysis and conclusions relating to the media conditions in 
three countries impacted by the Board’s language service termination 
decisions.

What GAO Found:

The Board identifies language service reductions and eliminations 
through its annual language service review process and follow-up 
consultations with the State Department and the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB). The language service review process provides an 
analytical framework for making such decisions based on a number of 
decision criteria. The principal criteria used by the Board are 
language priority and language service impact. Other decision criteria 
considered by the Board include whether overlapping language services 
broadcast to the same target areas. Final resource allocation 
decisions and proposals are made after the Board consults with the 
State Department on foreign policy considerations and with OMB on 
budget-related issues. 

The Board’s current measure of press freedom does not adequately 
address the congressional concern that RFE/RL language service should 
not be terminated until a domestic media exists that provides 
accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information to a 
national audience. The Board evaluates local media conditions 
primarily through an annual survey of press freedom conducted by the 
media watch group Freedom House. This press freedom rating, along with 
some adjustments made by the Board, constitutes one of seven factors 
used to develop a priority list of broadcast languages. While the 
Board’s press freedom measure addresses the issue of press freedom, it 
does not specifically measure whether domestic media provide news that 
is accurate, balanced, and comprehensive. GAO’s analysis of relevant 
data sources and discussions with agency officials indicate that among 
the services targeted for elimination, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania 
stand out as having the most unstable media environments. 

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that the Board modify its language service review 
process to include an assessment of whether the domestic media in 
target countries provides accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news 
and information to the national audience. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-374.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 
on the link above. For more information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 
512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Candidates for Reduction and Possible Termination Are Identified 
through Language Service Review Process and External Consultations: 

Board's Press Freedom Measure Does Not Address Media Responsibility or 
Professionalism: 

Media Conditions in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania Raise Concerns:

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language Service Review 
Process: 

Language Priority: 

Language Service Impact: 

Priority/Impact Matrix: 

Appendix II: Language Service Budget and Program Data: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Targeted Language Service Eliminations: 

Table 2: Press Watch Group Excerpts from Calendar Year 2003 Annual 
Country Reports: 

Table 3: Language Service Review Evaluation Factors: 

Table 4: Language Service Impact Factors: 

Table 5: 2002 Priority/Impact Matrix: 

Table 6: Budget, Staffing, Priority, Impact, and Transmission Hours Data 
for Language Services Targeted for Elimination (fiscal years 2000-
2003): 

Figures: 

Figure 1: U.S. International Broadcasting Chart: 

Figure 2: Language Service Review and Resource Reallocation Process: 

Abbreviations: 

EMU: European Multimedia Unit:

IBB: International Broadcasting Bureau:

IREX: International Research and Exchanges Board:

MSI: Media Sustainability Index:

NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization:

OMB: Office of Management and Budget:

RFA: Radio Free Asia:

RFE/RL: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:

VOA: Voice of America:

Letter February 26, 2004:

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Foreign Relations: 
United States Senate:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In its fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress, the Broadcasting 
Board of Governors (the Board) proposed the elimination of 17 Central 
and Eastern European language services affecting Bulgaria, Croatia, the 
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, 
Slovakia, and Slovenia. The language services targeted for termination, 
which include 10 Voice of America (VOA) and 7 Radio Free Europe/Radio 
Liberty services (RFE/RL), as well as other reductions, are estimated 
to generate savings of up to $8.8 million for fiscal year 2004 and 
recurring annual savings of about $12.1 million that could be 
redirected to higher-priority initiatives.[Footnote 1] With passage of 
the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, House and Senate 
conferees adopted the Board's proposal to terminate service to those 
Central and Eastern European nations that have been invited to become 
new members states of the European Union or the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) and have received a Freedom House press freedom 
rating equal to that of the United States. Conferees expressed the 
expectation that broadcast services in Romanian and Croatian should 
continue.[Footnote 2] They also established an expectation that the 
Board will continue to monitor press freedom conditions in the region 
and around the world and will advise the Committees on Appropriations 
regarding any changes to language service priorities.

You expressed interest in the process the Board used to make language 
service elimination decisions and whether the process was applied to 
the 17 language services targeted for termination. You also asked if 
the Board's review process included an adequate review of local media 
conditions, which can enable and support the development of democratic 
societies. As agreed with your staff, this report examines (1) how the 
Board determines which language services are candidates for reduction 
or elimination and (2) the extent to which the Board evaluates local 
media conditions in making such decisions. In addition, we provide 
summary information on media conditions in Bulgaria, Croatia, and 
Romania, which appear to be particularly underdeveloped.

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed documentation on language 
service reductions and eliminations over the past 4 years and discussed 
the Board's decision-making process with individual Board members, 
senior Board planners, senior managers and language service chiefs from 
VOA and RFE/RL, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and State 
Department officials, media experts at the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID), and a number of private sector 
researchers and media development experts including Freedom House, 
InterNews, InterMedia, and the International Research & Exchanges Board 
(IREX). Our analysis included a review of the approach the Board uses 
to assess language service priority and impact, with a particular focus 
on its measure of press freedom to see if local media conditions were 
adequately assessed.

Results in Brief:

The Board makes decisions about which language services to reduce or 
eliminate based on the results of its language service review process 
and follow-up consultations with the State Department and OMB. 
Beginning with its annual language service review, the Board evaluates 
each of its language services using an analytical framework that 
incorporates as many objective decision criteria as possible to help 
guide such decisions. Ranked priority and impact lists are developed 
using such measures as U.S. strategic interest in the countries where 
the service is broadcast, press freedom, political freedom, 
geopolitical instability, and population size. Other decision criteria 
considered by the Board include whether overlapping language services 
exist in the targeted countries and the potential impact a reduction or 
elimination could have on the Board's ability to meet surge capacity 
requirements in times of crisis. Lower-priority or lower-impact 
services become candidates for cuts or elimination, usually to fund 
higher-priority or new initiatives. Final resource reallocation 
decisions are made after the Board's proposed adjustments are 
coordinated with the State Department and OMB. In the case of the 17 
language services targeted for elimination, the Board used this 
analytical framework to determine that these services should be 
terminated to free funds for higher-priority initiatives, such as the 
war on terrorism.

The Board evaluates local media conditions primarily through a yearly 
survey of press freedom conditions that considers a number of factors 
but does not adequately measure whether the press is responsible and 
professional. Currently, the Board relies mostly on the annual press 
freedom survey conducted by a nonprofit group called Freedom House. 
This survey examines the extent to which the legal, political, and 
economic environment in each country supports press freedom. However, 
it does not address whether national media provide accurate, balanced, 
and comprehensive news and information, factors that Congress has 
stipulated it expects the Board to consider before terminating RFE/RL 
language services.

Our analysis indicates that among the services targeted for elimination 
by the Board, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania stand out as having the 
most unstable media environments. This conclusion is based on published 
press freedom data and analyses from various sources; USAID and State 
Department media development efforts in these countries; and comments 
from Board, VOA, and RFE/RL officials regarding the relative importance 
of the broadcast operations targeted for elimination.

This report makes a recommendation to the Chairman of the Broadcasting 
Board that the Board enhance its measure of local media conditions, 
which would improve its language service review process and facilitate 
decisions to terminate language services. The Board generally agreed 
with our findings, conclusions, and recommendation. We have reprinted 
the Board's comments in appendix III.

Background:

The Broadcasting Board of Governors oversees the efforts of all 
nonmilitary international broadcasting, which reaches an estimated 
audience of more than 100 million people each week in more than 125 
markets worldwide. The Board manages the operations of the 
International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB),[Footnote 3] VOA, WorldNet 
Television, the Middle East Television Network (which consists of 
Alhurra--the Board's new Arabic language television station--and Radio 
Sawa), Radio Farda, Radio/TV Marti, RFE/RL, and Radio Free Asia (RFA) 
with an annual budget of over half a billion dollars. The latter three 
organizations function as "surrogate" broadcasters, designed to 
temporarily replace the local media of countries where a free and open 
press does not exist and to promote democratic values and institutions 
by disseminating factual information and ideas.

Each broadcast entity is organized around a collection of language 
services that produces program content. In some countries, more than 
one entity broadcasts in the same language. These "overlapping" 
services are designed to meet the distinct missions of each broadcast 
entity. Figure 1 illustrates the Board's current organizational 
structure.

Figure 1: U.S. International Broadcasting Chart:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Given the temporary nature of the surrogate services, Congress has 
outlined broad sunset provisions for each service. The U.S. 
International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended,[Footnote 4] 
contains a sense of Congress[Footnote 5] statement that RFE/RL should 
continue to broadcast to the peoples of Central Europe, Eurasia, and 
the Persian Gulf until such time as a particular nation has (1) clearly 
demonstrated the successful establishment and consolidation of 
democratic rule and (2) firmly established a widely accessible domestic 
media that provides accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and 
information to the national audience. When a particular nation meets 
both of these conditions, RFE/RL should phase out broadcasting to that 
nation.

