[PDF] [PDF] Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy & International

View - Download [PDF] Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy & International

Previous PDF

Next PDF

Comprehensive Annual Report

on Public Diplomacy &

International Broadcasting

Focus on FY 2020 Budget Data

2021

The United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (ACPD), authorized pursuant to Public Law 112-

239 [Sec.] 1280(a)-(c), hereby submits the

2021 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and

International Broadcasting.

The ACPD is a bipartisan panel created by Congress in 1948 to formulate and recommend policies and programs to

carry out the Public Diplomacy (PD) functions vested in U.S. government entities and to appraise the effectiveness of

those activities across the globe. The ACPD has a Congressional mandate to prepare an annual accounting of public

diplomacy and international broadcasting activities, as well as to produce other reports that support more effective

efforts to understand, inform, and inuence foreign audiences.

The 2021 report, which details all reported major U.S. government PD and international broadcasting activities

conducted by the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for Global

Media (USAGM) in 2020, is based

on data collected from all State Department PD bureaus and ofces, the Public Affairs Sections of U.S. missions

worldwide, and from all USAGM entities. This report was researched, veried, and written by ACPD members and

staff with continuous input and collaboration from State Department Public Diplomacy and USAGM ofcials.

This year"s report focuses on scal year (FY) 2020 actual funds spent and aims t o provide a complete accounting of

public diplomacy and broadcasting activities in that time frame. Wherever possible, the report also examines FY 2021

planned spending, strategy, and activities, in addition to FY 2022 budget requests. The report reinforces the ACPD"s

commitment to the advancement of research and evaluation for public diplomacy and international broadcasting, the

improvement of the organizational structure of Public Diplomacy at the Department of State, and the enhancement of

career trajectories and professional development of PD professionals.

More than seventy years since the publication of the rst ACPD annual report, we remain dedicated to producing

a high-quality and thoroughly vetted document of record each year. We also welcome the opportunity each year to

get a closer view of the many information, outreach, education, and cultural activities the U.S. government supports

worldwide. We greatly admire the commitment and the talent of America"s public diplomacy practitioners and

international broadcasters and respect the sustained dedication of their leadership and staff at home and abroad.

We hope that by making a number of thoughtful, future-oriented recommendations, and by promoting transparency

in budgets and spending, we can strengthen Public Diplomacy"s essential role in achieving U.S. foreign policy goals

while reinforcing America"s national security and prosperity.

William J. Hybl

Vice-Chairman

ColoradoAnne Wedner

Commissioner

FloridaSim Farar

Chairman

CaliforniaRespectfully submitted,

Transmittal Letter

To the President, Congress, Secretary of State, and the American People:

Edited by:

Vivian S. Walker, Ph.D.

Executive Director, U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Shawn Baxter

Senior Advisor, U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Deneyse A. Kirkpatrick

Senior Advisor, U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Kristina Zamary

Program Assistant, U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Comprehensive Annual Report

on Public Diplomacy &

International Broadcasting

2021

United States Advisory Commission

on Public Diplomacy

The views represented herein are those of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy and do not

necessarily reect the views of the Commission"s administrative home, the U.S. Department of State.

Table of Contents

I Acknowledgments

II Data Sources and Key Terms

2 Executive Summary

3

Total PD Spending by Budget FY 2016-2020

5

Total FY 2020 PD Spending by Budget

6 Washington-Coordinated FY 2020 Department of State PD Spending Compared 7

Global Map of FY 2020 PD Spending by Region

9

Global Public Diplomacy Spending by U.S. Mission

17

History of Public Diplomacy Spending: 1980-2020

19 Spotlight Feature: Meeting the COVID-19 Challenge: A Good News Story

20 Recommendations

21

To the White House

21

To the U.S. Congress

22

To the Secretary of State

22
To the Department of State, Ofce of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Af fairs (R), and Ofce of Policy, Planning, and Resources (R/PPR) 23
To the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) 23

To the Bureau of Global Public Affairs (GPA)

24

To the Global Engagement Center (GEC)

24

To the Foreign Service Institute (FSI)

25

To the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM)

