10 FAH-1 H-040
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY STRATEGIC PLANNING, REPORTING AND EVALUATiONS
(CT:ASH-5; 11-16-2018)
(Office of Origin: R/PPR)
10 FAH-1 H-041 INTRODUCTION
(CT:ASH-5; 11-16-2018)
a. Strategic planning, reporting, and evaluation are essential components of effective public diplomacy. Since an embassy public affairs section plays a key role in all three of these components, R’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources (R/PPR) has developed a series of online tools to assist posts in developing strategic plans, and created the Mission Activity Tracker, a web-based database to facilitate planning, reporting and capturing results of PD activities. R/PPR also established a Research and Evaluation Unit to lead, manage, and coordinate audience research, performance monitoring and evaluation of key programs and projects funded by the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R).
b. The following provides guidance to posts on all three components of the process: strategic planning, reporting and evaluation.
(1) Strategic Planning:
Strategic Planning is the essential first component of any successful public diplomacy campaign or activity. Strategic planning at Post begins with the Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) and continues with the Public Diplomacy Country Context (PDCC) and the annual Public Diplomacy Implementation Plan (PDIP).
(a) The ICS is the Mission-wide strategic planning document prepared on a triennial basis. Each Public Affairs Section (PAS) is responsible for including public diplomacy goals in the ICS.
(b) The Public Diplomacy Country Context, a triennial document, collects from posts a view of country-specific information related to public outreach and engagement including demographics and analysis. It is designed to give interested stakeholders an immediate understanding of the societal, political, economic, and cultural environments that exist within a country and of the key audiences the post is trying to reach. This document is critical in preparing both the ICS and the PDIP. It also can streamline preparation for Principal Officer visits, desk officer briefing papers and interagency planning efforts.
(c) The Public Diplomacy Implementation Plan (PDIP) is an annual strategic planning document that assists posts by clearly linking public diplomacy programs with the Mission’s priorities as articulated in the ICS. Each Post’s PAS crafts a PDIP using the PDIP online tool to outline significant PD initiatives and activities in support of Mission goals. For each activity, the Public Affairs section will identify primary target audience sectors; ECA, IIP, and other PD program tools that will be used to advance the objective; the relevant themes; and the expected outcomes.
(d) A well-conceived PDIP strengthens the PAO’s ability to clearly document to Mission and Department leadership the connection between PD programs and Mission priorities. A PDIP conceived and created in close coordination with the Front Office and the regional bureau PD office informs the PAO’s chain of command of the actions the PAS plans to take to support policy goals and provides a basis for prioritizing new emerging mandates. The Diplopedia PD Strategic Planning site provides detailed resources to assist PAOs in forming their strategic plans.
(2) Reporting:
The key reporting tool for the Public Diplomacy Section is the Mission Activity Tracker (MAT), an online system for reporting public diplomacy programs and activities. MAT is the sole source of comprehensive data on global public diplomacy activities, and serves as an archive for future research. Posts enter brief narratives on each activity and identify themes, audiences, mission goals and results. The PDS may also wish to submit a longer front-channel reporting cable for particularly significant programs or activities, or initiatives with multiple activities. Such a report would enable the PDS to provide a fuller description of the initiative and could result in wider readership. MAT and other forms of reporting play a critical role in monitoring the performance of PD programs.
(3) Research and Evaluation:
Evaluations are increasingly important for all State Department programs, including public diplomacy. As 18 FAM states: “The Department of State is committed to using performance management best practices, including evaluation, to achieve the most effective U.S. foreign policy outcomes and greater accountability.” Evaluations enable the Department to monitor performance, measure results, and inform policy, planning and budget decisions.
The R/PPR Research and Evaluation Unit (REU) improves the effectiveness of U.S. mission public diplomacy activities worldwide through research to better target audiences and evaluation in order to understand how PD programs meet their objectives.
(a) REU/Research:
(i) The Research Unit provides PAOs and other PD practitioners with the same type of research that political campaigns, marketing campaigns, and other communications campaigns use: research that helps its users maximize the impact of their limited communications resources – that helps PAOs get the “biggest bang for their PD buck.”
(ii) To achieve that mission, R/PPR Research produces several original product lines and also provides informal consultation to PD practitioners who want to do their own research.
(b) REU/Evaluation:
(i) The Evaluation Unit coordinates performance monitoring of public diplomacy activities and conducts rigorous evaluations of key public diplomacy programs and projects. It supports PD practitioners in the pursuit of useful program evaluation, and such evaluation yields evidence on which to base decisions about program design and resource allocation. REU Evaluation conducts program evaluations using rigorous data collection methods and innovative analytic approaches. In addition to conducting evaluations, REU/Evaluation provides instruction and consulting on all aspects of evaluation design to help Post implement performance monitoring and evaluation abroad.
(ii) Purpose of Evaluations: Evaluations help PD practitioners understand whether programs operate effectively and what outcomes result from programming efforts. This information enables them to make informed decisions on budgets, programming, and effective application of public diplomacy tools.
(iii) REU/Evaluation evaluates PD programs, projects, products, and initiatives.
(iv) REU/Evaluation conducts evaluations as needed, primarily focused on program outcomes. The subjects of such evaluations are selected in consultation with bureaus and posts.
(v) REU/Evaluation supports PD practitioners by providing instruction and close consultation in program evaluation and performance monitoring.
(vi) REU/Evaluation also offers resources such as brainstorming, program research, consultations, a toolkit, and workshops to PD practitioners upon request.
(vii) REU/Evaluation chairs the PD Evaluation Working Group, a community of PD practitioners whose mission is to tackle administrative policies that pose a challenge to effective research of PD programs; to periodically review and revise the PD Evaluation Policy; and to support each other in advancing the craft of PD evaluation.
(viii) REU/Evaluation encourages the use of the MAT and other reporting tools as the foundation for performance monitoring and evaluations. Other bureaus (including the Regional Bureaus, ECA or IIP) may also use MAT and other reporting messages from posts to design evaluations. Evaluations of PD programs draw data from many sources—a major one being the MAT.