The Foreign Service Journal, May 2015

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MAY 2015 19 Many in government are dissatisfied with how the global public diplomacy enterprise is measured and evaluated. In my work as an instructor at the Foreign Service Institute, I have been able to look at scores of public diplomacy projects and programs around the world. I’ve seen very impressive work. But too often, public affairs sections seem dis- connected from specific policy initiatives. Many PD staffers have trouble articu- lating the links between their work and policy advocacy. Media activities too often do little more than repeat generic messages fromWashington and promote embassy events. PD professionals feel that the approach is too reactive, and some complain that their mission’s front office changes priorities unexpectedly, appearing to be most interested in pub- licity and representational resources. An Important Initiative Harnessing public diplomacy more effectively to substantive mission priori- ties is the focus of an important initiative that is neither well known nor under- stood. In 2013, the under secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs (called R on State’s organization chart) asked all public affairs sections to draft a Public Diplomacy Implementation Plan. For its plan, each PA section is asked to: • Select objectives from the mission’s Integrated Country Strategy; • Explain how the public affairs office will advance each chosen objective, using all resources—from social media and grants to educational exchanges; and • Describe what results can be expected from the effort. The mandate doesn’t stop with a plan document, but involves reporting throughout the year. The Mission Activity Tracker, a companion Web-based data system, allows staff to record significant activities that follow from the plan, as well as results (e.g., audience feedback or favorable developments that can be linked to the event). The MAT has been around for more than 10 years, and has been improved to the point where it is intuitive and easily searchable. While there is no formal evaluation report, the implementation plan is to be reviewed and resubmitted annually. Most posts submitted plans last year, and reaction from PD professionals has been constructive, judging frommy interaction with FS and local staff. The great majority of them also feed data into the tracker. The new system has the potential to provide Washington more granular and realistic evaluations at the same time that it makes public affairs sections more effective. Consider these benefits: • Until now, most mission strategy papers have adopted broad PD goals about increasing mutual understanding or shaping the media narrative, without specifying which bilateral issues they address. The new document focuses on missionwide objectives. • Both the planning documents and the activity tracker can be viewed by anyone who has access to State’s unclas- sified but protected OpenNet network. This allows PAOs to compare notes with other posts or read in on a future assignment. Desk officers can search and analyze reported activities across one or many posts. Some bureaus already use MAT entries instead of cables or email for routine reporting. • The entire MAT suite (including a couple of tools still in development) uses a standard set of categories for audi- ences, programs and topical themes. That imposes uniform standards of practice and promotes accountability. PD expen- ditures at posts are now coded by catego- ries to indicate how outlays correlate with stated priorities. • The plans enable Washington to know much more concretely what posts have prioritized. That sets up a basis for tactical decisions and evaluation, as well. All good news. So what’s the problem? Nurturing Needed The “strategic cycle” (Washington’s term for the planning suite) is new and fragile, and it is planted on stony ground. While compliance was good the first year, deeper buy-in is far from guaran- teed. There is a school of thought that “you just can’t measure success” when trying to change attitudes; so why try? It is easy to treat the scheme as merely a paperwork exercise. Creating and fol- lowing a strategy is a new discipline for most PAOs—one that has been neglected since State took over the PD function in 1999. Planning and logging activities involves the whole section—Foreign Service and local employees—and takes time, which is in scarce supply in the PD business. The electronic tools are being improved, but will require further refinement. And that involves long-term budget support. This second year of the initiative is critical. PAOs in the Near East and South Asia are only now submitting their first implementation plan. The Integrated Country Strategy exercise, a missionwide