Congress has not stipulated that similar press freedom conditions 
should exist prior to the termination of RFA or Radio/TV Marti. 
However, sunset provisions or provisions for termination have been 
established for each of these entities. In RFA's case, the Broadcasting 
Act states that the Board may not make any grants for operating RFA 
after September 30, 2009.[Footnote 6] In Radio/TV Marti's case, 
Congress has stated that broadcast operations should be terminated when 
a democratically elected government takes power in Cuba.[Footnote 7] 
VOA, charged with clearly presenting and discussing U.S. policies, has 
no sunset provision.

Candidates for Reduction and Possible Termination Are Identified 
through Language Service Review Process and External Consultations:

The Board uses the results of its language service review and external 
consultations with the State Department and OMB to identify candidates 
for reduction and possible termination. The language service review 
process considers a number of factors to help guide such decisions. One 
key consideration is the position of a language service within the 
language service priority/impact framework developed by the Board. The 
Board's language service review process also involves external 
consultations with the State Department and OMB to ensure that its 
tentative resource reallocation decisions are consistent with U.S. 
foreign policy objectives and the administration's budget priorities. 
Language service review has generally led to a reduction in the size of 
language services to fund higher-priority broadcast initiatives. For 
example, between 1999 and 2002, the Board reallocated about $19.7 
million in program funds from more than 25 language services as a 
result of this process. Although the Board's 2002 language service 
review process culminated in a decision to reallocate $8 million 
internally to fund priority needs in Iran, through discussions with 
OMB, the Board later decided to propose the elimination of 17 of its 
lowest-priority language services[Footnote 8] to free resources for 
priority areas such as the war on terrorism.[Footnote 9]

Language Service Review Triggers Resource Reallocation Decisions:

The Broadcasting Act of 1994, passed in the aftermath of the Cold War, 
embodies the expectation that the newly created Broadcasting Board of 
Governors will take stock of changing political environments and their 
impacts on U.S. international broadcasting priorities. The act calls 
for the Board "to review, evaluate, and determine, at least annually, 
after consultation with the Secretary of State, the addition or 
deletion of language services."[Footnote 10] The Board's annual 
language service review process directly responds to this congressional 
mandate, which it has interpreted to allow the expansion and reduction 
of language services as well as outright additions and deletions.

The Board's language review process begins with an assessment of its 
language priorities and the impact of its language services. Over the 
past several years, the Board has developed a complex system for 
assigning priority and impact ratings to broadcast languages and 
services, respectively.[Footnote 11] The Board has attempted to create 
an analytical framework that incorporates as many objective decision 
criteria as possible to help guide reallocation decisions. Seven 
component indexes are constructed to determine the Board's language 
priorities: U.S. interests, population size, political/civil freedom, 
press freedom, economic freedom, geopolitical instability, and human 
development. These components are weighted on a scale of up to 10 
points. U.S. strategic interests and population size may be given a 
score of up to 10 points each; political/civil freedom and press 
freedom up to 7 points each; and economic freedom, geopolitical 
instability, and human development up to 5 points each. The Board 
considers additional factors to arrive at an impact score for each 
language service, including audience size, program quality, 
transmission effectiveness, number and quality of broadcast affiliates, 
and production and transmission costs. Appendix I provides a detailed 
description of each evaluation factor, information on data sources, and 
a discussion of the methodology used to weight and assign priority and 
impact scores.

The position of a language service within the Board's language service 
priority/impact matrix serves as a focal point for subsequent 
discussions on language service enhancements and offsetting reductions 
or eliminations that are used to pay for these enhancements. The Board 
views lower-priority languages or lower-impact services as potential 
candidates for elimination or reductions. In addition to language 
service priority and impact scores, the Board considers a number of 
additional criteria in making tentative resource reallocation 
decisions. These factors include broadcast service overlap, significant 
mismatches between current funding levels and language priorities, the 
potential impact that a program reduction or elimination could have on 
the Board's ability to meet surge broadcast requirements in a crisis 
situation, and whether the same level of impact can be achieved at a 
lower cost.

Figure 2 illustrates key components of the process including external 
consultations with the State Department and OMB.

Figure 2: Language Service Review and Resource Reallocation Process:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

External groups have evaluated the Board's language service review 
process, and improvements have been made to the system. For example, 
the Board periodically submits its process to external review and 
validation by international broadcasting experts from academia and the 
field. In addition, the Board adopted a prior GAO recommendation that 
it institute a standardized approach to conducting program quality 
assessments as part of its language service impact rating 
process.[Footnote 12] Board officials told us that other improvements 
are planned, including linking the language service review process more 
closely to the budget process, incorporating stakeholder input earlier 
in the decision-making process, and further refining the language 
priority index to include a more detailed assessment of local economic 
conditions and corruption.

Millions of Dollars Reallocated, but Few Terminations Proposed Prior to 
2002:

The resource reallocation process followed by the Board has generally 
led to a reduction in the size of language services to fund higher-
priority broadcast initiatives and services. Since initiating the 
language service review process in 1999, the Board has completed three 
rounds of language service reviews, the most recent ending in 
2002.[Footnote 13] From 1999 to 2002, the Board has reduced the scope 
of operations of more than 25 language services and reallocated about 
$19.7 million in funds, with the majority redirected toward central 
Asia and the Middle East. For example, the Board created and fully 
funded its $8 million Radio Farda service to Iran during its 2002 
language service review and partially funded the Radio Sawa service to 
the Middle East in its 2001 review. In total, the Board has eliminated 
three language services since the language service review process was 
initiated.[Footnote 14]

Decision to Terminate Services Follows 2002 Review:

While the Board's 2002 language service review process culminated in a 
decision to reallocate $8 million, Board officials told us that through 
discussions with OMB the Board decided that its lower-priority services 
should be considered for elimination in order to free additional 
resources for other higher-priority initiatives. While the primary 
basis for selecting services for termination was language priority, 
Board officials noted that they did consider the other decision 
criteria incorporated in the language service review process. For 
example, the Board recommended that VOA's Croatian service continue 
broadcasting while eliminating an "overlapping" service offered by RFE/
RL. In the case of Romania, the Board proposed the elimination of both 
VOA and RFE/RL's service to Romania but decided to retain a Romanian 
language broadcast service to Moldova.

As shown in table 1, a total of 10 VOA and 7 RFE/RL language services-
-affecting 11 countries--have been targeted for elimination. Appendix 
II provides detailed information on the budget, staffing, priority, 
impact, and transmission hour trends for the 17 services targeted for 
termination.

Table 1: Targeted Language Service Eliminations:

Language: Bulgarian; 
Voice of America: Eliminate; 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Eliminate.

Language: Croatian; 
Voice of America: Retain; 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Eliminate.

Language: Czech; 
Voice of America: Eliminate; 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: No service.

Language: Estonian; 
Voice of America: Eliminate; 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Eliminate.

Language: Hungarian; 
Voice of America: Eliminate; 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: No service.

Language: Latvian; 
Voice of America: Eliminate; 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Eliminate.

Language: Lithuanian; 
Voice of America: Eliminate; 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Eliminate.

Language: Polish; 
Voice of America: Eliminate; 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: No service.

Language: Romanian; 
Voice of America: Eliminate; 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Eliminate[A].

Language: Slovak; 
Voice of America: Eliminate; 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Eliminate.

Language: Slovene; 
Voice of America: Eliminate; 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: No service.

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

[A] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Romanian language service to 
Moldova will be retained, along with very limited news feeds and 
service to a reduced number of affiliates in Romania.

[End of table]

Board's Press Freedom Measure Does Not Address Media Responsibility or 
Professionalism:

The Board's measure of press freedom evaluates a number of factors but 
does not measure whether the press acts responsibly and professionally. 
The Board's press freedom measure index relies heavily on Freedom 
House's press freedom index, which focuses on free speech issues, the 
plurality of news sources, whether media are economically independent 
from the government, and whether supporting institutions and laws 
function in the professional interest of the press. The Freedom House 
index is used and respected by media groups around the world. However, 
it does not assess whether domestic media provide accurate, balanced, 
and comprehensive news and information.

Board's Press Freedom Measure Relies Heavily on Freedom House Data:

The Board largely depends on Freedom House's annual press freedom index 
of local media conditions to help to prioritize services during 
language service review. To arrive at a numerical evaluation of the 
overall level of press freedom for a particular country, Freedom House 
examines three broad categories--the legal environment, political 
influences, and economic pressures. Over the years, the Board has made 
selected enhancements to its press freedom measure to account for 
several factors that Freedom House's index does not consider. It 
reviews reports issued by the Committee to Protect Journalists and by 
Reporters Without Borders to account for cases involving the killing, 
injury, or imprisonment of journalists. It also reviews narrative 
country reports from Freedom House's annual press freedom survey to 
account for the relative unavailability of broadcast news in a 
particular country. If necessary, the Board makes adjustments to a 
country's press freedom score if these additional reports show negative 
trends in any of these areas. Finally, the Board also uses its 
geopolitical instability index, another measure for assigning language 
priorities, to account for trends in press freedom over time.

