The Foreign Service Journal, December 2015

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | DECEMBER 2015 19 SPEAKING OUT Proving Public Diplomacy Programs Work BY JAMES R I DER L ast year, the Advisory Com- mission on Public Diplomacy, a bipartisan committee estab- lished in 1948 to assess and appraise the United States’ PD activities, released a report, “Data-Driven Public Diplomacy: Progress Toward Measur- ing the Impact of Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting Activities.” Like many similar reports over the years, the ACPD study is generally optimistic about the success of the State Depart- ment’s public diplomacy programs. It further assumes that recent advances in data collection and analytics will help us better demonstrate their success, by proving their impact. At the same time, the report takes a hard look at the current state of public diplomacy evaluation, making it clear that “progress toward” measuring the impact of public diplomacy is not the same thing as actually being able to measure it. The uncomfortable truth that this report and others like it highlight is that after more than 70 years of institutional- ized public diplomacy activities, we still can’t empirically verify the impact of most of our programs. A consequence of this failing was highlighted by the State Department in its 2013 inspection of the Bureau of International Information Programs. Ironically, as public diplomacy programs have become more strategically focused, they’ve also become harder to manage and evaluate. James Rider is a mid-level public diplomacy-coned Foreign Service officer who is currently the political-economic section chief in Libreville. He previously served in Caracas and Tel Aviv. In 2013, he won AFSA’s W. Averell Harriman Award, recogniz- ing constructive dissent by an entry-level Foreign Service officer. The Office of the Inspector General’s findings raised serious questions about the lack of an overall public diplomacy strategy at the department: The absence of a departmentwide PD strategy tying resources to priorities directly affects IIP’s work. Fundamental questions remain unresolved [emphasis added] . What is the proper balance between engaging young people and marginalized groups versus elites and opinion leaders? Which programs and delivery mechanisms work best with which audiences? What pro- portion of PD resources should support policy goals, and what proportion should go to providing the context of American society and values? How much should PD products be tailored for regions and indi- vidual countries, and how much should be directed to a global audience? These questions are relevant for everyone involved in public diplomacy work, not just IIP. I believe that the main reason we are still left with so many “unresolved fundamental questions” about the nature of our work is because of our continued inability to measure the impact of our programs. It is impossible to accurately allocate resources to priori- ties when you don’t actually know what works. But why haven’t we been able to measure our impact? A review of recent studies suggests some answers. We Do Not Value Evaluation One reason has to do with the long- standing deficiencies of public diplo- macy measurement and evaluation regi- mens. An astonishing fact highlighted in the advisory commission’s report is that in 2013 the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA, the PD bureau that manages our best-known educational and exchange programs) allocated only .25 percent of its budget for program evaluation. The percent- age allocated by other PD bureaus and offices was not much higher. For comparison, the report notes that the industry average for evaluation spending is 5 percent. The University of Southern California’s “Resource Guide to Public Diplomacy Evaluation” says