The Foreign Service Journal, December 2015

22 DECEMBER 2015 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL model? Possibly, but it will necessitate a shift in the way we think about our work. Here are a few recommendations, some of which echo those made in the advisory commission’s report and others like it. 1. Increase evaluations. As many have argued, we need to dramatically increase resources for independent evaluations, and we need to approach that process with more seriousness and honesty than we have in the past. We need to get away from the idea that by aggressively evaluating our programs, we are somehow fashioning our own noose. And we need to be prepared to discontinue programs that do not show evidence of impact. While some PD pro- grams may be difficult to measure, that’s no excuse for not trying. 2. Reduce the number of PD pro- grams. There are so many programs, ini- tiatives and exchanges run by so many different State Department offices that PD officers spend their time in a frantic scramble, trying to keep up and execute as many as possible. The proliferation of programs has tended to result in quan- tity being preferred to quality, with very little time left for evaluation and mea- surement. As PD scholar Bruce Gregory has argued, PD officers need to learn how to “prioritize ruthlessly” and “say no” to programs that fall outside stra- tegic goals. Only by reducing our focus will we ever have the time and ability to measure and evaluate the impact of our interventions. 3. Focus mainly on mid-level elites. Focusing limited resources on up-and- coming mid-level elites remains the more cost-effective and target-efficient PD programming. It is cost-effective because resources go toward cultivating those with greater potential impact in their societies; and it is target-efficient because future leaders are easier to identify at the mid-level than as youth. Most important, programs targeting a defined cohort of mid-level elites are easier to track and evaluate than those that do not. Our relationship with mid- level elites continues as they move up the ladder to become senior elites, giv- ing us ample opportunity to continually measure and evaluate the impact of our investment. We should rethink programs targeting the very young and other non- elite groups, as they are almost always “drop-in-the bucket” gambles or photo ops. 4. Stop “fill-in-the-blank” diplo- macy. Too often in public diplomacy, “innovative” is just a buzzword mean- ing little more than “new.” It seems that every week brings with it the proposal of a new genre of PD: fashion diplo- macy and flash-mob diplomacy are just a few recent examples. Most of these are novelties, not well-thought-out program proposals based on thorough analysis and planning. A truly innovative program would be one that is designed in a way to measure its own impact. We currently have a great enough variety of programs to last a lifetime. Let us focus our efforts on measuring and evaluating our current projects, before we chase new butterflies. Will we ever find the holy grail of measurable PD impact? Perhaps not. But we must not let our inability to mea- sure impact enable an “anything-goes” approach. With greater rigor and invest- ment in evaluation, we can go a long way toward becoming a more evidence- based discipline (in every sense of that word). And, who knows? Maybe the evi- dence we gather will reveal that we’ve been even more effective than we thought. n Take AFSA With You! Change your address online, visit us at www.afsa.org/ address Or Send changes to: AFSAMembership Department 2101 E Street NW Washington, DC 20037 Moving?