26 Ofce of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

29 Ofce of Policy, Planning, and Resources

31 R Highlights for 2020

33 Spotlight Feature: The National Museum of American Diplomacy"s Virtual

Programming

36 Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

41 Program and Performance

46 Academic Programs

58 Professional and Cultural Exchanges

71 Young Leaders Initiatives

72 Countering State Disinformation and Pressure

72 Private Sector Exchanges

75 Spotlight Feature: ECA's Pandemic Response

80 Bureau of Global Public Affairs

82 Ofces Reporting to the Assistant Secretary

83 Media Strategy Team

84 Digital Strategy Team

87 Content Team

88 Research and Analytics Team

90 Update on GPA Integration

91

Spotlight Feature: Covid-19 Communications

94 Global Engagement Center

98 Representative Examples of Operational Efforts

99 Looking Ahead

100 Spotlight Feature: Harmony Square

102 Foreign Service Institute

103 Public Diplomacy Training

104 Supporting PD Modernization Efforts

104 Looking Ahead

106The National Museum of American Diplomacy

107 Advocacy

107 Social Media Platforms and Major Activities

108 Collections

109 Spotlight Feature: Pioneering the Virtual Pivot

Table of Contents

110 U.S. Public Diplomacy in Africa

115 Spotlight Feature: Virtual Independence Day Celebration

116 AF Post PD Spending Table

120 Country Proles

146 U.S. Public Diplomacy in East Asia and the Pacic

152 Spotlight Feature: Addressing COVID-19 Challenges with Hybrid Programming in

the Philippines

154 EAP Post PD Spending Table

156 Country Proles

170 U.S. Public Diplomacy in Europe and Eurasia

175 Spotlight Feature: EUR Pandemic Program Initiatives

176 EUR Post PD Spending Table

180 Country Proles

206U.S. Public Diplomacy through International Organizations

209 Post Proles

211 Spotlight Feature: Virtual Space Camp

212U.S. Public Diplomacy in Near East Asia

216 Spotlight Feature: Innovative Virtual PD Programming Across NEA

218 NEA Post PD Spending Table

220 Country Proles

230 U.S. Public Diplomacy in South and Central Asia

234 Spotlight Feature: Focus on Pandemic Misinformation

235 SCA Post PD Spending Table

236 Country Proles

244U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Western Hemisphere

249 Spotlight Feature: Building and Maintaining Connections Virtually

250 WHA Post PD Spending Table

252 Country Proles

268Functional Bureau Public Diplomacy Activities

269 Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA)

272 Bureau of Conict and Stabilization Operations (CSO)

274 Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT)

277 Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL)

280 Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB)

282 Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR)

283 Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL)

284 Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)

285 Bureau of International Security and NonProliferation (ISN)

286 Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientic Affairs (OES)

289 Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM)

291
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)

292 U.S. Agency for Global Media

301

Special Focus on Reporting

305 Spotlight Feature: USAGM and COVID-19

307 USAGM Services Ranked by FY 2020 Budgets

311 USAGM Language Services

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Acknowledgments

The ACPD would like to thank State Department and U.S. Agency for Global Media leadership and staff for their assistance in the

collection of budget data, thematic input, and program descriptions. We are thankful to the State Department"s Ofce of the Under

Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R) for continued support of the Commission and its reporting function, beginning

with the R Senior Ofcial, Jennifer Hall-Godfrey. We would like to acknowledge the support received from the leadership of the

Ofce of Policy, Planning, and Resources (R/PPR), with particular thanks to Paul Kruchoski, Rob Raines, Jon

i Scandola, Anthony

Walker, and Josh Miller. We are also grateful to the R/PPR budget and procurement teams for their steadfast support of ACPD

operations, including the preparation of this report.

Many thanks to Jenipher Young, Simone Duval, Gaby Canavati, and the entire Global Public Affairs (GPA) special assistant team.

We are grateful to Andy Paine and Ben Stegmann of the Global Engagement Cente r (GEC) and Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) colleagues, especially Stacy White, Michele Petersen, and Ed Kemp. Thanks too to Jeff Anderson and Clare Ashley at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), Jill Esposito and Kathy Guerra in Consul ar Affairs (CA), and to Susan Cleary, Hilary Brandt, and Eric Duyck at the National Museum of American Diplomacy (NMAD), featur ed in this report for the rst time.