Measure Does Not Assess Provision of Accurate, Balanced, Comprehensive 
News:

While the Freedom House press freedom index is used and respected by 
media groups around the world, neither it nor the Board's press freedom 
index incorporates an assessment of whether domestic media provide 
accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information. This is a 
significant omission in the Board's index, given the sense of Congress 
that RFE/RL's broadcast operations should not be terminated until a 
country's domestic media provides this level of coverage to the 
national audience. Board officials acknowledged that their existing 
press freedom measure could be updated to include information on media 
responsibility and professional quality. However, they noted that 
practical obstacles would need to be addressed, such as how to define 
such terms as "accurate" and "balanced" and whether such information 
can reasonably be developed to cover the Board's worldwide operations.

We found that the Media Sustainability Index (MSI), developed by IREX, 
is intended to provide a more in-depth measure of local media 
conditions than the Board's. The MSI was developed at USAID's request 
to supplement the press freedom measures issued by groups such as 
Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders and help guide its media 
development program decisions.[Footnote 15] The MSI examines 38 
separate media indicators grouped under five broad assessment 
categories: free speech, professional journalism, plurality of news 
sources, business management, and supporting institutions. Several 
indicators tracked in the MSI correlate closely with the Board's 
broadcasting mission and the sense of Congress statement regarding the 
termination of RFE/RL services. For example, under the professional 
journalism category, the MSI considers whether reporting is fair, 
objective, and well sourced. It also considers whether journalists 
follow recognized and accepted ethical standards and whether 
entertainment programming has eclipsed news and information 
programming. None of these measures of press responsibility and 
professional quality is covered by the Freedom House index.[Footnote 
16]

The MSI covers 20 markets in Europe and Eurasia and, according to 
USAID, its preparation costs approximately $70,000 each year.[Footnote 
17] The Board currently has broadcast operations in all of the 
countries covered by the MSI. While this set represents only a fraction 
of the Board's broadcast operations, use of the MSI could provide a 
starting point for collecting information on a few of the countries 
impacted by the Board's language service termination 
decisions.[Footnote 18] In addition, the MSI could provide potential 
insights for the Board in developing its own methodology for evaluating 
the responsibility of domestic media outlets and whether journalists 
meet accepted professional standards of quality.[Footnote 19] Despite 
the potential use of the MSI to help evaluate and guide the Board's 
media measurement efforts, we did not independently validate the 
accuracy of this measure or assess the cost/benefit implications of 
applying this measurement approach to the Board's operations.

Media Conditions in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania Raise Concerns:

The Board's 2002 priority ranking of languages indicates that 
Bulgarian, Croatian, and Romanian stand apart from the other languages 
targeted for termination by a significant point gap. This gap was 
largely attributed to comparatively worse press freedom, political 
freedom, and economic freedom scores in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania, 
and elevated U.S. strategic interest scores that suggest particular 
caution should be exercised with regard to terminating broadcast 
services in these three languages. Our review of available data outside 
of the Board's ranking confirms that media conditions are less stable 
in these countries compared to the other countries affected by the 
Board's language service termination decisions. We base this conclusion 
on (1) published press freedom data and analyses from various sources; 
(2) USAID and State Department media development funding efforts; and 
(3) comments from the Board, VOA, and RFE/RL regarding the relative 
importance of the broadcast operations targeted for elimination.

Borderline Press Conditions in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania Suggested 
by Various Data Sources:

Recent press freedom ratings, various studies and reports, and comments 
from agency officials suggest that media conditions are not fully 
stable in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania.

Press Freedom Ratings:

Freedom House rated press conditions as only "partly free" in Croatia 
and Romania. Bulgaria was rated as "free;" however, it was assigned a 
score of 30--just one point short of the cut point for labeling a 
country's press situation as "partly free." The other services targeted 
for elimination fell comfortably above this cut point, with "free" 
scores ranging from 17 to 23. The latest press freedom ranking from the 
group Reporters Without Borders showed that Bulgaria, Croatia, and 
Romania ranked below the other countries affected by the Board's 
language service termination decisions. Bulgaria tied for 34th place, 
Romania tied for 59th place, and Croatia tied for 69th place out of a 
total of 166 countries.

IREX's Media Sustainability Index shows that local media in Bulgaria, 
Croatia, and Romania have not yet achieved sustainability in any of the 
five categories the index tracks--free speech, professional journalism, 
plurality of news sources, business management, and supporting 
institutions. While this index was developed to meet USAID's specific 
program needs, these media sustainability ratings provide additional 
context for evaluating the Board's termination proposals.

Studies and Reports:

A review of the annual country reports prepared by Freedom House, 
Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to Protect Journalists 
reveals a pattern of ongoing problems with the press in Bulgaria, 
Croatia, and Romania. Table 2 provides sample excerpts from these 
reports.

Table 2: Press Watch Group Excerpts from Calendar Year 2003 Annual 
Country Reports:

Country: Bulgaria; Freedom House: "Although the press remains lively 
and diverse, press freedom declined for a second year as a result of 
continued government efforts to influence state and private media.” 

Country: Bulgaria; Reporters Without Borders: "New press laws are 
having trouble being accepted and controversy continues about the 
appointments of heads of public media.” 

Country: Bulgaria; Committee to Protect Journalists: "Regulation of 
the state media remains politicized.. Politically motivated libel 
lawsuits and violent attacks continued to discourage reporters from 
covering sensitive issues, such as corruption.”

Country: Croatia; Freedom House: "While the government has 
substantially expanded the boundaries of press freedom in recent 
years, the events of 2002 demonstrated mixed progress.” 

Country: Croatia; Reporters Without Borders: "Since the Tudjman era 
(1991-99) ended, great strides have been made in press freedom, 
especially legally, but several provisions in the law about insults, 
defamation, access to information, and protection of state and 
military secrets continue to restrict journalists.” 

Country: Croatia; Committee to Protect Journalists: "Although Croatia 
has been invited to join the European Union in 2004, powerful far-
right opposition, bitter rivalries in the ruling reformist coalition, 
and a judiciary in need of reform continue to frustrate the country's 
lively and influential press.”

Country: Romania; Freedom House: "Press freedom declined slightly in 
2002 as a result of new legislation on access to information and 
continued political influence over state media.” 

Country: Romania; Reporters Without Borders: "New laws curbing freedom 
to inform the public and to be informed were passed in 2002. Pressure 
from the authorities increased, reducing the chances of expressing 
political opposition or criticism that might give a 'bad image' of the 
country at a time when Romania is negotiating to join NATO and the 
European Union.” 

Country: Romania; Committee to Protect Journalists: "Government 
officials, wary of any media coverage that could potentially threaten 
the country's efforts to join NATO and the European Union, used 
threats and intimidation to promote docile reporting--resulting in 
increased self-censorship in 2002." 

Sources: Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to 
Protect Journalists.

[End of table]

A review of Freedom House's Nations in Transit 2003 study illustrated a 
worsening (comparing 2002 to 2003 data) in the scores for independent 
media development in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania. Freedom House 
noted that questionable court decisions against journalists, 
newspapers, magazines, and publishers continue to have a chilling 
effect on reporting in Croatia and that unprofessional, false, and 
inflammatory reporting is occurring. It also reported that in Bulgaria, 
electronic media are not still fully free of state influence and 
interference and that the government has tried to use its power to 
grant broadcast licenses as a lure to influence the electronic media. 
Freedom House also noted that Romania's legislative framework for 
independent media, partly inherited from the Communist period, fails to 
meet European standards.

In a recent GAO report on NATO enlargement, we found many of the same 
trends for the media in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania.[Footnote 20] 
For example, we found that constitutional guarantees for civil 
liberties may be limited in practice in Bulgaria, including the 
guarantees of freedom of the media, and that the effectiveness of 
efforts to address these issues was questioned. We also noted that the 
2001 International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights[Footnote 21] 
reported assaults against journalists in Bulgaria and continuing undue 
governmental influence over the media, especially the electronic media. 
In Romania, we found that legal provisions raised concerns about 
possible limits to freedom of expression and the media. For example, 
while the constitution provides for freedom of expression and the 
media, it prohibits "defamation of the country" and "offense to 
authority." In addition, we noted that Human Rights Watch[Footnote 22] 
reported in 2002 that authorities in Romania used these kinds of 
constitutional curbs on free expression to interfere with journalists' 
work.

USAID and State Department Media Development Programs Still Active in 
Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania:

Ongoing media development efforts by USAID and the State Department 
suggest that local media conditions are still considered unstable in 
Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania.[Footnote 23] USAID officials said they 
continue to fund media development projects in Bulgaria and Croatia. 
Similarly, State Department officials noted that its media development 
efforts continue in each of these countries. According to State 
Department country experts, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania represent 
marginal candidates for elimination compared with the other countries 
affected by the Board's language service termination decisions. State 
Department officials noted that Croatia has not yet been invited to 
join NATO or the European Union. Bulgaria and Romania are being 
considered for membership in the European Union in 2007, while the 
other affected countries have been invited to join the European Union 
in 2004. State officials noted that both NATO and European Union 
admission processes consider the status of press freedom and civil 
society as part of their evaluation criteria.

