Inspecting the International Information Programs at State: Kicking DeliveredJune 24, 2013
The empire of the American Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs has three parts: Public Affairs, Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) and International Information Programs (IIP). Last week the Office of the Inspector General issued an inspection report on IIP and it’s not a pretty picture. There are implications of cronyism and poor management and there have already been changes in the leadership of the Bureau. Diplopundit has some comments here and here but I just wanted to comment on some of the more specifically PD aspects of the report. OIG reports are always worth looking at because of the detail they give you about what’s going on at State.
- Firstly OIG is unhappy with the state of PD at State. The last report in 2004 argued that the Bureau should be led by an assistant secretary but this requires Congressional action. Recommendation 1 in this report is that IIP should be run by an Asst Sec. Further State doesn’t have a “Departmentwide PD strategy tying resources to priorities” ie the high level vision documents that we’ve seen over the past few years haven’t been converted into action, hence a recommendation for a management review of PD at State.
- My reading of the report says that IIP operates in large part as a provider of content. The effectiveness of this kind of operation depends on effective relations with the other parts of State and the report questions the degree to which these relations actually exist.
- The report criticises IIP for not paying sufficient attention to one of the classic tools of PD – writing articles that can be passed to foreign media. This gets a big thumbs up from me – despite all the excitement about social media the reach that mass media gives you cannot be ignored.
- Evaluation has been limited and ineffective the report says that the whole operation should be passed over the ECA.
- Lots of translation work is done by outside contractors with very limited oversight.
- IIP is responsible for funding American Spaces, a programme that has had a major increase in funding, but (as you would expect from studying the history of any country’s PD) there are problems with staffing the work in the field and with coordinating with the embassies. IIP shipped thousands of e-readers overseas without agreeing management procedures with local posts.
- The US may lead the world in Digital Diplomacy if you look at numbers of likes but as the report says it appears to have got those numbers through an exercise in maximizing numbers than in pursuit of a PD strategy – social media managers were worried that if they posted too much policy related material their numbers would drop.
What struck me in reading this report is how familiar these problems are -not just in American terms but in terms of the history of PD . One of my general points about PD is that it operates between a complex set of pressures policy/communications. Post/MFA, different publics, centralization/decentralization these are tensions that are not going to be resolved but need to be managed. My advice? Push for greater engagement between IIP and the Bureaus, look for greater policy involvement and try to reduce the reliance on contractors.
From looking at OIG reports on Regional Bureaus it’s pretty obvious that the IG is less than happy with the way that PD is being embedded into the Department generally. The one exception seems to be in Western Hemisphere Affairs where a 2010 report praises the integration of PD in to the work of the Bureau