We also appreciate the help received from PD Ofce Directors and their staffs in the State Department"s six regional bureaus

(African Affairs, East Asian and Pacic Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs,

and Western Hemisphere Affairs) and the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, who reviewed foreign policy and public

diplomacy strategies with us while also verifying the report"s data. This includes, but is not limited to: Matthew Miller, David Connell,

and Heidi Smith (AF); Camille Dawson, John Groch, Mike Chadwick, and Brian Gibel (EAP); Chris Fitzgerald, Steve Pos

ivak, and Sheila Casey (EUR); Lynn Roche, Brinille Ellis, and Lavenia Holland (NEA); Kerri Hannan, Mo lly Stephenson, and Ellen Delage (SCA); Dale Prince, Ellen Masi, Mary Fields, and Zach Braun (WHA); Mark Schla chter, Megan Johnson, and Shana Kieran-Kaufmann (IO).

Additionally and importantly, we thank the functional bureaus" PD ofces for their thoughtful updates in support of this year"s report.

At the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), we greatly appreciate the time Kate Neeper, Yelena Osipova-Stocker, and Olga

Stefanou gave to compiling the data on the agency"s services, and remain thankful for the sustained support offered by USAGM

Chief Strategy Ofcer Shawn Powers.

Special thanks to our Spring 2021 intern, Daniel Oh, who provided invaluable assistance in compiling data for the Country Proles

in this report.

Finally, we remain grateful for the guidance we received in researching this report from the professional staff members of the

Committee on Foreign Relations at the U.S. Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the U.S. House of Representatives,

with special thanks to Sarah Arkin. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL REPORT ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY & INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

Data Sources And Key Terms

The

2021 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International B

roadcasting serves as a reference guide and a

point of inquiry for questions on U.S. government public diplomacy and international broadcasting activities worldwide. The report

is based on the most recent actual budget data available from scal year 2020, described as “actual" spending amounts. Whe

rever possible, the report also provides scal year 2021 estimates, or “planned" amounts.

The bulk of the report originates in budget data and program descriptions from Washington and the eld as provided by the U.S.

Department of State"s Public Diplomacy (PD), regional, and functional bureaus and ofces and the U.S. Agency for Global Media

(USAGM). In addition, PD leadership of the regional and functional bureaus provided access to regional and functional bureau foreign

policy and public diplomacy plans from scal year 2020 and, when available, scal year 2021.

The Under Secretary"s Ofce of Policy, Planning, and Resources (R/PPR) provided an overview of budget, programmatic, analytical,

and personnel initiatives and gave the ACPD access to the datasets which organize PD budget data, expenditures, program themes,

and program activities on a mission-by-mission basis. Owing to a transition in the R/PPR data collection process, this year"s thematic

program gures are available as percentages rather than dollar gures. Country-by-country data included in the regional bureau

chapters is self-reported by public diplomacy sections at U.S. missions abroad.

The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) supplied open source Educational and Cultural Exchanges (ECE) budget and

general program activity information. The Bureau of Global Public Affairs (GPA) provided open source information and budget data for

programs and public engagement activities that directly or indirectly engaged with foreign audiences. The Global Engagement Center

(GEC) furnished unclassied program information and budget data. USAGM offered program and budget information drawn from its

comprehensive database. Department of State regional and functional bureaus supplied PD program overviews and spending data.

When reviewing the data, it is important to remember that the overall cost of operating in a country, not just how much money is

distributed to programs, must be considered. Numerical values can vary signicantly by program and by country depending on

variables such as local operating expenditures and prevailing political and security conditions. For example, some U.S. Agenc

y for Global Media program delivery costs can be quite high owing to the non-permissive envir onments in which a Service operates.

The Department of State regional bureaus supplied overall FY 2020 PD spending data organized by U.S. mission. When available,

R/PPR pr

ovided mission spending data by program activity (or in some cases, budgeted amounts) and, as noted abov

e, by program

theme in percentages. The ACPD focused on the top six thematic priorities and programmatic categories for each mission.

Demographic, economic, and literacy/education data is drawn largely from

World Bank Open Data

online datasets. Most population gures are taken from the

UN Revision of World Population Prospects

. Geographical area, unemployment, percentage of a county"s population under age 24, and some country population gures are from

The World Factbook

. Internet, social media, and mobile data access information is from

Data Reportal "Digital 2020"

reports. In the absence of available data, countries are marked either as “NA" if unreliable or “not ranked" if not included within a given index. Specic social and media indicators come from the following indices: Inclusive Internet Index from the Economist Intelligence Unit

•The Inclusive Internet Index seeks to measure the extent to which the Internet is not only accessible and affordable, but also

relevant to all, allowing usage that enables positive social and economic outcomes at the individual and group level.