Agency Officials Question Selected Eliminations:

While senior Board officials generally concurred on the need to cut 
language services to fund higher-priority broadcast needs, several 
officials questioned the advisability of eliminating the Bulgarian, 
Croatian, or Romanian services at this time. For example, the Board 
Chairman told us he had "second thoughts" about the proposal to 
eliminate the Bulgarian service on the basis of a recent report by the 
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press on Bulgarian public 
opinion regarding freedom and democracy issues.[Footnote 24] The 
Chairman was concerned about public apathy regarding basic democratic 
rights and principles and questioned whether now is the best time to 
discontinue U.S. broadcast efforts. In another case, a senior Board 
planner noted that the Board did have concerns about the proposal to 
eliminate services to Bulgaria and Romania, given the status of press 
freedom and civil society development in these countries.

Senior VOA managers were not opposed to the elimination of the targeted 
VOA language services (that is, the Estonian service and the nine 
services consolidated in VOA's European Multimedia Unit, or 
EMU).[Footnote 25] This attitude appeared to reflect recognition that 
these services largely represented a Cold War legacy and that they are 
streaming only about 15 minutes a day of content to EMU's Web site. 
RFE/RL managers were more insistent about the need to continue their 
broadcast operations, which are better staffed and more robust than 
VOA's. However, RFE/RL managers conceded that a priority order existed 
with regard to the need to retain language services, with the Baltic 
services rated as lowest priority; the Slovak service in the middle; 
and the Bulgarian, Croatian, and Romanian services representing the 
highest-priority need. Program officials also pointed out that the 
Croatian service is an integral part of a multilanguage South Slavic 
service that reaches audiences dispersed across the region including in 
such countries as Serbia.

Conclusions:

Language service reduction and elimination decisions are made on the 
basis of the Board's language service review process and follow-up 
consultations with the State Department and OMB. The Board has strived 
to create an analytical framework that incorporates as many objective 
decision criteria as possible to help guide such decisions. Lower-
priority/lower-impact services are candidates for cuts or elimination 
generally to fund higher-priority services and other enhancements. The 
Board used its language priority data and other evaluation factors to 
propose the elimination of 17 VOA and RFE/RL language services in order 
to reallocate funds to other needs. A closer look at the Board's press 
freedom measure revealed that it did not fully take into account 
whether a country's domestic media provides accurate, balanced, and 
comprehensive news and information to the national audience before RFE/
RL services are terminated. An improved press freedom measure could 
both influence the relative priority ranking of all language services 
and help provide a specific basis for determining whether local press 
freedom conditions conform to a sense of Congress provision regarding 
when RFE/RL language services should be terminated. Such information is 
currently developed by IREX for some of the Board's broadcast 
countries.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To improve the language service review process and facilitate future 
termination decisions, we recommend that the Chairman of the 
Broadcasting Board of Governors modify the current process to include 
an assessment of whether domestic media provide accurate, balanced, and 
comprehensive news and information to national audiences.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

The Broadcasting Board of Governors provided written comments on a 
draft of this report. The Board concurred with our report 
recommendation[Footnote 26] but noted concerns with our report title, 
our use of the term "expectation of Congress" to describe the criteria 
supporting the need to develop an improved measure of domestic media 
conditions, and the lack of current information regarding congressional 
action taken on the 17 language services targeted for elimination. In 
response to these comments, we revised the title to better focus on our 
primary concern, that is that the Board develop an enhanced measure of 
local media conditions. We replaced the term "expectation of Congress" 
with "congressional concern" and "sense of Congress" throughout the 
report and added a footnote to explain the latter term. Finally, we 
updated our report to incorporate the latest action taken by Congress 
with regard to the 17 language services targeted for elimination. Other 
technical changes obtained in discussion with the Board were 
incorporated in our report where appropriate. The comments provided by 
the Board are reprinted in appendix III.

Scope and Methodology:

To examine how the Board uses its language service review process to 
determine which language services are candidates for elimination, we 
interviewed senior Board planners and reviewed available documentation 
and analyses prepared for each of the Board's four language service 
reviews held since 1999. We conducted a general review of the 
methodology used by the Board to develop language service priority and 
impact rankings. While we did not validate this process, we analyzed 
its data outputs, interviewed Board officials and outside experts, and 
considered reviews and critiques of the methodology--including a 2000 
review by three independent sources.

To determine the extent to which local media conditions are evaluated 
during the language service review process, we examined the methodology 
and data sources used by the Board to assess and rate press freedom 
conditions on a country-by-country basis. We discussed the Board's 
methodology and data sources with senior Board planners and with 
officials from VOA, RFE/RL, USAID, the State Department, and private 
sector entities (InterMedia, Freedom House, and IREX). In addition, we 
compared the Board's press freedom measure to IREX's Media 
Sustainability Index. However, we did not validate the accuracy of this 
index or assess the cost/benefit implications of applying IREX's 
approach to assessing local media conditions to the Board's operations.

To obtain country-specific information on media and civil society 
conditions on each of the countries affected by the Board's targeted 
language cuts, we collected pertinent rating data and reports from 
Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to Protect 
Journalists. We also interviewed each of the VOA and RFE/RL language 
service chiefs in charge of the 17 services targeted for elimination 
and reviewed written program information provided by these individuals. 
Finally, we discussed local media and civil society conditions with 
agency managers, USAID media development experts, State Department 
country experts, and private sector entities.

We conducted our work from July 2003 through December 2003 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of 
Congress. We are also sending copies of this report to the Chairman of 
the Broadcasting Board of Governors and to the Secretary of State. We 
will make copies available to other parties upon request. In addition, 
this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

Signed by:

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me on (202) 512-4128. Other GAO contacts and staff 
acknowledgments are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

Jess T. Ford: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade:

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Evaluation Criteria Supporting the Language Service Review 
Process:

The Broadcasting Board of Governor's (the Board) language service 
review process incorporates a range of evaluation criteria to evaluate 
the priority and impact of its language services. These evaluation 
criteria provide the analytical basis for Board decisions regarding 
language service enhancements, reductions, and eliminations.

Language Priority:

Table 3 provides details on the seven component measures used to 
determine language priority: U.S. interests, population size, 
political/civil freedom, press freedom, economic freedom, geopolitical 
instability, and human development. Board officials have indicated that 
they believe that the combination of these indexes reflects both the 
short-and long-term foreign policy objectives of the United States, as 
well as the mission of U.S. international broadcasting. Information for 
the indexes is gathered for the countries impacted by the Board's 
language broadcasts from many public sources, including Freedom House, 
the Wall Street Journal, the Heritage Foundation, and the United 
Nations Development Program. U.S. strategic interests and geopolitical 
instability are scored in-house using information gathered from the 
State Department.

To develop priority scores for individual broadcast languages, the 
Board first determines the various countries targeted by that language. 
For each index, the Board then compiles information for the country (or 
set of countries) targeted by that broadcast language.[Footnote 27] The 
component indexes are added together to form a summary score for each 
language, and all 65 of the Board's languages are then ranked against 
each other. The maximum summary score that can be assigned to any 
language is 49, and the minimum score is 7.

Board officials told us that after they assign priority scores to 
individual languages, a Language Service Review Committee, broadcasting 
entity management, and the full Board review the resulting Language 
Priorities Index List[Footnote 28] for accuracy and reach agreement on 
the relative rankings of broadcast languages. Board officials then 
divide the list into two segments, indicating which languages have 
higher or lower priority.[Footnote 29]

Table 3: Language Service Review Evaluation Factors:

Factor: U.S. interests; Scale: 1-10; 

Factor: U.S. interests; Description: The Board's language priority 
index takes into account U.S Department of State commentary on U.S. 
interests. The U.S. interests index is scaled according to the 
methodology introduced in the publication America's National 
Interests; 

Factor: U.S. interests; Data sources: Scored by the Board based on The 
Commission on America's National Interests (Belfer Center for Science 
and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 
Harvard University; the RAND Corporation; and the Nixon Center) 
America's National Interests: A Report from the Commission on 
America's National Interests, 2000 [Hyperlink, http://
www.nixoncenter.org/publications/monographs/nationalinterests.htm]; 
Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) annual World Factbook [Hyperlink, 
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook]; State Department and 
U.S. Agency for International Development briefings and strategic 
plans; and National Defense University's annual Strategic Assessment 
[Hyperlink, 
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Strategic%20Assessments/pubs_SAs.htm].

Factor: Population size; Scale: 1-10; 

Factor: Population size; Description: The Board's population index is 
the estimated adult population that (1) is the intended audience 
(speaks the broadcast language) and (2) has the ability to listen to 
the broadcasts. The lowest intended audience is approximately 800,000 
(Tibetan), and the largest is 725 million (Mandarin); 

Factor: Population size; Data sources: Population Reference Bureau's 
annual World Population Data Sheet [Hyperlink, http://www.prb.org]; 
International Broadcasting Bureau Office of Research; CIA's annual 
World Factbook; Ethnologue: Languages of the World [Hyperlink, 
http://www.ethnologue.com/web.asp].