Social Progress Index from the Social Progress Imperative

•The Social Progress Index is a comprehensive tool that measures the quality of life and whether people have the basic needs

to pr osper irrespective of gender, race, or sexual orientation. Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International

•Corruption Perception data measures the prevalence of corruption, citizens" experiences, and attitudes towards it.

Economic Freedom Index from The Heritage Foundation •The Index of Economic Freedom measures the impact of liberty and free markets around the globe.

Good Country Index from The Good Country

•The Good Country Index reports on each country"s external impacts, positive and negative, outside its own borders.

World Press Freedom Index from Reporters without Borders •The World Press Freedom Index measures the degree of freedom available to journalists.

DATA SOURCES AND KEY TERMS

Global Soft Power Index from Brand Finance

•Global Soft Power ranks a nation"s ability to inuence the preferences and behaviors of various actors in the international

ar

ena (states, corporations, communities, publics, etc.) through attraction or persuasion rather than coercion.

Gender Inequality from the United Nations Development Programme

•The Gender Inequality Index measures gender inequalities in three important aspects of human development—reproductive

health, empowerment, and economic status.

Supplemental Funding:

Supplemental funding has been added into the “Total Reported" budget gures for U.S. missions abroad to

provide readers with a more accurate picture of how supplemental funding contributes to U.S. government public diplomacy programs

over and above the standard DP .7 allotment. Supplemental funding can include: AEECA: Assistance for Europe, Eurasia & Central Asia. D&CP .7 Carryover: Prior year funding held over and spent in following scal years.

Economic Support Funds (ESF): Aid designated to promote economic or political stability in areas where the United States has special strategic interests.

Representation Funds: Funding allocated to ofces to facilitate ofcial receptions and other representational activities for foreign contacts.

President"s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR): Initiative to help save the lives of those suffering from HIV/AIDS around the world. Frequently used to fund public information campaigns.

American Spaces: GPA funding to posts for American Spaces, contact relationship management systems, and other outreach purposes.

GPA Other: GPA funding to support Media Hub activities, TV coops, and other international messaging activities.

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act: CARES covers payments for necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19.

COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL REPORT ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY & INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL REPORT ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY & INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

Executive Summary

A group of Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) alumni pose in front of the Capitol in Washington, D.C. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL REPORT ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY & INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

Executive Summary

The

2021 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International

Broadcasting

, published each year by the U.S.

Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (ACPD) per its congressional mandate, assesses the major public diplomacy and global

media activities conducted by the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for Global Media. Based on data collected from

the State Department"s Public Diplomacy bureaus and ofces, the Public Affairs Sections at U.S. embassies worldwide, and the

USAGM, the report serves as a unique reference document, highlighting public diplomacy strategies and resources used to advance

U.S. foreign policy objectives. The report also serves as a platform for innovation, assuring that U.S. gover

nment public diplomacy initiatives remain effective in a consistently competitive global information environment. Overall PD spending in scal year (FY) 2020 was $2.23 billion, a $2

7.3 million increase (1.2 percent) from FY 2019. This gure includes

budgets for Diplomatic Programs (DP .7), Educational and Cultural Exchanges (ECE), USAGM, and supplemental funding such as

AEECA (Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia). FY 2020 PD spending increased from 3.91 percent to 3.99 percent of the

2020 international affairs budget ($55.93 billion), or 0.14 percent—less than one-fth of a percent—of federal discretionary spending.

For such a low investment of taxpayer resources, it is worth remembering that expenditures on USG public diplomacy activities,

especially exchanges and international educational programs, also directly beneted American communities and the U.S. economy.

Despite pandemic-related travel restrictions, around 1.07 million international students studied in the United States in 2019-20. They

contributed $38.7 billion to the U.S. economy and supported 415,996 U.S. jobs, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Less tangibly but no less important, these international students at U.S. institutions contributed to America's scienti

c and technical

research, brought different perspectives into U.S. classrooms, and helped prepare their American peers for global careers.

This lean, yet meaningful, apportionment supported a multitude of programs and people, including:

The creation of approximately 3,000 weekly hours of original USAGM programming across six global networks and a variety of

digital and analogue platforms, in 62 languages to more than 100 countries, reaching more than 354 million people across the

globe every week;

More than 90 exchange programs supporting nearly 55,000 U.S. and foreign participants, many of whom are likely to become, or already are, political and economic leaders;

630 American Spaces, which conducted more than 427,000 virtual and blended programs with more than 14.5 million attendees;

TOTAL PD SPENDING BY BUDGET FY 2016-2020

FY 2016 FY 2017FY 2018 FY 2019FY 2020

DP - Public Diplomacy$369.60 $358.20$392.90 $391.20$465.80 DP - American Salaries$134.60 $134.60$183.50 $186.80$179.80

Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs

(ECEP)$590.90 $634.10$646.10 $700.90$735.70 Supplemental Funding (AEECA)$183.10 $208.80$159.20 $130.90$51.00

USAGM/BBG$752.90 $794.00$803.50 $800.30$805.10

Total State & USAGM PD Spending$2,031.10$2,129.70 $2,185.20$2,210.40 $2,237.40

State & USAGM PD Spending as a % of Total

International Afiairs Budget3.67% 3.56%3.88% 3.91%3.99% International Afiairs Budget$55.30 $59.75$56.39 $56.48$55.94

State & USAGM PD Spending as a % of Federal

Discretionary Budget0.17% 0.17%0.17% 0.17%0.14%

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A cost-effective global network of nearly 200 U.S. mission websites in 59 languag es, with more than 80 million website visitors;

More than a combined 80 million followers joining the global network of Regional Hub, Embassy, and social media accounts;

Enhanced digital engagement, including Twitter @StateDept with 6.2 million followers, YouTube-State Video with 324,000

subscribers and 51 million all time views, and 2.4 million Facebook fans;

1,075,496 international students studying at U.S. higher education institutions, a decl

ine of 1.8 percent from the previous year but still 5.5 percent of all students in U.S. higher education;

Over 1 million students who contributed $38.7 billion to the U.S. econom y and supported 415,996 U.S. jobs;

Tens of thousands of post-managed small grants to local partners supporting the values and institutions that form the bedrock of America"s national security;

Direct engagement with more than 2,200 accredited U.S.-based foreign correspondents from major global media outlets via Foreign Press Centers in Washington, DC and New York.

In addition to these notable, public-facing efforts, PD resources also supported internal support infrastructure, including the

following initiatives: The Public Diplomacy Stafng Initiative (PDSI), which entails a major overhaul of local empl

oyee position descriptions at overseas missions, will enable PD practitioners to better contribute to mission-w

ide policy goals and adapt to changes in public opinion, technology, and communications environments. In 2020, R/PPR completed PDSI implementation at 17 missions and

initiated the process at 19 additional missions, encompassing a total 274 positions. To date 43 missions are working in their PDSI structures, representing 52 PD sections. R/PPR expects to implement the initiative at 47

posts next year and is currently on track to complete organizational reviews at all missions by 2022. For more details, see the December 2021 ACPD Special Report: Putting Policy and Audience First: A Public Diplomacy Paradigm Shift.

In FY 2021 ECA established a new Monitoring Evaluation Learning and Innovation (MELI) unit. The unit is designed to meet ECA"s programmatic goals by providing the data necessary to drive evidence-based decision making and i

nform resource requests. The evidence gathered enables program managers to identify and remediate real-time challenges, measure programming efforts against U.S. foreign policy goals, and provide greater program accountability and transparency.

In FY 2020, one year after its establishment, the GPA executed its rst budget, cleared its rst Functional Bureau Strategy, and conducted its rst program assessment while addressing pandemic related challenges and diversity/inclusion issues. Regular informational sessions led by a variety of GPA teams, as well consistent communication from GPA leadership, have helped keep staff informed of critical information regarding the COVID-19 crisis, changes in Department policy and best practice

s in achieving the mission in a high threat environment.

In 2021, the FSI PD Training Division launched a new Public Diplomacy Ofcer (PDO) tradecraft course that merges previously separate cultural and information training sequences into a single three-week class. The new course is designed to facilitate a more audience-centered, policy-focused approach to PD programming and reduce stovepipes within PD sections. Building on this collaborative concept, PD Training also combined elements of its public affairs ofcer tradecraft course with political and economic section courses.

How Does FY 2020 Spending Compare?

In response to perennial calls to examine the value and return-on-investment of taxpayer expenditures carefully, this report contextualizes

current public diplomacy activities and spending and provides recommendations to maximize program impacts. Any attempt to determine

an appropriate level of funding for informing and inuencing foreign publics as part of whole-of-government efforts to achieve U.S. foreign

policy goals must account for the challenges to successful inuence s trategies in a complex and competitive information environment.

Effective USG public diplomacy in the 21st century requires sustained increases in PD funding to equip teams worldwide with the

necessary staff and tools to make strategic decisions about audiences, compete for att ention and inuence, engage in long-term

programs and information activities, and conduct impact evaluation of programs and campaigns in the eld. Successful public

diplomacy initiatives require cutting-edge expertise in content creation, audience and market analysis, technological systems,

emerging and established social media platforms, and local media industries, in addition to the deep knowledge of U.S. policies and

values that drive every PD effort.

These skills and experiences are crucial for building and strengthening relationships in the eld, which form the basis for the

protection and promotion of national security and economic interests. Consequently, one could expect to see signicant increases

in the level of U.S. government PD spending. However, this is not the case. Since 1980, the annual average of U.S. government

PD spending (adjusted for ination) has been $1.99 billion. From a high of $2.55 billion (adjusted for ination) in FY 1994, U.S.

government expenditures on PD programs have decreased by $312 million to a total of $2.23 billion in FY 2020, despite th

e need to reach a global audience.

In short, PD budgets in real dollars have not matched the need for resources. While State Department and USAGM public diplomacy

activities play essential roles in achieving U.S. foreign policy, they continue to be apportioned a minor percentage of the international

affairs budget and the federal government"s discretionary spending. Considering the widespread increase in extremist and foreign

government propaganda, the complexity of the contemporary media ecosystem, and the co ntinuous fall out effects of the global pandemic, the U.S. government should prioritize far more resources for its PD programs. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL REPORT ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY & INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

Where Did the Money Go?

While topline gures are important for context, this report"s value lies in its in-depth overview and analysis of each of the agenci

es,

bureaus, and ofces that oversee and implement public diplomacy programs. The report also considers the effectiveness and

efciency of the spending in its analysis and recommendations.

The USAGM spent approximately $805.1 million (35.9 percent of total PD funding). ECA"s exchange and cultural programs allocation

increased to $735.7 million (32.8 percent of total PD funding). DP .7 funds - which support post-led PD p

rograms, locally employed

staff (foreign nationals) salaries, and much of the PD backbone in Washington, D.C. - came in at $465.8 million (20.8 percent of

total PD funding). Reported supplemental funding (e.g., OCO and AEECA) - the vast majority of which went to support PD efforts

in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Russia, and Ukraine - was $51 million (2.2 percent of total PD funding). Salaries for Foreign and Civil Service Ofcers and other American employees accounted for $179.8 million (a m odest 8.0 percent of total PD spending).

TOTAL FY 2020 PD SPENDING BY BUDGET

Total Public Diplomacy Budget (FY 2020) $2.23 Billion

U.S. Agency for Global

Media (USAGM)

$805.10M

Diplomatic Program Funding (American Salaries)

$179.80M

Diplomatic Program Funding (DP .7)

PD spending as a percentage of the

international affairs budget:$465.80M

3.99% (of $55.93 billion)

PD spending as a percentage of the

federal discretionary budget:

0.14% (of $1.60 trillion)

Supplemental Funding (AEECA)

$51.00M

Educational and Cultural Exchange (ECE)

quotesdbs_dbs29.pdfusesText_35

[PDF] La TNT - RTBFbe

[PDF] Fisherr FIELDVUE

[PDF] Lecteur de DVD - LG

[PDF] visa bulletin - Travelgov

[PDF] How to Reset Password Quick Guide - Hikvision

[PDF] 2017 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (DV-2017) (09 - Travelgov

[PDF] DX SOL - Duralex Peintures

[PDF] brèves réflexions sur la « dyarchie » de l 'exécutif en france - Cairn

[PDF] La dynamique démographique dans la coopération allemande au

[PDF] Chapitre 3 : Dynamique du point matériel

[PDF] Geographie Tle S Mondialisation Et Dynamiques Geographiques

[PDF] Démographie et dynamique urbaine - DREAL Hauts-de-France

[PDF] Sujet : Réseaux et dynamiques urbaines en France - Clio-Lycée

[PDF] histoire et dynamique urbaine - Aucame

[PDF] Dynamique urbaine dans la longue durée