Factor: Political/civil freedom; Scale: 1-7; 

Factor: Political/civil freedom; Description: Freedom House's freedom 
index is used as the sole basis for the score. This index assesses two 
broad categories: political rights and civil liberties. Political 
rights enable people to participate freely in the political process. 
Civil rights include the freedom to develop opinions, institutions, 
and personal autonomy without interference from the state; 

Factor: Political/civil freedom; Data source: Freedom House's annual 
Freedom in the World survey [Hyperlink, 
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/index.htm].

Factor: Press freedom; Scale: 1-7; 

Factor: Press freedom; Description: Freedom House's press freedom 
index is used as the base score. This index takes into account free 
speech issues, plurality of news sources, whether local media are 
economically independent from the government, and whether supporting 
institutions and laws function in the professional interest of the 
press. The index is modified for (1) killing/injury/imprisonment of 
journalists during the survey year (0.5 points may be added) and/or 
(2) relative unavailability of broadcast news (0.5 points may be 
added); 

Factor: Press freedom; Data sources: Scored by the Board based on 
Freedom House's annual Press Freedom in the World survey [Hyperlink, 
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/ pressurvey.htm]; Committee to 
Protect Journalists' annual Attacks on the Press report (Washington, 
D.C.: Brookings Institution Press).

Factor: Economic freedom; Scale: 1-5; 

Factor: Economic freedom; Description: The Heritage Foundation's 
economic freedom index is used as the base score. This index is an 
annual survey of the world's economies that evaluates countries on 
various economic indicators and ranks countries against each other. 
Indicators include such things as trade policy, foreign investment, 
regulation, and black markets; 

Factor: Economic freedom; Data source: Heritage Foundation and the 
Wall Street Journal's annual Index of Economic Freedom [Hyperlink, 
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index].

Factor: Geopolitical instability; Scale: 1-5; 

Factor: Geopolitical instability; Description: The Board's instability 
index has three purposes: (1) to capture short-and long- term trends 
in freedom to augment the freedom indexes: (2) to encompass events 
since the freedom surveys were conducted; and (3) to highlight 
regional, internal, and diplomatic conflicts that may be growing large 
or violent and may require surge broadcasting; 

Factor: Geopolitical instability; Data sources: Scored by the Board 
based on Transparency International's annual Corruption Perception 
Index [Hyperlink, http://www.transparency.org]; CIA's annual World 
Factbook; National Defense University's annual Strategic Assessment; 
Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World and Press Freedom in the 
World surveys; Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal's 
annual Index of Economic Freedom; Committee to Protect Journalists' 
annual Attacks on the Press report.

Factor: Human development; Scale: 1-5; 

Factor: Human development; Description: The human development index 
provides information about the actual living standards of intended 
audiences in target countries. The index is a combination of (1) life 
expectancy rate; (2) gross domestic product per capita; (3) literacy 
rate; and (4) combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross school 
enrollment rate. The index contributes a humanitarian element to the 
language priorities index as well as more evidence about the 
probability that residents can regularly receive and understand or 
develop an interest in news and current events information; 

Factor: Human development; Data source: United Nations' annual Human 
Development Report [Hyperlink, http://www.undp.org/hdr2003]. 

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

[End of table]

Language Service Impact:

Table 4 provides a brief overview of the Board's measures of language 
service impact considered during language service review. To determine 
the relative impact of language services, Board officials obtain 
information on average weekly audience size and elite audience reach 
from InterMedia, the Board's research contractor, and the International 
Broadcasting Bureau's Office of Audience Research. The Language Service 
Review Committee also holds regional meetings with the broadcasting 
entities to discuss additional language service impact considerations 
such as program quality, in-country awareness, local media access and 
use, and cost per listener. Board officials assign the language 
services into higher-versus lower-impact categories. Services 
obtaining greater than or equal to 5 percent average weekly audience 
and/or 15 percent "elite" (i.e., government and other influential 
decision makers) audience reach are considered higher impact.

Table 4: Language Service Impact Factors:

Factor: Average weekly audience; 
Description: The percentage of the adult population listening at least 
once a week.

Factor: Elite audience; 
Description: The percentage of the adult "elite" population listening 
at least once a week.

Factor: Cost per listener; 
Description: Budget divided by average weekly audience.

Factor: Budget; 
Description: Budget includes direct production and transmission costs 
but not overhead or TV satellite costs.

Factor: Program quality; 
Description: Numerical score derived from ratings given in program 
review. Program quality addresses such issues as whether program 
content is fair and balanced, and a number of presentation issues 
including program pacing, use of musical bridges, and the appeal of 
the announcer's voice. Scores can range from poor to excellent.

Factor: Signal quality; 
Description: IBB monitoring stations score services for short-wave and 
cross-border medium-wave signal quality. Scores can range from no 
signal to excellent.

Factor: In-country awareness; 
Description: Percentage of the adult population that can recognize the 
station name.

Factor: Original weekly hours; 
Description: Number of original weekly programming hours produced each 
week.

Factor: Affiliates; 
Description: A count of both TV and radio affiliates classified by 
impact as well as contractual quality. High impact occurs with 
national or major regional coverage in prime time on the best media. 
High contractual quality occurs when there is full control of the 
leased transmitter or frequency.

Factor: Media access and use; 
Description: Percentages of the adult population that own various 
media, can access it, or use it on a daily basis. 

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

[End of table]

Priority/Impact Matrix:

To assist the Board in conducting its review of requested enhancements 
and reductions, a matrix is developed using the Board's higher/lower 
priority and higher/lower impact determinations. All language services 
are assigned to one of the four categories shown in table 5.[Footnote 
30] Language services rated as lower impact or lower priority may 
become potential targets for elimination or budget reductions.

Table 5: 2002 Priority/Impact Matrix:

Higher priority/higher impact; (14 language services in 2002); 
Higher priority/lower impact; (27 language services in 2002).

Lower priority/higher impact; (24 language services in 2002); 
Lower priority/lower impact; (17 language services in 2002).

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix II: Language Service Budget and Program Data:

Table 6 provides a brief overview of the budget, staffing, priority, 
impact, and transmission hour trends for each language affected by the 
Board's fiscal year 2004 budget reduction proposal. In general, the 
budget, staff size, and transmission hours for Voice of America (VOA) 
language services in question have been declining, with the exception 
of two services that have increased budgets since fiscal year 2000--VOA 
Estonian and VOA Croatian. Most VOA services faced significant cuts in 
fiscal year 2001 or 2002, as they were incorporated into a VOA European 
Multimedia Unit (EMU) designed to achieve cost efficiencies. Most of 
the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) services in question have 
not faced the same level of cuts in staff size as VOA. Three of RFE/
RL's language services have increased in staff size since fiscal year 
2000--RFE/RL Estonian, RFE/RL Croatian, and RFE/RL Lithuanian.

Table 6: Budget, Staffing, Priority, Impact, and Transmission Hours 
Data for Language Services Targeted for Elimination (fiscal years 2000-
2003):

Dollars in thousands.

Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Budget level: 2000: VOA: $542; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Budget level: 2000: RFE/RL: $1,791; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Budget level: 2001: VOA[B]: $537; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Budget level: 2001: RFE/RL: $1,289; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Budget level: 2002: VOA[C]: $365; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Budget level: 2002: RFE/RL: $1,125; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Budget level: 2003[A]: VOA: $278; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Budget level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: $1,164.

Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Staffing level: 2000: VOA: 6; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Staffing level: 2000: RFE/RL: 9; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Staffing level: 2001: VOA[B]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Staffing level: 2001: RFE/RL: 9; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Staffing level: 2002: VOA[C]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Staffing level: 2002: RFE/RL: 8; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Staffing level: 2003[A]: VOA: 3; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Staffing level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 8.

Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Total weekly hours: 2000: VOA: 3.5; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Total weekly hours: 2000: RFE/RL: 45; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Total weekly hours: 2001: VOA[B]: 1.25; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Total weekly hours: 2001: RFE/RL: 32.32; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Total weekly hours: 2002: VOA[C]: 1.25; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Total weekly hours: 2002: RFE/RL: 32.32; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: VOA: 1.25; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: 
Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 35.15.

Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Impact rating: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Impact rating: 2000: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Impact rating: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Impact rating: 2001: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Impact rating: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Impact rating: 2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Impact rating: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Impact rating: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Language priority: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Language priority: 2000: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Language priority: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Language priority: 2001: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Language priority: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Language priority: 2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Language priority: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Bulgarian: Language priority: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Budget level: 2000: VOA: 721; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Budget level: 2000: RFE/RL: 2,327; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Budget level: 2001: VOA[B]: 724; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Budget level: 2001: RFE/RL: 3,574; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Budget level: 2002: VOA[C]: 814; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Budget level: 2002: RFE/RL: 3,878; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Budget level: 2003[A]: VOA: 902; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Budget level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 4,172.

Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Staffing level: 2000: VOA: 7; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Staffing level: 2000: RFE/RL: 29; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Staffing level: 2001: VOA[B]: 8; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Staffing level: 2001: RFE/RL: 33; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Staffing level: 2002: VOA[C]: 8; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Staffing level: 2002: RFE/ RL: 30; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: VOA: 8; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 30.

Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Total weekly hours: 
2000: VOA: 14; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Total weekly hours: 
2000: RFE/RL: 75; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Total weekly hours: 
2001: VOA[B]: 10.5; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Total weekly hours: 
2001: RFE/RL: 107.92; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Total weekly hours: 
2002: VOA[C]: 10.5; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Total weekly hours: 
2002: RFE/RL: 92.67; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Total weekly hours: 
2003[A]: VOA: 10.5; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Total weekly hours: 
2003[A]: RFE/RL: 98.

Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Impact rating: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Impact rating: 2000: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Impact rating: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Impact rating: 2001: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Impact rating: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Impact rating: 2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Language priority: 
2000: VOA: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Language priority: 
2000: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Language priority: 
2001: VOA[B]: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Language priority: 
2001: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Language priority: 
2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Language priority: 
2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Language priority: 
2003[A]: VOA: Not available; 
Broadcast language: Croatian[D]: Language priority: 
2003[A]: RFE/RL: Not available.

Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Budget level: 2000: VOA: 747; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Budget level: 2000: RFE/RL: 530; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Budget level: 2001: VOA[B]: 408; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Budget level: 2001: RFE/RL: 600; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Budget level: 2002: VOA[C]: 273; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Budget level: 2002: RFE/RL: 630; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Budget level: 2003[A]: VOA: 288; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Budget level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Staffing level: 2000: VOA: 9; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Staffing level: 2000: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Staffing level: 2001: VOA[B]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Staffing level: 2001: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Staffing level: 2002: VOA[C]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Staffing level: 2002: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: VOA: 3; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Total weekly hours: 2000: VOA: 12; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Total weekly hours: 2000: RFE/RL: 70; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Total weekly hours: 2001: VOA[B]: 1.25; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Total weekly hours: 2001: RFE/RL: 91; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Total weekly hours: 2002: VOA[C]: 1.75; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Total weekly hours: 2002: RFE/RL: 91; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: VOA: 1.75; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: 
Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Impact rating: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Impact rating: 2000: RFE/RL: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Impact rating: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Impact rating: 2001: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Impact rating: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Impact rating: 2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Language priority: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Language priority: 2000: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Language priority: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Language priority: 2001: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Language priority: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Language priority: 2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Language priority: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Czech[E]: Language priority: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Estonian: Budget level: 2000: VOA: 291; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Budget level: 2000: RFE/RL: 833; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Budget level: 2001: VOA[B]: 315; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Budget level: 2001: RFE/RL: 739; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Budget level: 2002: VOA[C]: 340; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Budget level: 2002: RFE/RL: 823; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Budget level: 2003[A]: VOA: 362; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Budget level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 856.

Broadcast language: Estonian: Staffing level: 2000: VOA: 4; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Staffing level: 2000: RFE/RL: 6; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Staffing level: 2001: VOA[B]: 4; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Staffing level: 2001: RFE/RL: 6; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Staffing level: 2002: VOA[C]: 4; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Staffing level: 2002: RFE/RL: 7; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Staffing level: 2003[A]: VOA: 4; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Staffing level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 7.

Broadcast language: Estonian: Total weekly hours: 2000: VOA: 3.75; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Total weekly hours: 2000: RFE/RL: 9; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Total weekly hours: 2001: VOA[B]: 3.75; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Total weekly hours: 2001: RFE/RL: 15.75; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Total weekly hours: 2002: VOA[C]: 3.75; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Total weekly hours: 2002: RFE/RL: 9.92; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: VOA: 3.75; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: 
Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 9.92.

Broadcast language: Estonian: Impact rating: 2000: VOA: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Impact rating: 2000: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Impact rating: 2001: VOA[B]: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Impact rating: 2001: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Impact rating: 2002: VOA[C]: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Impact rating: 2002: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Impact rating: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Impact rating: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Estonian: Language priority: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Language priority: 2000: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Language priority: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Language priority: 2001: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Language priority: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Language priority: 2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Language priority: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Estonian: Language priority: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Budget level: 2000: VOA: 1103; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Budget level: 2000: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Budget level: 2001: VOA[B]: 554; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Budget level: 2001: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Budget level: 2002: VOA[C]: 287; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Budget level: 2002: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Budget level: 2003[A]: VOA: 294; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Budget level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Staffing level: 2000: VOA: 11; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Staffing level: 2000: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Staffing level: 2001: VOA[B]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Staffing level: 2001: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Staffing level: 2002: VOA[C]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Staffing level: 2002: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: VOA: 3; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Total weekly hours: 
2000: VOA: 9; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Total weekly hours: 
2000: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Total weekly hours: 
2001: VOA[B]: 1.25; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Total weekly hours: 
2001: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Total weekly hours: 
2002: VOA[C]: 1.83; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Total weekly hours: 
2002: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Total weekly hours: 
2003[A]: VOA: 1.83; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Total weekly hours: 
2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Impact rating: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Impact rating: 2000: RFE/RL: N/A; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Impact rating: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Impact rating: 2001: RFE/RL: N/A; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Impact rating: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Impact rating: 2002: RFE/RL: N/A; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Language priority rating: 
2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Language priority rating: 
2000: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Language priority rating: 
2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Language priority rating: 
2001: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Language priority rating: 
2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Language priority rating: 
2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Language priority rating: 
2003[A]: VOA: Not available; 
Broadcast language: Hungarian[F]: Language priority rating: 
2003[A]: RFE/RL: Not available.

Broadcast language: Latvian: Budget level: 2000: VOA: 395; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Budget level: 2000: RFE/RL: 992; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Budget level: 2001: VOA[B]: 182; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Budget level: 2001: RFE/RL: 819; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Budget level: 2002: VOA[C]: 186; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Budget level: 2002: RFE/RL: 807; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Budget level: 2003[A]: VOA: 190; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Budget level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 853.

Broadcast language: Latvian: Staffing level: 2000: VOA: 5; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Staffing level: 2000: RFE/RL: 7; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Staffing level: 2001: VOA[B]: 2; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Staffing level: 2001: RFE/RL: 7; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Staffing level: 2002: VOA[C]: 2; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Staffing level: 2002: RFE/RL: 7; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Staffing level: 2003[A]: VOA: 2; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Staffing level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 7.

Broadcast language: Latvian: Total weekly hours: 2000: VOA: 5; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Total weekly hours: 2000: RFE/RL: 14; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Total weekly hours: 2001: VOA[B]: 0.80; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Total weekly hours: 2001: RFE/RL: 7.58; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Total weekly hours: 2002: VOA[C]: 0.83; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Total weekly hours: 2002: RFE/RL: 8.42; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: VOA: 2.08; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: 
Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 8.42.

Broadcast language: Latvian: Impact rating: 2000: VOA: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Impact rating: 2000: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Impact rating: 2001: VOA[B]: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Impact rating: 2001: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Impact rating: 2002: VOA[C]: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Impact rating: 2002: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Impact rating: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Impact rating: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Latvian: Language priority: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Language priority: 2000: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Language priority: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Language priority: 2001: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Language priority: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Language priority: 2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Language priority: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Latvian: Language priority: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Budget level: 2000: VOA: 466; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Budget level: 2000: RFE/RL: 841; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Budget level: 2001: VOA[B]: 267; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Budget level: 2001: RFE/RL: 811; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Budget level: 2002: VOA[C]: 165; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Budget level: 2002: RFE/RL: 884; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Budget level: 2003[A]: VOA: 169; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Budget level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 870.

Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Staffing level: 2000: VOA: 6; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Staffing level: 2000: RFE/RL: 7; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Staffing level: 2001: VOA[B]: 2; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Staffing level: 2001: RFE/RL: 7; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Staffing level: 2002: VOA[C]: 2; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Staffing level: 2002: RFE/RL: 7; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Staffing level: 2003[A]: VOA: 2; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Staffing level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 7.

Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Total weekly hours: 
2000: VOA: 5; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Total weekly hours: 
2000: RFE/RL: 16; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Total weekly hours: 
2001: VOA[B]: 0.80; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Total weekly hours: 
2001: RFE/RL: 19.25; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Total weekly hours: 
2002: VOA[C]: 0.83; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Total weekly hours: 
2002: RFE/RL: 17.55; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Total weekly hours: 
2003[A]: VOA: 0.83; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Total weekly hours: 
2003[A]: RFE/RL: 18.07.

Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Impact rating: 2000: VOA: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Impact rating: 2000: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Impact rating: 2001: VOA[B]: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Impact rating: 2001: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Impact rating: 2002: VOA[C]: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Impact rating: 2002: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Impact rating: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Impact rating: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Language priority: 
2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Language priority: 
2000: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Language priority: 
2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Language priority: 
2001: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Language priority: 
2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Language priority: 
2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Language priority: 
2003[A]: VOA: Not available; 
Broadcast language: Lithuanian: Language priority: 
2003[A]: RFE/RL: Not available.

Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Budget level: 2000: VOA: 1560; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Budget level: 2000: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Budget level: 2001: VOA[B]: 565; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Budget level: 2001: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Budget level: 2002: VOA[C]: 303; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Budget level: 2002: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Budget level: 2003[A]: VOA: 308; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Budget level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Staffing level: 2000: VOA: 18; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Staffing level: 2000: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Staffing level: 2001: VOA[B]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Staffing level: 2001: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Staffing level: 2002: VOA[C]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Staffing level: 2002: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: VOA: 3; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Total weekly hours: 2000: VOA: 15; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Total weekly hours: 2000: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Total weekly hours: 2001: VOA[B]: 1.25; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Total weekly hours: 2001: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Total weekly hours: 2002: VOA[C]: 1.75; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Total weekly hours: 2002: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: VOA: 1.75; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: 
Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Impact rating: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Impact rating: 2000: RFE/RL: N/A; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Impact rating: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Impact rating: 2001: RFE/RL: N/A; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Impact rating: 2002: VOA[C]: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Impact rating: 2002: RFE/RL: N/A; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Language priority: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Language priority: 2000: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Language priority: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Language priority: 2001: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Language priority: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Language priority: 2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Language priority: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Polish[G]: Language priority: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Budget level: 2000: VOA: 624; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Budget level: 2000: RFE/RL: 2,209; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Budget level: 2001: VOA[B]: 572; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Budget level: 2001: RFE/RL: 1,574; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Budget level: 2002: VOA[C]: 260; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Budget level: 2002: RFE/RL: 1,680; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Budget level: 2003[A]: VOA: 163; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Budget level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 1,646.

Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Staffing level: 2000: VOA: 7; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Staffing level: 2000: RFE/RL: 10; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Staffing level: 2001: VOA[B]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Staffing level: 2001: RFE/RL: 10; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Staffing level: 2002: VOA[C]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Staffing level: 2002: RFE/ RL: 11; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: VOA: 3; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 11.

Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Total weekly hours: 
2000: VOA: 3.5; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Total weekly hours: 
2000: RFE/RL: 42; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Total weekly hours: 
2001: VOA[B]: 1.25; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Total weekly hours: 
2001: RFE/RL: 27.30; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Total weekly hours: 
2002: VOA[C]: 1.25; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Total weekly hours: 
2002: RFE/RL: 27.30; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Total weekly hours: 
2003[A]: VOA: 1.25; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Total weekly hours: 
2003[A]: RFE/RL: 21.55.

Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Impact rating: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Impact rating: 2000: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Impact rating: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Impact rating: 2001: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Impact rating: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Impact rating: 2002: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Language priority: 
2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Language priority: 
2000: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Language priority: 
2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Language priority: 
2001: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Language priority: 
2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Language priority: 
2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Language priority: 
2003[A]: VOA: Not available; 
Broadcast language: Romanian[H]: Language priority: 
2003[A]: RFE/RL: Not available.

Broadcast language: Slovak: Budget level: 2000: VOA: 514; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Budget level: 2000: RFE/RL: 1,307; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Budget level: 2001: VOA[B]: 513; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Budget level: 2001: RFE/RL: 1,002; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Budget level: 2002: VOA[C]: 342; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Budget level: 2002: RFE/RL: 813; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Budget level: 2003[A]: VOA: 281; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Budget level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 892.

Broadcast language: Slovak: Staffing level: 2000: VOA: 6; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Staffing level: 2000: RFE/RL: 8; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Staffing level: 2001: VOA[B]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Staffing level: 2001: RFE/RL: 8; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Staffing level: 2002: VOA[C]: 3; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Staffing level: 2002: RFE/RL: 7; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Staffing level: 2003[A]: VOA: 3; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Staffing level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 6.

Broadcast language: Slovak: Total weekly hours: 2000: VOA: 7; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Total weekly hours: 2000: RFE/RL: 28; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Total weekly hours: 2001: VOA[B]: 1.25; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Total weekly hours: 2001: RFE/RL: 24.03; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Total weekly hours: 2002: VOA[C]: 1.83; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Total weekly hours: 2002: RFE/RL: 11.75; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: VOA: 1.83; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: 
Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 14.55.

Broadcast language: Slovak: Impact rating: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Impact rating: 2000: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Impact rating: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Impact rating: 2001: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Impact rating: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Impact rating: 2002: RFE/RL: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Impact rating: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Impact rating: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Slovak: Language priority: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Language priority: 2000: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Language priority: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Language priority: 2001: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Language priority: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Language priority: 2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Language priority: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Slovak: Language priority: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Budget level: 2000: VOA: 228; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Budget level: 2000: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Budget level: 2001: VOA[B]: 174; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Budget level: 2001: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Budget level: 2002: VOA[C]: 168; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Budget level: 2002: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Budget level: 2003[A]: VOA: 180; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Budget level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Staffing level: 2000: VOA: 3; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Staffing level: 2000: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Staffing level: 2001: VOA[B]: 2; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Staffing level: 2001: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Staffing level: 2002: VOA[C]: 2; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Staffing level: 2002: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: VOA: 2; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Staffing level: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Total weekly hours: 2000: VOA: 3.75; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Total weekly hours: 2000: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Total weekly hours: 2001: VOA[B]: 0.80; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Total weekly hours: 2001: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Total weekly hours: 2002: VOA[C]: 0.85; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Total weekly hours: 2002: RFE/RL: 0; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: VOA: 0.83; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: 
Total weekly hours: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 0.

Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Impact rating: 2000: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Impact rating: 2000: RFE/RL: N/A; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Impact rating: 2001: VOA[B]: Higher; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Impact rating: 2001: RFE/RL: N/A; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Impact rating: 2002: VOA[C]: High; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Impact rating: 2002: RFE/RL: N/A; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Impact rating: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available.

Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Language priority: 2000: VOA: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Language priority: 2000: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Language priority: 2001: VOA[B]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Language priority: 2001: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Language priority: 2002: VOA[C]: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Language priority: 2002: RFE/RL: Lower; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Language priority: 2003[A]: VOA: 
Not available; 
Broadcast language: Slovene[I]: Language priority: 2003[A]: RFE/RL: 
Not available. 

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

[A] Budget, staffing, and transmission data for fiscal year 2003 are 
agency estimates.

[B] In fiscal year 2001, VOA's Czech, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, 
Polish, and Slovene services were merged into the EMU.

[C] In fiscal year 2002, VOA's Slovak, Bulgarian, and Romanian services 
were added into the EMU.

[D] RFE/RL's Croatian service serves the entire Balkan region as part 
of a regional initiative called the South Slavic Service. RFE/RL 
budget, staffing, and transmission data figures are for the entire 
South Slavic Service. Priority and impact ratings are for the entire 
South Slavic Service, with the exception of 2002, where they are for 
the Croatian segment only.

[E] RFE/RL's Czech language service was privatized in 1994 at the 
discretion of RFE/RL management. However, RFE/RL continued to provide 
financial support to the private Czech station through 2002.

[F] RFE/RL decided to end its Hungarian service in 1993.

[G] RFE/RL ended its Polish service broadcasting at the end of 1997.

[H] RFE/RL's Romanian language service serves the countries of Romania 
and Moldova. RFE/RL budget, staffing, impact, and transmission figures 
are for the entire service.

[I] RFE/RL has never had a Slovenian language service.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors:

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

February 3, 2004:

Mr. Jess T. Ford 
Associate Director 
International Relations and Trade Issues 
General Accounting Office 
Washington, D.C., 20548:

Dear Mr. Ford:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GAO draft report: 
Language Service Review Does Not Adequately Address Local Media 
Conditions, dated February 2004.

Since the passage of the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994, 
the Broadcasting Board of Governors has grappled with and improved its 
methodology for complying with the Congressional mandate to "review, 
evaluate, and determine, at least annually, after consultation with the 
Secretary of State, the addition or deletion of language services." 
Over the last four cycles of language review, we have refined the 
criteria for evaluating priority languages in order to ensure that U.S. 
strategic broadcasting requirements are provided adequate resources. We 
have briefed the Congress on the methodology used, and we are receptive 
to further refinements and measurements that would assist the process.

With respect to the draft report, we are concerned that the report's 
title sends a message that the current methodology of the language 
service review process is seriously flawed. However, on reading the 
draft report, GAO seems to acknowledge the viability of the process 
while recommending additional indices to further refine the process. We 
hope that you will consider changing the title to reflect the GAO's 
broad endorsement of the language service review process rather than 
implying that the process itself is not sound pending adoption of 
certain improvements.

The GAO's first recommendation appears to hinge largely on "Sense of 
Congress" language contained in the Omnibus Appropriation Act for 
fiscal year 2000 that states: "It is the sense of Congress that Radio 
Free Europe and Radio Liberty should continue to broadcast to the 
peoples of Central Europe, Eurasia, and the Persian Gulf until such 
time as ... its domestic media which provide balanced, accurate, and 
comprehensive news and information, is firmly established and widely 
accessible to the national audience...... The GAO report describes this 
language as expressing a "congressional expectation," but does not 
clarify for the reader that the "sense of Congress" provision does not 
have the force of law. We are concerned that the reader might be misled 
to believe that the BBG is violating a legislative mandate in proposing 
to reduce RFE/RL broadcasting in Central Europe, and feel it would be 
helpful to clarify the scope of a "sense of Congress" resolution in 
the body of the report.

In addition, the "Sense of Congress" language only applies to RFE/RL, 
yet the GAO's recommendations appear to apply to the entire language 
service review process. Although we agree with the thrust of the GAO 
recommendation, we don't believe it is legislatively mandated. 
Nevertheless, we will examine ways to strengthen the language review 
process to reflect local media conditions.

It may be worth noting that the Congress has expressed other 
expectations with respect to language service review and the proposed 
broadcast reductions that are not noted in the GAO's report. For 
example, in the Conference Report on H.J.Res.2, Consolidated 
Appropriations Resolution, 2003, the conferees note their continued 
support for "the Board's efforts to objectively and systematically 
review and evaluate the performance, results, and importance of every 
U.S. Government-sponsored international broadcasting language service 
and to propose corresponding reallocations of funds. The conferees 
endorse this process as a means to improve broadcast quality and meet 
emerging program priorities within limited resources..... The conferees 
expect that the continuing language service review effort may result in 
the dedication of additional resources to emerging priority 
programs......" 

Again, in its conference report to accompany H.R. 2673, the Omnibus 
Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the conferees indicate support 
for the Administration's proposal to reduce broadcasts to Eastern and 
Central Europe. Specifically, they "adopt the Broadcasting Board of 
Governor's (BBG) proposal regarding funding for language services in 
central and eastern European nations that have been invited to become 
new member states of the European Union or the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, and have received a Freedom House press freedom ranking 
equal to that of the United States." Given the recent passage of the 
Omnibus bill, we believe that GAO's second recommendation that the 
Board reexamine its proposal to reduce or eliminate designated services 
as submitted in its 2004 budget request has been overtaken by 
Congressional action.

The BBG takes into account many factors as it reviews service 
priorities, none of which are determinative in their own right. A 
number of these factors are indicated by law or report language 
prescribed by the Congress over the years. While the language service 
review process ascribes numerical values to various services, the BBG 
does not slavishly follow the numbers in working toward critical 
decisions. In addition, language service review decisions must take 
into account the overall budget environment, and that is the context in 
which the decisions relating to broadcasting in Eastern and Central 
Europe were made. Given the budget environment and the critical need to 
enhance broadcasting to the Islamic world, a clear preference had to be 
given to the war on terrorism.

The GAO draft report quotes me as saying I had "second thoughts" about 
the proposal to eliminate the Bulgarian, Croatian, and portions of the 
Romanian Services at this time. These words imply that I would not 
implement these changes, given the opportunity to revisit this question 
within the same broadcast environment. That is not the case. As a 
broadcast veteran of the Cold War, I regret the end of these services. 
But I also celebrate the accomplishment of their mission that enables 
us to reduce our commitment to this region and fund new priorities.

While in a perfect world, the BBG may not choose to reduce or eliminate 
services that retain more marginal benefits than services to denied 
areas or regions in crisis, there is an expectation that the Board make 
difficult choices that support the nation's most urgent demands. Even 
as we enhance our process of determining language service priorities, 
we recognize that difficult policy choices must be made in an 
atmosphere of scarce budget resources in order to fund pressing 
broadcast priorities, such as those in the Islamic world.

Resource reallocations are, and will remain, difficult and 
controversial decisions. In spite of the use of various and well 
informed indices to measure and compare such intangibles as media 
"freedom", and "fair, balanced, and comprehensive" news, these measures 
and the decisions that grow out of them are inherently subjective in 
nature. However, the Board will continue to endeavor to weigh all 
relevant factors in steering the course of international broadcasting, 
and welcomes GAO's suggestions for additional data that can enhance 
our analysis.

Sincerely: 

Signed by: 

Kenneth Y. Tomlinson: 

Chairman: 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contact:

Diana Glod, (202) 512-8945:

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to the person named above, Michael ten Kate, Melissa 
Pickworth, and Janey Cohen made key contributions to this report. 
Martin De Alteriis and Ernie Jackson provided technical assistance.

(320218):

FOOTNOTES

[1] Estimated savings include reductions to VOA Armenian and Ukrainian 
and modifications to RFE/RL Armenian, Georgian, Serbian, and Ukrainian 
language services.

[2] According to a senior Board official, the agency intends to 
eliminate VOA's service to Romania, while retaining RFE/RL's Romanian 
service to Moldova and very limited news feeds and service to a reduced 
number of affiliates in Romania. The Board intends to eliminate RFE/
RL's Croatian service to the Balkans region while retaining VOA's 
Croatian service to Croatia. 

[3] IBB provides transmission services for all Board broadcasts and 
support services to VOA, WorldNet, and Radio/TV Marti.

[4] Title III of P.L. 103-236, as amended by P.L. 106-113, Appendix G, 
Section 503. 

[5] A "sense of Congress" is not legally binding on an agency as is the 
case with legislation signed by the President. Although a sense of 
Congress has no force in law, agencies typically monitor such 
provisions closely since Congress can change an informal expectation 
into a statutory provision if agencies ignore congressional guidance.

[6] See 22 U.S.C. 6208(f). 

[7] See 22 U.S.C. 6037(c), 6063(c)(3).

[8] The Greek and Thai language services were removed from the list of 
lowest-ranked services due to practical concerns that terminating 
services might result in the withdrawal of transmission rights in each 
of these countries.

[9] Board officials noted that these terminations proposals were 
generally preceded by several years of program cuts as media conditions 
in the region stabilized. As shown in appendix II, most VOA and RFE/RL 
services targeted for elimination have had their budgets reduced since 
2000. 

[10] See 22 U.S.C. 6204(a)(4).

[11] Each of the Board's 65 broadcast languages receives a priority 
score. An impact score is assigned to most of the Board's 97 language 
services where data is available.

[12] The issue of program quality measurement and language service 
review is discussed in greater detail in U.S. General Accounting 
Office, U.S. International Broadcasting: Strategic Planning and 
Performance Management System Could Be Improved, GAO/NSIAD-00-222 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2000). The Board's strategic planning and 
performance management system is discussed in detail in U.S. 
International Broadcasting: New Strategic Approach Focuses on Reaching 
Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program Objectives, GAO-03-772 
(Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003).

[13] The Board is in the process of finalizing its 2003 language 
service review recommendations and findings.

[14] VOA Portuguese to Brazil was eliminated as a direct result of 
language service review. VOA's Arabic service (with the exception of a 
minimally staffed Web site) and RFE/RL's Persian service were 
reconstituted as Radio Sawa and Radio Farda, respectively. 

[15] IREX designed a more comprehensive measure of whether a 
sustainable media--characterized by all of the factors that shape a 
modern independent media--existed in target areas to gauge a country's 
progress in media development.

[16] Freedom House's press freedom index primarily overlaps with the 
free speech component of the MSI, with only limited coverage in the 
other four categories.

[17] IREX is currently discussing the potential of private funding to 
expand the scope of the MSI.

[18] Three of the 20 markets covered by the MSI are also on the list of 
countries affected by the Board's proposed language service 
terminations--Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania.

[19] Freedom House's Nations in Transit studies, which assess the level 
of progress toward democratization and rule of law in 27 Central 
European, Eastern European, and former Soviet Union countries, provide 
an additional framework for assessing local media. Since 2000, the 
study has annually evaluated 10 contributing factors for independent 
media, including the legal framework and present state of press 
freedom, harassment of journalists, editorial independence, the 
emergence of a financially viable private press, and Internet access 
for private citizens.

[20] See U.S. General Accounting Office, NATO Enlargement: Report Is 
Responsive to Senate Requirements, but Additional Information Could Be 
Useful, GAO-03-255 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2002).

[21] The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights is a self-
governing group of nongovernmental, not-for-profit organizations that 
works to protect human rights throughout Europe, North America, and the 
central Asian republics formed from the territories of the former 
Soviet Union.

[22] Human Rights Watch is an international nongovernmental 
organization that monitors the protection of civil liberties and human 
rights around the world.

[23] Media development efforts are part of U.S. assistance to Eastern 
Europe, the Baltic states, and the Caucasus region, which signify U.S. 
commitment to support the transition of former Communist nations to 
democracies. 

[24] The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Views of a 
Changing World (Washington, D.C.: June 2003).

[25] EMU consolidates the Bulgarian, Czech, Hungarian, Latvian, 
Lithuanian, Polish, Romanian, Slovak, and Slovene services.

[26] We removed a second report recommendation that the Board review 
its proposed language terminations in light of the information 
discussed in our report. As noted in the Board's comments, final 
funding action taken by Congress regarding the proposed terminations 
overtook this recommendation.

[27] If more than one target country applies to a language, indexes may 
be weighted by estimates of the number of language-speaking adults in 
each country. Because of the complexities involved with assigning 
weights, in most cases multiple-country languages reflect the values 
for the worst-case country. 

[28] The Language Priorities Index List is classified: it is shared 
only with the Board, Board staff, and broadcasting entity heads and 
their immediate staffs.

[29] A Board staff member indicated that there are no explicit criteria 
used for determining where the cut point between higher versus lower 
priority is made. Rather, this determination is based on staff judgment 
and individual country circumstances. 

[30] Some language services are excluded from the matrix if data are 
insufficient to judge impact.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting 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. General Accounting 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.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: