[September 2013] This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Mendez, England & Associates. USAID/Nicaragua Final Performance Evaluation of the Nicaragua Media Program (NMP) USAID/NICARAGUA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE NICARAGUA MEDIA PROGRAM (NMP) Final Report 11 September 2013 Prepared under RFTOP No. SOL-524-13-000004 Submitted to: USAID/Nicaragua Submitted by: Olga Nazario (Team Leader) Leonor Zúñiga Contractor: Mendez England & Associates 4300 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 103 Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301- 652 -4334 www.mendezengland.com Cover Page: Cover Photo from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................1 Evaluation Purpose................................................................................................................................. 1 Program Background .............................................................................................................................1 Evaluation Methodology........................................................................................................................1 Evaluation Limitations............................................................................................................................3 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................3 Lessons Learned .....................................................................................................................................4 1.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS................................5 1.1 Evaluation Purpose .......................................................................................................................5 1.2 Evaluation Questions ...................................................................................................................5 2.0 PROGRAM BACKGROUND ...................................................................................6 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS.......................................................6 3.1 Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................................................7 3.2 Evaluation Limitations .................................................................................................................8 4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & LESSONS LEARNED...........................................................................................................................8 4.1 Findings ...........................................................................................................................................8 4.1.1 Question 1 .......................................................................................................................8 4.1.2 Question 2 .................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.3 Question 3 .................................................................................................................... 11 4.1.4 Question 4 .................................................................................................................... 11 4.1.5 Question 5 .................................................................................................................... 13 4.1.6 Question 6 .................................................................................................................... 14 4.1.7 Question 7 .................................................................................................................... 14 4.1.8 Question 8 .................................................................................................................... 16 4.1.9 Question 9 .................................................................................................................... 18 4.1.10 Question 10 .................................................................................................................. 19 4.1.11 Question 11 .................................................................................................................. 19 4.2 Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons Learned........................................................ 20 i | Page ANNEXES ANNEX 1: References ANNEX 2: USAID Proposed New Media Program ANNEX 3: Scope of Work ANNEX 4: Evaluation Schedule ANNEX 5: List of Persons Interviewed ANNEX 6: Questionnaires ANNEX 7: Survey Results ANNEX 8: Evaluation Design Matrix FIGURES Main Report FIGURE 1: NMP-Assisted Digital Media FIGURE 2: Mini-Survey Responses to Whether Program Helped to Mitigate Risk and Better Face the Challenges of Your Organization FIGURE 3: Characteristics of the Media in Nicaragua Annex 7 FIGURE 4: Type of Grantee FIGURE 5: Position in Media Outlet or NGO FIGURE 7: Length of Employment in Organization FIGURE 8: Would You Participate in the Program Again? FIGURE 9: NMP Helped to Mitigate Risk and Better Face the Challenges of My Organization FIGURE 10: Main Needs of My Organization FIGURE 11: Media Type FIGURE 12: Position in the Media Outlet FIGURE 13: Years of Existence of Media Outlets FIGURE 14: Reach of Media Outlets FIGURE 15: Major Strengths of the Media in Nicaragua FIGURE 16: Do You Think There Will be a Change in the Situation of the Media in the Future? FIGURE 17: How Could the International Community and USAID Support Journalists and Media in Nicaragua? FIGURE 18: Main Challenges of the Media in Nicaragua Today ii | Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Evaluation Team would like to thank Ms. Luz Marina García (AOR) and her colleagues at USAID for their hospitality and collaboration during this evaluation. The Team further thanks the FHI 360 local staff for providing as much information as possible right at the time when they were packing and closing the NMP office in Managua. iii | Page ACRONYMS AED Academy for Educational Development ALN Alianza Liberal Nicaragüense or Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance AOR Agreement Officer Representative ANIDAR Asociación Nicaragüense de Radiodifusores or Association of Nicaragua Radio Stations CAFTA-DR Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement CEGODEM Centro de Estudio para la Gobernabilidad y la Democracia or Center for the Study of Governability and Democracy COP Chief of Party CSO Civil Society Organization FHI Family Health International FUNICA Fundación para el Desarrollo Tecnológico, Agropecuario y Forestal de Nicaragua or Foundation for Nicaragua Technological, Agricultural and Forestry Development GoN Government of Nicaragua MRS Movimiento Renovación Sandinista or Sandinista Renovation Party ME&A Mendez England & Associates NGO Non-Government Organization NMP Nicaragua Media Program ONAP Organización Nicaragüense de Agencias de Publicidad or the Organization of Nicaraguan Advertising Agencies PLC Partido Liberal Constitucionalista or Constitutionalist Liberal Party PLI Partido Liberal Independiente or Independent Liberal Party PRN Partido de la Resistencia Nicaragüense or Nicaraguan Resistance Party RAAN Región Autónoma del Atlántico Norte or North Atlantic Autonomous Region RAAS Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur or South Atlantic Autonomous Region SOW Statement of Work USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United Sates Government iv | Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE This is a report on the final performance evaluation of the Nicaragua Media Program (NMP) funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission in Nicaragua. The NMP program was implemented during the period of July 12, 2010 – July 12, 2013 by Family Health International (FHI) 360. The evaluation of NMP was conducted during the period of July – August 2013, by a team assembled by Mendez, England & Associates (ME&A) with headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. The Evaluation Team consisted of two experts – one international and one local – both with experience in the media sector. The main objective of the evaluation was to provide an objective review of NMP in strengthening the viability of independent media in Nicaragua while also improving its ability to produce and disseminate quality information supporting USAID development programs. An integral part of the evaluation mission was to answer a set of pre-determined questions. The findings and conclusions reached by the Evaluation Team will be used to help USAID/Nicaragua make management decisions in a changing political environment and whether, when, and how to continue future support to the Nicaraguan media sector. PROGRAM BACKGROUND NMP was a cross-cutting program that sought to strengthen the viability of independent media in Nicaragua while improving its ability to produce and disseminate quality information supporting USAID development programs. NMP assisted media outlets in 12 cities and two autonomous regions (Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur or the Autonomous Region of the Southern Atlantic (RAAS) and Autónoma del Atlántico Norte or the Autonomous Region of the Northern Atlantic or (RAAN)) where other USAID development programs are being implemented. The program’s objective was to help independent media outlets improve their content and production quality. Support involved providing grants, each ranging from $10,000 to $15,000, to media outlets and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). NMP sought to advance U.S. interests and universal democratic and human rights through public diplomacy and support for independent media. The program reinforced the Mission’s goal of empowering NGOs; promoting economic growth, with equity to private sector-led growth and market￾led agriculture; implementing the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR); supporting at-risk youth; preventing school drop-out; promoting reading to children; and supporting democratic governance and citizen participation. NMP was integral to USAID/Nicaragua’s Strategic Objective 1 of Ruling Justly: More Responsive, Transparent Governance. EVALUATION QUESTIONS As per the SOW, the Evaluation Team was asked to answer a number of specific evaluation questions, outlined below: 1. What are the views of local media outlets and their NGO partners with regards to whether this program helped them remain in business? To what extent was the program effective in achieving its overall objectives and results? 2. Can some of the impact be grouped? For example, what percentage increase did reach in their sales? What was percentage increase in number of announcers? Can more details be revealed with regard to specific outputs, results, outcomes, or setbacks of assisted media outlets during the NMP program since 2010? Specifically, how did assisted media fare (as compared to similar non-assisted media) in terms of: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 1 | Page a. Changes in their audiences and demographics, revenues, diversity of income sources, volume and quality of news reporting, talk shows, programming related to governance and/or development, changes in level of professionalism as measured by content analysis or other methodologies. b. Any trends in terms of numbers of lawsuits or other legal difficulties encountered; or other pertinent metrics uncovered by the Evaluation Team. c. For digital media assisted, are any digital analytics available? 3. Provide greater detail on exactly how independent media outlets were successfully strengthened (or not). For example, was any content analysis performed to determine the effects on assisted media contents before/during/after assistance was performed? 4. In those grants in which the recipients were a media outlet and a NGO, what were the major benefits? Were there short-, medium- or long-term benefits? 5. What are the major strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that the Nicaragua media sector faces? 6. Assess Nicaraguan media reporting capacities vis-à-vis international standards (objectivity, ethics, self-regulation, etc.). 7. How does the Nicaraguan media rank when compared with the best standards in terms of sustainability of their businesses and use of technology (adoption/use of new media including mobile technology)? Are there windows of opportunity not being explored yet? 8. Should the Mission design and implement a new media program (or programs) building upon the experience of the current program? Which activities should be continued? What are the lessons learned in terms of management and program results? 9. What are the biggest needs (training, technical assistance, investments, business management capacity strengthening, audience research, legal support, etc.) of the independent media outlets in terms of becoming more market oriented, and in terms of surviving both the Nicaraguan political context and the global trend towards the use of new media? 10. Who are the main Nicaraguan media “influencers”? Who is following them? How are they connecting with people? 11. Are there important gender gaps within the Nicaraguan independent media sector to be considered in a media strategy? (For example, roles in decision-making and different access to and control over resources and services). EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The Evaluation Team collected quantitative and qualitative data from a broad range of stakeholders and beneficiaries to ensure independence of the evaluation process, as well as accuracy and completeness of the subsequent conclusions, recommendations, and lessons learned. The team used techniques that balance each other: quantitative vs. qualitative data; individual vs. group responses; semi-structured interviews vs. analysis of existing surveys; and data sets. The following main sources of evidence were used: • Critical Desktop Review Materials related to NMP such as Work Plans, Quarterly Reports, Surveys, Mid-term Review Reports, NMP Progress Reports, etc. • Secondary Data from country reports published by Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, InterMedia, and the World Bank, as well as reports from other relevant USAID projects. • Field Visits to Estelí and León. • Focus Group Discussions with NMP grantees and sub-grantees, and independent journalists. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 2 | Page • Over 20 Key Informant Interviews, including open-ended and semi-structured interviews with USAID and NMP implementers, program beneficiaries and stakeholders. • Mini-Survey of over 30 NMP grantees and sub-grantees and independent journalists not linked to the program. EVALUATION LIMITATIONS The evaluation presented few limitations. Once assured confidentially, interviewees provided information candidly. However, geographical distance and poor Internet accessibility presented difficulties in reaching all grantees personally or via email. Although NMP provided a contact list of all sub-grantees, it did not have the contact information of local media outlets that were sub-contracted for air time by NGOs. These sub-contracted local media outlets were not readily available for interviews, and often were not fully aware of NMP because they had not participated in the program but simply provided airtime to grantees. Use of email to reached stakeholders was not successful. CONCLUSIONS • NMP funding helped several media outlets remain in business by providing them with a cash flow and skills to improve the quality of their media products, which in turn improved opportunities for advertisements. • Several NGO/media outlet alliances, including Fundación Nicaragua Nuestra and Radio Juvenil; Fundación para el Desarrollo Tecnológico, Agropecuario y Forestal de Nicaragua or Foundation for Nicaragua Technological, Agricultural and Forestry Development (FUNICA) and VozTV; Eduquemos and Grupo Coraza; CARITAS and Radio Estrella de Mar produced win-win situations primarily because they shared common interests. • The broad dissemination of USAID messages served to promote the United States Government (USG) presence and assistance to the people of Nicaragua. An independent survey conducted by Borge & Associates between September 2011 and June 2013, shows Nicaraguan’s increased awareness of USG support to their country. • According to the Borge & Associates survey, nearly 100% of respondents were knowledgeable of a women’s rights campaign – produced under contract with a professional firm. • Women journalists find it difficult to break into the male-controlled media sector. Few own or direct media outlets and many need training, equipment, and empowerment to face the numerous challenges. • The biggest challenge for independent journalists is the few outlets in which they can publish. Currently, the best option would be establishing a digital platform. • Nicaragua’s independent media needs urgent support, and time-consuming grants programs do not seem to be the most appropriate funding vehicle at this point. • Increasing awareness of the challenges for freedom of the press in Nicaragua is an important result of NMP. • NMP helped a number of media outlets, which had been experiencing economic hardship, to acquire new capabilities. • Because of his own knowledge and experience, the NMP COP provided valuable technical training to grantees. • Many small independent media outlets are located outside of Managua. RECOMMENDATIONS • Conduct rapid assessments to complement information already available on the composition of independent journalists and media outlets and where they are located. This will assist in identifying the voices that are essential to maintaining some level of press freedom. • Support the essential voices defending press freedom FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 3 | Page • Provide equipment, such as cameras and recorders, that will help make independent journalists more effective and competitive. Special attention should be paid to the needs of women journalists in the departments. • Provide specialized training as needed. While some independent journalists are among the most qualified in the country, others require training on investigative journalism, business management, women’s issues, digital journalism, etc. • Offer internship and mentoring opportunities for young journalists both with local independent media and abroad. This will help to build links between seasoned and new journalists. • Support journalist associations, networks and alliances • Assist in establishing an outlet platform by promoting a national network of independent radio stations. Asociación Nicaragüense de Radiodifusores, or Association of Nicaragua Radio Stations (ANIDAR), is already established and could, perhaps, be expanded nationwide. • Assist independent media, to the extent possible, in seeking advertising from outside of Nicaragua LESSONS LEARNED • The growth of media outlets and programming in Nicaragua do not represent more freedom of the press. Yet, for a large segment of the population that is not fully aware of the restrictions on independent media, more programming and more variety may conceal the country’s drastically reduced freedom of expression. There is no credible or reliable data on media audiences and thus, no baseline to measure changes and potentials for advertising. Most interviewees believe that Organización Nicaragüense de Agencias de Publicidad or the Organization of Nicaraguan Advertising Agencies (ONAP), is no longer providing this service efficiently or capable of doing so, particularly because of high costs. Therefore, an entity to provide this service is much needed. • . Based on an assessment of media outlets, selecting individual media outlets that meet a specific set of criteria would more likely achieve greater impact. In-kind grants remain practical to provide equipment to journalists and media outlets. • Assistance to journalists and media outlets should be long-term, continuous, and sufficient to make a difference. In order to achieve a greater impact with limited resources, this may require selecting fewer media outlets to support rather than spreading funds too thin to benefit a larger pool. • Regional media outlets and journalists outside of Managua are struggling financially. While media with national reach may have greater impact, some regional/local media remain important and are therefore worth supporting. • Digital and social media are on the rise in Nicaragua and are the method of reaching the digitally￾savvy youth. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 4 | Page 1.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE This is a report on the final performance evaluation of the Nicaragua Media Program (NMP) funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission in Nicaragua. The program was implemented by Family Health International (FHI) 360 between July 12, 2010 and July 12, 2013. According to the Statement of Work (SOW) for this assignment (see Annex 3), the main goal of the evaluation was to “provide USAID Nicaragua with an objective review of the above mentioned program with regards to the various stakeholders involved in the implementation of such agreement, both directly and indirectly, and provide inputs for the new USAID Media Strategy.” The evaluation also assessed the role NMP played in strengthening the viability of Nicaragua’s independent media outlets, while improving their ability to produce and disseminate quality information supporting USAID development programs. Furthermore, the information and analysis presented in this evaluation report is intended to help USAID/Nicaragua make management decisions in a changing political environment on whether, when, and how to continue future support to the Nicaragua media sector. The Evaluation Team consisted of two key experts: Dr. Olga Nazario (Team Leader and Senior Media Sector Expert), and Leonor Zuniga Gutierrez (Local Media Expert). 1.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS As per the SOW, the Evaluation Team was asked to answer a number of specific evaluation questions, outlined below: 1. What are the views of local media outlets and their non-governmental organization (NGO) partners? To what extent was the program effective in achieving its overall objectives and results? 2. Can some of the impact be grouped? For example, what percentage increase did reach in their sales? Percentage increase in number of announcers? Can more details be revealed with regard to specific outputs, results, outcomes, or setbacks of assisted media outlets during the NMP program since 2010? Specifically, how did assisted media fare (as compared to similar non￾assisted media) in terms of: Changes in their audiences and demographics, revenues, diversity of income sources, volume and quality of news reporting, talk shows, programming related to governance and/or development, changes in level of professionalism as measured by content analysis or other methodologies. other pertinent metrics uncovered by the Evaluation Team. For digital media assisted, are any digital analytics available? 3. Provide greater detail on exactly how independent media outlets were successfully strengthened (or not). For example, was any content analysis performed to determine the effects on assisted media contents before/during/after assistance was performed? 4. In those grants in which the recipients were a media outlet and a NGO, what were the major benefits? Were there short-, medium- or long-term benefits? 5. What are the major strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that the Nicaragua media sector faces? 6. Assess Nicaraguan media reporting capacities vis-à-vis international standards (objectivity, ethics, self-regulation, etc.). FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 5 | Page 7. How does the Nicaraguan media rank when compared with the best standards in terms of sustainability of their businesses and use of technology (adoption/use of new media including mobile technology)? Are there windows of opportunity not being explored yet? 8. Should the Mission design and implement a new media program (or programs) building upon the experience of the current program? Which activities should be continued? What are the lessons learned in terms of management and program results? 9. What are the biggest needs (training, technical assistance, investments, business management capacity strengthening, audience research, legal support, etc.) of the independent media outlets in terms of becoming more market oriented and in terms of surviving the global trend towards the use of new media? 10. Who are the main Nicaraguan media “influencers”? Who is following them? How are they connecting with people? 11. Are there important gender gaps within the Nicaraguan independent media sector to be considered in a media strategy? (For example, roles in decision-making and different access to and control over resources and services). 2.0 PROGRAM BACKGROUND For a relatively small country, Nicaragua has an active media sector – at least 10 Managua-based television stations and more than 100 radio stations comprise the country’s main news sources. In addition to the official pressure on the independent media, most media enterprises are owned by a few large consortiums;. These consortia have closed practically all opportunities for independent journalists. Moreover, the private sector, refuses to advertise in independent media outlets. Recognizing the importance of media freedom as a key component of democratic governance, US Ambassador Robert J. Callahan (2008-2011) promoted the NMP initiative in 2010. The program had two overall objectives: 1) strengthen the viability of independent media in Nicaragua by providing funding, limited technical assistance, and training in production of programs, articles, websites, and spots, as well as on editorial independence and integrity; and 2) improve the media’s ability to produce and disseminate quality programs supporting USAID development programs. NMP targeted independent media outlets at the national and local levels and focused on the geographic areas – Managua, León, Estelí, Sabaco, Matagalpa, Jinotepe, Rivas, Nueva Segovia, Puerto Cabeza, and Bluefields – where USAID programs worked in order to support their quality of production. USAID supported media outlets by offering grants to design, produce, and broadcast messages that were in line with and/or promoted other USAID programs in the country such as those on education, health, or environment. Messages could be broadcast in several forms: media spots, live programming, soap operas, public awareness campaigns, etc. Only those media outlets located in the geographical region where USAID was implementing a specific program, for example sustainable tourism in Esteli, were eligible to compete to promote that program. Media outlets that won program promotion rights were permitted to broadcast the message only in the program’s implementation area. NMP essentially became two programs in one: supporting media outlets and promoting USAID messages to inform the Nicaraguan public of United States Government (USG) aid. USAID/Nicaragua supported media outlets, and later their partner NGOs, by awarding 45 grants ranging from $10,000 to $15,000 each, for a total of $2.8 million in three years. 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS & FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 6 | Page LIMITATIONS 3.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The Evaluation Team collected mainly qualitative data from a broad range of stakeholders and beneficiaries to ensure independence of the evaluation process, as well as accuracy and completeness of the subsequent conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned. Techniques that balance each other were utilized: quantitative vs. qualitative data; individual vs. group responses; and semi-structured interviews vs. analysis of existing surveys. Data collected was triangulated to ensure balance, accuracy and credibility. This evaluation was participatory and the findings in this report closely reflect the views of the stakeholders. All grantees interviewed shared their experiences with NMP, lessons learned, and made suggestions for future programming. Direct observation and other available sources provided additional information. The evaluators also monitored several non-funded media outlets to analyze content and reviewed some NMP-funded products. The following main sources of evidence were used: • Critical Desktop Review of Materials related to NMP such as Work Plans, Quarterly Reports, Surveys, Mid-term Review Reports, NMP Progress Reports, etc. • Secondary Data from country reports published by Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, InterMedia, and the World Bank, as well as reports from other relevant USAID projects. • Field Visits to Estelí and León. • Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with 20 grantees and sub-grantees: two in Managua and one in Estelí, with grantees from both Sébaco and Estelí. Additionally, two with journalists from radio, television, newspapers, digital media, and closed outlets who had not participated in NMP, one for both men and women and the other just for women, in which six women journalists from different media type outlets participated. All focus group participants completed a mini￾survey, the results of which are in Annex 7. • Over 20 Key Informant Interviews, including open-ended and semi-structured interviews with USAID and NMP implementers in Managua, program beneficiaries and stakeholders. • In-Depth Individual Interviews with grantees and independent journalists in Estelí and León, including journalists who had not participated in the program but who are among Nicaragua’s most prestigious journalists. Grantees in Bluefields, Rivas and Puerto Cabezas were interviewed by phone. • Mini-Survey of over 30 NMP grantees and sub-grantees and independent journalists not linked to the program. In consultation with the NMP Agreement Officer Representative (AOR), the Evaluation Team decided that attempting to have all grantees and sub-grantees complete the mini-survey was impractical. Some radio stations may have only sold spots and had no real contact with the program. Moreover, the tight fieldwork schedule and difficulties finding sub-contractors’ email addresses indicated that there would not be enough time to locate all stakeholders, or send and receive completed surveys on time. Still, at least 20 grantees that participated in focus groups completed the mini-surveys. Challenges The Team encountered at least two anticipated challenges. First, logistics was problematic because grantees, particularly radio stations in remote areas, could not be reached during the short time allotted for fieldwork. Thus, some grantees in the Autonomous Territories were interviewed via phone, although not all responded to phone messages. Second, as mentioned earlier, e-mailing mini-surveys was established to be non-practical and thus, not used.Participants agreed to have focus groups recorded and were willing to share their opinions candidly. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 7 | Page 3.2 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS Few of the anticipated limitations materialized. Despite a very tight time schedule, the evaluators contacted and interviewed 25 out of the 29 total grantees. In some cases, grantees initially attempted to minimize negative experiences, apparently exercising caution to not jeopardize their opportunities for funding under a new USAID program. However, once the Evaluation Team shared some of the program’s handicaps that were already known to them (delays in approval of grants), interviewees opened up and provided details of their experiences. One particular limitation was that the Evaluation Team could not locate all of the information requested on some of the evaluation questions because small, family-run media outlets generally did not maintain records on their audience nor had an accounting system and legal registration when the program started. The Team did not have access to financial records or data that could permit them to give a complete and solid answer to some questions that follow. 4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & LESSONS LEARNED The evaluation findings and analysis are described below in response to USAID’s questions. 4.1 FINDINGS 4.1.1 Question 1: What are the views of local media outlets and their civil society organization (CSO) partners? To what extent was the program effective in achieving its overall objectives and results? 75% of the interviewed grantees believe that NMP support was essential for them to stay in business. In this regard, assistance provided to media outlets was more significant during the first and second grant cycles. Of the 11 direct grantee media outlets during the first cycle, 9 also received grants during the second cycle. In fact, during the first and second cycles only these media outlets received grants. It was during the first two cycles that the support to local media outlets made a difference in compensating for the loss of advertising from the government and private sector, which had all been redirected to new and large media consortia owned by Mexican and local firms. Small local media outlets, were gradually suffocated. Thus, an influx of approximately $25,000 in grants over eight to 12 months made a difference for these mostly family-owned radio and TV stations located outside of Managua. The owner and director of a radio station in Bluefields, for example, describes the impact of NMP on his radio station as follows: Definitely, had it not been for the NMP, we would be off the air. The funding provided oxygen at a time of economic crisis For television and radio stations in other departments, specifically in Estelí, Sébaco and León, USAID support provided not only a means of staying in business but an opportunity to grow. TeleSébaco, for example, claims to have been on the brink of extinction just prior to NMP funding. Government advertising had dried up, and there was no other steady advertising. With NMP support, TeleSébaco built a small studio and bought a camera and vehicle, which resulted in better news coverage and expanded its audience. Additionally, the NMP Chief of Party (COP) provided training and guidance to grantees on improving production and promoting USAID messages, enabling stations to cover new FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 8 | Page topics. For TeleSébaco, these initiatives have resulted in new alliances and collaboration with other stations. For the owners of a León stationradio , NMP represented: ...an opportunity to generate income by learning how to define the message, target the audience, write a text, and conduct media campaigns. Rather than giving me the fish, the [COP] taught me how to fish. The owner of a cable TV channel expressed a similar view: I don’t feel that [USAID] gave me anything free. They gave us an opportunity and we took it. We worked hard and it was good to see that we had the capacity to do something we had not considered before. Most media outlets had been encountering a shrinking advertising market that affected their ability to remain in business. For grant cycles three and four, media outlets were required to partner with NGOs to access funding. This method was expected to ensure accuracy of message content and allow NGOs to realize the importance of professional communications in carrying out their initiatives. Most outlets, particularly radio stations, recognized that the alliance exposed them to new topics. However, the partnership arrangement meant less direct funding to media outlets than in the past when grants had been awarded to them individually. Some media outlets, particularly those that participated in the first two cycles, were not enthusiastic about having an NGO as a partner. Furthermore, the partnership did not necessarily assist media outlets financially, except those that sold time for placing the messages. Thus, the support from cycle three and four grants was not as substantial or significant in keeping outlets in business as the first two cycles. However, cycle four required that at least 70% of the partnership grant amount go to media outlets. NMP strengthened the viability of independent medias. Several family-run outlets used the initial support to strengthen their businesses and seek sustainability on their own. It is difficult to predict how many media outlets will survive without additional external funding. The program successfully achieved its objective, to improve the media’s ability to produce and disseminate quality programs supporting USAID development programs. NMP helped many media outlets improved the quality of their programming and, more importantly, taught small, family-run radio stations new skills, such as how to write better scripts and more targeted messages, and how to reach a broader audience. Although capacity building was not part of NMP, the COP took it upon himself, given his experience in social marketing, to help grantees improve the quality of their programs. The hands￾on support, provided only during the last two grant cycles, was highly appreciated by media owners and operators. These improved programs helped promote USAID messages in those areas where USAID programs were being implemented. An independent survey conducted by Borge & Asociados between September 2011 and June 2013, shows an increased awareness among the population of USG support to Nicaraguans, particularly in the southern and northern Pacific regions. The survey also shows that NMP contributed to a significant increase in awareness of USAID-sponsored ads. Particularly recognizable ads included those regarding health, education, agriculture, environment, and access to information from public institutions. The greatest impact and awareness, however, was the advertisement regarding the protection of the rights of women and girls and elimination all forms of violence against them, with nearly 100% of survey respondents knowledgeable of the campaign. Investment in the media has increased the visibility of USAID campaigns, particularly those aimed at improving the lives of the population, and many people are aware of the topics promoted by USAID. Importantly, the last survey, conducted in June 2013, shows that 63% of respondents believe that the USG is FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 9 | Page 4.1.2 Question 2: Can some of the impact be grouped? For example, what percentage increase did reach in their sales? Percentage increase in number of announcers? Can more details be revealed with regard to specific outputs, results, outcomes, or setbacks of assisted media outlets during the NMP program since 2010? Specifically, how did assisted media fare (as compared to similar non-assisted media) in terms of: changes in their audiences and demographics, revenues, diversity of income sources, volume and quality of news reporting, talk shows, programming related to governance and/or development, changes in level of professionalism as measured by content analysis or other methodologies? The Evaluation Team could not locate all of the information requested in the above questions because small, family-run media outlets generally did not maintain records on their audiences nor have accounting systems when the program started. Recognizing this, NMP helped many owners realize the need to run their outlet as a business and keep financial records showing gains and loses. In terms of audience measurements, outlets often rely simply on listeners calling in to say if they liked a program. All interviewees mentioned that there are no credible and reliable audience measurements for any outlets in the country – large or small – and that an audience survey is very much needed. • What percentage increase did reach in their sales? Radio stations in Sébaco, León and Estelí suggested that they had increased their sales but not substantially. Still, the Evaluation Team did not obtain information on percentage increase. Other media outlets did not provide that type of information and thus, it is not possible to determine a rate of increase. • Percentage increase in number of announcers? Some of the media outlets indicated they had hired announcers and producers with NMP grant money to work on the specific program that was being funded. Again, there is not enough information to determine a rate of increase. • Can more details be revealed with regard to specific outputs, results, outcomes, or setbacks of assisted media outlets during the NMP program since 2010? 20 grantees and sub-grantees completed the mini-survey. 12 were NGOs; 8 media outlets. The findings can be found in the Survey Results in Annex 7 but are summarized below: - 85% of respondents stated that NMP helped mitigate risks and made them better prepared to face challenges - 75% of respondents stated that NMP support was essential in their staying in business - 75% of respondents, as a result of NMP, are more focused, have better leadership, and are more willing to collaborate with other entities - 70% of respondents are now better known and more respected - 65% of respondents now have a better strategy - 60% of respondents now have better trained staff and a larger audience - 55% of respondents now have a more diverse audience - 45% of respondents increased attention to gender issues - 35% of respondents now have better financing All media outlets pointed out that the grants solicitation process was cumbersome, the approvals process too long, and disbursement of funds too slow. In some cases, grant approvals took several months, because they were delayed at the FHI 360 headquarters, and money arrived after the activity had taken place. This led media outlets and NGOs to work under additional pressure. Moreover, funding was disbursed only after the products, for example a video or radio program, were delivered to FHI 360, imposing hardships on cash-strapped businesses which also had to pay their staff. This situation often resulted in lower production and programming quality. Consequently, some media outlets preferred to create talk shows rather than generate media products, which required more investment. • Changes in assisted vs. non-assisted media. The Evaluation Team interviewed non-assisted independent journalists and a couple of non-assisted media outlets (i.e. La Prensa and Confidencial) FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 10 | Page larger than those assisted by NMP. However, comparing assisted and non-assisted media in terms of changes in audiences and demographics, revenues, diversity of income sources, etc., was not possible because data was neither collected nor available. Further, there was no baseline against which to compare information. Some similarities, such as loss of revenues from advertising and lack of income sources, were found between all independent media, whether assisted by NMP or not. Not much information can be found on NMP’s impact on the digital media outlets that it assisted. From the little available, it seems the impact was not as significant as that on non-digital media 4.1.3 Question 3: Provide greater detail on exactly how independent media outlets were successfully strengthened (or not). For example, was any content analysis performed to determine the effects on assisted media contents before/during/after assistance were performed? NPM successfully strengthened independent media outlets, especially their infrastructure, in several ways. To be eligible for grants, media outlets realized that they needed to legally register and establish accounting systems. For example, a family-owned TV cable established an accounting system to receive grant money, thus making the business more accountable. Other independent media outlets reported the same. Also significant was NMP’s educating small media outlets on new topics with which to engage, namely education and health. Although content analysis on media output before/during/after NMP assistance was not performed, the mini-survey allowed recipients to rate their perceived benefit of participating in the program. Approximately 75% of grantees who completed the mini-survey indicated that the quality of information of their programming had improved and more than 50% of respondents claimed that their leadership, audience, quality of messages and strategy improved as a direct result of NMP. Thus, participation in the program helped to empower the independent media outlets, particularly those who received grants directly rather than through an NGO. Figure 2, next page, summarizes responses to the mini-survey. 4.1.4 Question 4: In those grants in which the recipients were a media outlet and an NGO, what were the major benefits? Were there short, medium or long-term benefits? Bringing media outlets and NGOs together as grant recipients was an interesting experiment with generally good results, even though program achievement results were mixed. Those media outlets which had received direct grants during the first two cycles claimed that their partner NGO kept most of the funds during the third cycle. In the short-term, the NGO/media outlet partnership helped USAID identify new potential partners as it was the first time that most grantees and sub-grantees received USAID funding. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 11 | Page A representative from an NGO who worked with radio stations in the Autonomous Region of the Southern Atlantic (RAAS) and the Autonomous Region of the Northern Atlantic (RAAN), explained that: The media outlets did not know how to prepare a project. I saw them walk away from the meetings where the call for proposal was explained. Also, there was very little money for them. But, the alliances eventually strengthened the media outlets. Eventually, they invited the NGOs to contribute to their programs. [The alliance] also helped the NGOs: media staff taught the NGO representative not to be afraid of the microphone. In the mid-term, NMP helped bridge the traditional gap and distrust between civil society and media. The two groups learned to work together in designing, reviewing and revising products. Mutual respect and trust increased as media outlets realized that NGOs were acting transparently and accountably in their disbursement of funds, especially when money was slow to arrive. As such, there were numerous 15 13 12 15 12 7 15 14 9 11 14 16 3 6 3 2 4 4 2 1 6 5 2 1 2 3 2 2 5 2 5 3 4 3 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 1 2 We are more focused Better strategy More qualified staff Better leadership More customers/partners/audience More funding Better cooperation with other media / organizations We are better known, more respected We increased attention towards gender issues We have a more diverse audience The quality of the information of the programs imrpoved Helped us to stay active Figure 2: Mini-Survey Responses to Whether the Program Helped to Mitigate Risk and Better Face the Challenges of Your Organization N/R Unchanged Yes, a little Yes, definitely FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 12 | Page success stories, such as the partnership between Fundación Nicaragua Nuestra and Radio Juvenil. Fundación Nicaragua Nuestra responded that: We were able to develop together the education project that sought to keep children in school. We divided the responsibilities. ‘Radio Juvenil’ designed and created the spots and we opened them the doors to the communities where we were already working. We identified the individuals, scheduled the interviews, got the authorizations from the schools and then, the journalists came with their mobile equipment and did live interviews. It was very exciting.1 The experience was so rewarding for both that even after Radio Juvenil obtained funding, they invited Fundación Nicaragua Nuestra to continue working together. This situation was not unique and several other partnerships experienced similar results. In the long-term, several partners who worked well together are looking forward to new future collaborations. La Estrella de Mar radio station, who partnered with CARITAS, stated that: CARITAS requested the time for broadcasting programs on education but, the person had no experience with radio. So, we worked with them. Initially, no one [from the audience] called because the topic was new but eventually, people called to request the jingle. Our main achievement was the opportunity to partner with CARITAS on social topics for future programming.2 In general, the assisted media outlets are looking to expand their subjects covered, many for the first time, by working with experts, and NGOs realized that better communication would allow them to reach broader audiences. While partnerships between NGOs and media outlets do not seem to be the most effective way to support the independent media, they can still be considered a positive aspect of a civil society or media program. 4.1.5 Question 5: What are the major strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that the independent Nicaragua media sector faces? Strengths (S) Weaknesses (W) Highly qualified and committed journalists Well-recognized journalists Some well-established media outlets (La Prensa, Confidencial) Credibility of independent journalists Key programs remain independent (Esta Semana; Esta Noche) Independent journalists in departments forming networks Some good media outlets in departments Access to digital media Fantastic young and talented media experts Inadequate financing and no capital financing Lack of or poor equipment Limited scope/reach because of lack of equipment and financing No advertising from government Refused advertising from private sector Lack of competitiveness of small outlets Young journalists lack skills Poorly paid and equipped journalists Lack of competent administrative staff Opportunities (O) Threats (T) Bank on credibility Focus on digital media + youth Shrinking space for free press Losing good/young independent journalists to private and state media that can afford to pay better 1 Fundación Nicaragua Nuestra, personal interview, Managua, July 18, 2013 2 La Estrella de Mar representative, Focus Group, Managua, July 15, 2013 FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 13 | Page Strengthen key individual journalists Strengthen key independent programs Build capacity among young journalists Buy time for promotion/advertising Seek support/links outside of Nicaragua Invest in women journalists who are in the forefront of the independent journalism Support alliances/networks Younger generation growing up unfamiliar with press freedom. Intimidation of independent journalists Growing self-censorship Further reduction advertising Expiration of licenses Growing interference from pirate stations Suffocation by regulations 4.1.6 Question 6: Assess Nicaraguan media reporting capacities vis-à-vis international standards (objectivity, ethics, self-regulation, etc.). Nicaragua media is now in the hands of a few consortiums – Mexican entrepreneur Angel González, who also owns several media outlets throughout Latin American, despite local restrictions on foreign ownership of media; the ruling family owns several television and radio stations; and a few well-known Nicaraguan business families have included three to four television and radio stations into their corporate portfolios – and only one TV station, Channel 12, remains independently owned and airs independent programs,. Most of the González-owned media outlets broadcast entertainment and crónica roja, with little hard news and practically no opinion programs, similar to the countries where he owns media. The other consortiums broadcast similar content, although some runs their stations more like government media. Although monopolistic or oligopolistic media ownership is not unique to Nicaragua – in fact it occurs in the US and several other countries – its press freedom is restricted. The government indicates that the official policy must be “non-contaminated,” thus, allowing the independent media little or no access to government information. Furthermore, the GoN has become intolerant of criticism, leading media outlets to self-censor. World Governance Indicators show that Nicaragua faced a gradual decrease in Voice and Accountability, one measurement of governance, between 2007 and 2011, falling over 10 points in less than five years from the 40th percentile (out of 100) to the 29th. In 2011, the regional average was 60%, with Nicaragua comparable to Venezuela (30%), but falling below Guatemala (38%) and much lower than Costa Rica (80%).3 4.1.7 Question 7: How does the Nicaraguan media rank when compared with the best standards in terms of sustainability of their businesses and use of technology (adoption/use of new media including mobile technology)? Are there windows of opportunity not being explored yet? InterMedia, a research and consulting firm in Washington, DC, conducted a survey in 2009 that provided a broad spectrum of urban Nicaragua’s communication habits and country statistics. In contextualizing Nicaragua against its neighbors, the report explains that: Nicaragua is the lowest ranking Central American nation in the International Telecommunications Union’s ICT Development Index (111th overall out of 154), which measures a country’s ability to effectively exploit information and communication technologies towards economic development.4 3 The World Bank Group, “World Goverance Indicators: Voice and Accountability, Nicaragua” 2012, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf.c162pdf. 4 InterMedia, “Urban Nicaragua Demographic Analysis,” Audience Scapes, 2010, FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 14 | Page The InterMedia report also indicates that by 2010, urban Nicaraguans had significantly increased their use of mobile phones and internet: more than 88% has access to a mobile phone and approximately 48% used the Internet. The vast majority of internet users avoided the burden of recurring internet costs by connecting to the web at internet cafés.5 Most media outlets have, or are in the process of, transitioning to digital media. Facebook, Twitter, and other social media have become very popular. Among the most influential Tweeters are: • Xiomara Blandino (@XiomaraBlandino) – former Miss Nicaragua, Director of the Miss Teen Nicaragua pageant and TV personality at Channel 2. Has more than 22,000 followers and uses her tweets to advertise brands and social campaigns. • Rodrigo Peñalba (@penalba) – Blogger and expert in new technologies. Has more than 3,000 followers and great ability to generate opinion through the social media. Generates topics on arts, politics and new technologies. • Carlos Fernando Chamorro (@cefeche) – Journalist and director of the TV programs Esta Semana, Esta Noche and Confidencial Digital. One of the most important generators of public opinion in Nicaragua. Has more than 9,000 followers. • Augusto Mejía (@AugustoMejiaL) – well-known musician. Has more than 7,000 followers. Writes about his music, personal opinion and occasionally political views. • Bacanalnica.com (@Bacanalnica) – The largest Nicaraguan community on the Internet with more than 31,000 followers. It generates public opinion and mobilized topics within social media. • La Prensa (@laprensa) – one of the two main newspapers in the country. Has more than 53,000 followers. • @confidencial.ni – a digital newspaper. Provides continues news coverage and has more than 7,000 followers. • Tierra pinolera (@tierrapinolera) – is a blog that tweets on diverse topics of interest to Nicaraguans. Has more than 13,000 followers. • Canal 2 (@Canal2Nicaragua) – one of the national TV stations with greatest audience. Has more than 30,000 twitters. Publishes information on its programming, some news and provides special offers to its followers. Practically all television stations and print media are accessible via the Internet, Facebook, and Twitter, although radio stations have not utilized the platforms as extensively. Internet readership has now surpassed that of paper for the two main newspapers, LA PRENSA and EL NUEVO DIARIO, and other media outlets, such as Confidencial Digital and Conexiones, are fully digital. Figure 3 below shows the views of media representatives on the current status of journalism and freedom of the press in Nicaragua. Ratings include very good, good, deficient and bad. Media representatives responded that access to information, labor conditions, freedom of expression and accuracy are deficient. The quality of the industry’s personnel, management, and financial capacity were perceived to be good. In contrast, journalists’ access to public officials was seen as the worst indicator. Deficient refers to an indicator that has substantial weaknesses in its implementation while “bad” refers to an indicator that rarely meets basic requirements. www.audiencescapes.org/country-profiles/urban-nicaragua/communications-profile-164. 5 Ibid. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 15 | Page Opportunities not yet being explored are detailed in Section 4.2 – Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons Learned. Several are summarized as follows: a. Although Internet access probably does not reach more than 20% of the population, digital media usage is growing. A July 21, 2013 report by ALEXA, the main company monitoring international digital media use, indicated that digital readership for the two main newspapers almost doubled the number of hard copies sold.6 The independent digital magazine, CONFIDENCIAL, ranked third in Internet readership among news and information sites in Nicaragua, and 75th out of 500 magazines for total readership. Two of the three most read digital news and information outlets in Nicaragua are independent. There is room to strengthen these outlets and to support other independent media through the Internet. Journalists would like to see digital platforms established and strengthened where they already exist. b. There is a significant group of well-known and respected journalists in Nicaragua who are powerful voices in support of freedom of the press Finally, journalists outside of Managua need to be linked to those in Managua. c. Although some new talents can be incorporated into the remaining independent media, most require additional training and equipment. d. Advertising opportunities could be available outside Nicaragua because Nicaraguans in Miami, for example, listen to Radio Corporación daily on their smart phones. The diaspora seeks balanced and accurate information so therefore, their businesses outside of Nicaragua could be tapped for advertising. 4.1.8 Question 8: Should the Mission design and implement a new media program (or programs) building upon the experience of the current program? Which activities should be continued? What are the lessons learned in terms of management and program results? Increasing awareness of the challenges for freedom of the press in Nicaragua is an important result of NMP. The program helped a number of media outlets, which had been experiencing economic hardship, 6 http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/Ni 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Truth and balance of content Freedom of expression Working conditions for journalists Investigative journalism Access to information Journalists access to public officials Qualified personnel in the media Qualified personnel in sales and listings Financial capacity and management capacity Figure 3: Characteristics of the Media in Nicaragua Very good Good Deficient Bad n/r FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 16 | Page stay in business and acquire new capabilities. However, it is unclear whether the economic difficulties triggered by decreased government and private advertising were solely related to the independent media outlet’s political views. In some cases, media owners pointed out that they were affected by poor national economic conditions. Still, the main cause of lost revenues was the country’s changing media ownership environment and the private sector’s fear of reprisal for advertising in independent media outlets. Although it will be important to continue supporting some media outlets, well-defined criteria must be established to determine what constitutes an independent media outlet and which, considering budget constraints, are essential to sustaining Nicaraguan press freedom. Definition of what constitutes independent media in Nicaragua should be the result of discussions with local journalists, some of which are highly qualified in this area. NMP showed how a little training, in this case provided directly by the COP because it was additional to the program design, can go a long way in improving the capabilities of small media outlets. Most small media outlets that are identified as fully independent and frequently located outside of Managua are in need of management and financial training, not simply technical know-how. Furthermore, journalists repeatedly mentioned the demand for training young journalists on both the basics and specialized genres, since the quality of university-level journalism education has declined. NMP’s use of NGOs to partner with media no longer seems to be a valid approach. While some win￾win situations were created, using NGOs to disperse funds mainly served to delay much needed assistance in reaching journalists and media outlets. A chart outlining suggested components of a new USAID media program is included in Annex 2. It is highly recommended that USAID launch a new media program because there is an urgent need to continue supporting independent media. A new program should be long-range focused rather than separated by cycles. Program agility will be important in responding to urgent needs, such as for equipment. Although an in-kind grants system would perhaps be more appropriate, grants in general do not seem to be the most effective and efficient way to support Nicaragua’s media because the needs of large outlets differ from those of the small. The design for a new program should take this fact into consideration. Buying advertising space from independent media outlets appears to be the most important activity for a new program to undertake. Most media outlets, large and small, prefer to receive work through advertising, rather than grants, because it is fast and effective. This would entail primarily buying time for broadcasting USAID messages and media campaigns, as well as hiring some media outlets to design the media campaigns. Additionally, professional advertising is effective for promoting USAID messages to targeted communities. For example, the Borge & Asociados survey findings showed that NMP contributed to a significant increase in the knowledge of USAID-sponsored ads. The highly successful campaign to protect the rights of women and girls, previously mentioned, which was designed by a professional public relations company, benefited the media outlets where its advertisements ran. NMP was an un-designed labyrinth, lacked media and audience assessments to guide choices and decisions, suffered from management neglect during the first year, and endured the micromanagement of FHI 360 headquarters, which had inherited the program upon acquiring the original implementer, Academy for Educational Development (AED). These factors suggest that: 1. A national inventory/assessment should serve as the basis for a new program by identifying independent outlets, resources needed, etc. Some partial assessments exist that only require additional input for a full mapping of the national independent media. 2. The cross-cutting nature of the program led to a time-consuming process to approve advertising messages between USAID sectoral officers, NGOs, and media outlets. Utilizing professional public relations firms is more effective in promoting USAID messages and ensures accuracy and reliability. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 17 | Page 3. Unwarranted delays in approving grants, often because of cumbersome processes at FHI 360 headquarters, created uncomfortable situations with NGOs and media outlets that could have been avoided. They also impacted the schedule of planned activities (i.e. school opening; timing of crops) and subsequently the program quality. 4. Larger and more competent media outlets are not enticed to compete for small grants because small sums of money are not worth the risks. 5. Investment should be made for an audience survey because solid audience numbers may assist independent media in obtaining more private sector advertising. 6. USAID would benefit from more internal collaboration and coordination, as well as with the US Embassy and other international donors. At least four media-related programs operated almost simultaneously, including NMP, an embassy media training program, the Democratic Leadership Development Program, and the Expanding Electoral and Civil Education. It seems there was little interaction and coordination among programs, resulting in missed opportunities to identify and take advantage of areas of common interest. 4.1.9 Question 9: What are the biggest needs (training, technical assistance, investments, business management capacity strengthening, audience research, legal support, etc.) of the independent media outlets in terms of becoming more market oriented and in terms of surviving both the Nicaraguan political context and the global trend towards the use of new media? Nicaraguan independent media is embracing the inevitable global trend toward new media. In fact, online is basically the only platform left for the independent media and is also the means for reaching youth. The previously recommended audience survey would assist the independent media in gaining sponsors and advertising locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. Nicaragua currently has the lowest advertising market share in Central America and showing an increase in audience rates might allow some media outlets to connect with regional counterparts to pursue business sponsorships outside of the country. This could also help Nicaraguan media, including social media, to overcome the provincial tendency to primarily look inward rather than outward. Journalists who completed the mini-survey indicated that the greatest challenge for Nicaragua’s independent media is financial insecurity, followed by lack of technical equipment, unfair competition with the large consortiums, and inadequate protection for the rights of journalists. Journalists feel vulnerable to government policies that restrict their access to information. They are unprepared to respond to intimidation and arbitrary dismissals from jobs. Regional and international organizations, such as human rights organizations and the Committee to Protect Journalists, could offer guidance to Nicaraguan journalists. More responses from journalists not benefitting from NMP are available in Annex 7: Survey Results. All independent media outlets, small, medium and large, need support in practically every area, including: • All require investment because their capability and capacity to compete against large media enterprises is practically nonexistent. Independent outlets have credibility but lack capital. • Medium and small outlets need management and accounting training. • Most outlets need technical training and, because they are not run by journalists, numerous small outlets require trainings in basic journalistic skills, especially investigative reporting. • Seasoned journalists need additional investigative reporting training. • Large outlets need support to undertake investigative reporting. • Large outlets need financial support to send equipment to their correspondents outside of Managua to make them more competitive. • Women journalists need mottos to make them more competitive. • Independent bloggers and other digital media journalists require funding, even though it is minimal, to maintain their websites. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 18 | Page • Independent journalists, particularly those outside of Managua, would benefit from legal advice from pro bono lawyers. . • Awareness must be raised among all journalists, particularly those outside of Nicaragua, on the risk of not receiving and renewing their licenses. • All journalists and media outlets need assistance to comply with regulations which the GoN is strictly enforcing. 4.1.10 Question 10: Who are the main Nicaraguan media “influencers”? Who is following them? How are they connecting with people? Below is a list of names provided by interviewees regarding who they believe has the capacity to generate public opinion and maintain followers. It is in alphabetical order, not in order of influence. There was no information as to who is following them or how they exert their influence. • Arnoldo Aleman, former President. • Don Emilio Alvarez Montalvan, intellectual and former diplomat. • Javier Alvarez Meza, lawyer. • Bayardo Arce, President of the National Assembly and former Sandinista comandante. • Bishop Silvio José Báez of Managua. Highly respected for his encouraging messages. • José Luis Báez, economist. • Humberto Belli, former Minister of Education. • Bishop Leopoldo Brenes, President of the Episcopal Conference. • Carlos F. Chamorro, broadcaster of “Esta Semana” and “Esta Noche,” two independent programs on Channel 12 and director of CONFIDENCIAL digital magazine. • Arturo Cruz, Jr., former Nicaragua Ambassador to US. • José Luis Medal, economist. • Sofia Montenegro, award winning journalist and feminist. • Patricia Orozco, TV personality and member of the Autonomous Movement of Nicaraguan Women. • Sergio Ramirez, writer and intellectual. Served as Vice President under the first government of Daniel Ortega. • Alejandro Serrano Caldera, historian. 4.1.11 Question 11: Are there important gender gaps within the Nicaragua independent media sector to be considered in a media strategy? (For example, roles in decision-making and different access to and control over resources and services). There are significant gender gaps within the Nicaraguan independent media sector that should be considered in designing a new media program. Although there are some powerful independent female voices (i.e. Sofia Montenegro, Patricia Orozco, Azucena Castillo), wide discrimination against women exists in the media sector. A focus group with women journalists produced the following findings: • Women are highly discriminated against and few own or direct media outlets. • Women are frequently discriminated against because they usually do not own motorcycles, which are an important means of transport for journalists outside of Managua, nor ride them, and thus, are limited to covering nearby events. In contrast, men, who frequently ride motorcycles, can quickly reach sites to cover breaking news. • There is a tendency to assign topics to women journalists that are not as significant as those covered by men. • Media outlets tend to not pay much attention to gender-related topics. • Some women journalists are not well-versed in gender issues and thus, cannot adequately defend them when discussing with editors what topics to put on the agenda. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 19 | Page 4.2 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & LESSONS LEARNED CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS LESSONS LEARNED ON THE NICARAGUA MEDIA PROGRAM 1a. NMP was an un-designed labyrinth, lacked media and audience assessments to guide choices and decisions, suffered from management neglect during the first year, and endured the micromanagement of FHI 360 headquarters, which had inherited the program upon acquiring the original implementer Academy for Educational Development (AED). 1b. Conduct a rapid media assessment to complement current information on whom and what constitutes independent journalists and media and where are they located. 1c. A committed team comprised of USAID officials and FHI 360 local staff overcame obstacles and provided critical assistance to struggling media outlets. 2a. It is unclear if all assisted media outlets were primarily struggling because of political reasons or economic hardships. 2b. Establish criteria for selecting media outlets to support and for comparing independent (assisted) and state-supported, state-friendly or non-assisted media. 2c. It is essential to have a very good understanding (assessment) and definition of who comprises the independent media. 3a. NMP assistance was minimal and often slow in arriving but it managed to help several media outlets remain in business. 3b. Provide sustained assistance to independent journalists and media outlets 3c. Even minimal assistance can be significant for a small media outlet or for an independent journalist. Simply keeping a blog running can be important. 4a. NMP showed how a little training, in this case provided directly by the COP because it was additional to the program design, can go a long way in improving the capabilities of small media outlets. 4b. Future programming should include substantial and specialized training to journalists. 4c. Training on journalistic techniques can have an impact on quality of production and programming. 5a. Most small media outlets identified as fully independent are frequently located outside of Managua and in need of management and financial training, not simply technical know-how. 5b. Although all outlets need support, USAID should be selective in deciding who among the most needy would produce the greatest impact. 5c. Economic hardship is a factor facing most media enterprises around the world and is not unique to Nicaragua. 6a. Media outlets that were able to improve production quality had better chances for selling advertisements. 6b. Provide technical training to those journalists and media outlets that needs them. 6c. Better production led to better programming and thus, to more opportunities to reach a broader audience and increase advertising. 7a. Common interests and commitments led to several rewarding experiences between media outlets and NGOs. 7b. Media outlets and NGOs must be better screened and matched if this type of relationship were to continue. 7c. Partnerships between fully committed media outlets and NGOs resulted in win-win situations. 8a. Most media outlets and NGOs ran short on money and incurred costs for which they had not budgeted. 8b. Grantees/partners need better training on costs and budgeting. 8c. FHI 360 delayed approval of grants application more than necessary. 9a. Many grantees were not fully aware of other grantees and initiatives/products that others produced under NMP. 9b. Bringing stakeholders together early and often is required for a future program. 9c. Lack of contact among grantees resulted in missed opportunities for collaboration and sharing of products. 10a. Most NGOs exceeded expectations in working with the 10b. Although collaboration between media outlets and NGOs 10c. Alliances with media outlets helped NGOs establish their branding FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 20 | Page CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS LESSONS LEARNED media and realized the need for improved communications. was mostly successful, it may not be the best option to support the independent media. and increase visibility. 11a. Independent journalists were unable to access funding because they lack legal registration. 11b. Find ways to support independent journalists include internships in larger media outlets in/or outside Nicaragua, individual programs, in-kind grants for equipment, and training on specialized genres and topics. 11c. Supporting individual journalists is essential 12a. The COP worked tirelessly with grantees to improve the quality of their products and train them on social communication and marketing. 12b. A new program should consider training on social communication/marketing for small media outlets. 12c. Having a COP with a background in social marketing made a huge difference in improving quality of products. 13a. Broad dissemination of USAID messages served to promote USG assistance to the people of Nicaragua. 13b. Continue with professional message campaigns that lead to buying time from small, medium and large media outlets. 13c. Professional campaigns are more effective and efficient in disseminating USAID messages and placing them as ads with media outlets is the best way to support them. 14a.Increasing awareness of the challenges for freedom of the press in Nicaragua is an important result of NMP. 14b. There is a need to continue raising awareness of challenges to press freedom in Nicaragua. 14c. Awareness of lack of freedom of the press is not widely spread. 15a. NMP helped a number of media outlets, which had been experiencing economic hardship, stay in business and acquire new capabilities. 15b. Continue supporting independent media. 15c. Independent media is essential to democracy in Nicaragua. 16a. Because of his own knowledge and experience, the NMP COP provided valuable technical training to grantees. 16b. New media programs should include technical as well as managerial training to small media outlets. 16c. A little training can go a long way in improving quality of programming. 17a. Many small independent media outlets are located outside of Managua. 17b. Support to independent media outlets should seek balance between national and regional/local media outlets. Managua-based media that has national reach is particularly significant in reaching a broader audience and perhaps should receive 50% of support. Targeted regions, such as the Leon-Esteli-Matagalpa triangle, should also be encouraged to keep up the good work. A new media program could also help them work closely together in order to strengthen a common regional message. The recommended media assessment could also suggest which other specific areas could be targeted for assistance. 17c. Small media outlets outside of Managua are playing important roles but are isolated and struggling for resources. FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING 162a. There has been a decrease in 16b. More media outlets and 16c. The issue at stake for FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 21 | Page CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS LESSONS LEARNED press freedom in Nicaragua in the past few years caused primarily by changes in media ownership, now in the hands of a few consortia. . programming do not represent more freedom of the press. In fact, it may be distracting attention form the onslaught on independent journalism. independent media in Nicaragua is not sustainability but survival. 18a. Large and small media outlets, as well as independent journalists, need specialized training. Quality of journalism taught at universities is decreasing. 18b. Provide internships inside and outside Nicaragua to link seasoned journalists with young ones. Design a comprehensive training program that could be offered as a diplomado. 18c. Nicaragua has some highly recognized journalists that could mentor for younger journalists. 20a. Women journalists are culturally at a disadvantage to break ground within Nicaragua’s male￾dominated media. 20b. Women need training on business development and empowerment to be more competitive in the field. They need to know more about womens issues in order to demand broader coverage and be prepared to do it. 20c. Traditional up-bringing of girls does not prepare them well for journalism. Society stills sees journalism as a male profession. 21a. Numerous women journalists, both in Managua and the departments, are in the forefront to maintain freedom of the press. 21b. Women need support in forming and strengthening alliances and in having the required equipment (including motorcycles) to be more effective and competitive. 21c. Women journalists play an important role in keeping independent journalism alive. 22a. Safeguarding some media outlets is essential. 22b. Strategic thinking required to be effective in targeting support to media outlets. 22c. Several important media outlets have already closed (La Brújula) and others are threatened. 23a. Most independent media outlets have neither enough nor updated equipment. 23b. Providing equipment, after careful assessment of needs and capability, is a priority for the independent media. 23c. Lack of up-to-date equipment makes independent media less competitive. 24a. There are numerous isolated radio stations that have little impact by themselves but together could be a strong voice. 24b. Assist media outlets networks. 24. Networking can strengthen the media sector. 25a. Grants can be used for some types of assistance to journalists but is not the most expedient and effective method when support is critical. 25b. Provide long-term and consistent assistance to journalist and independent media outlets. 25c. Open competition sometimes focuses more on proposal quality than on the needs of the media. 26a. Internet readership is growing for most Nicaraguan publications and digital media can provide an outlet for independent journalists. The Internet is the vehicle to reach the media-savvy Nicaraguan youth. 26b. Support digital platforms and social media for independent journalists and media outlets. 26c. Journalists need outlets in which to publish since the spaces available to them are shrinking. 27a. Nicaraguan affairs currently receive little and inadequate media coverage abroad. The current status of press freedom is not broadly known abroad. 27b. Promote exchanges with journalists, sponsor trips to main policy centers in DC, and seek DOS support in bringing Nicaraguan groups to the US. 27c. Developing international awareness of Nicaragua’s current press situation FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 22 | Page CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS LESSONS LEARNED 28a. The Nicaraguan diaspora, particularly in Miami, remains attentive to national affairs in Nicaragua through Internet media outlets. 28b. Nicaragua media could seek advertising opportunities abroad from local businesses. 28c. Exploring advertising opportunities from the diaspora where a large concentration of Nicaraguans exists is an alternative to lack of in-country advertising. 29a. Journalists fear reprisals 29b. Make journalists aware of international resources available to help them deal with fear and intimidation including human rights organizations, Committee to Project Journalists, Journalists Without Borders, Reporters Without Borders, and others. 30a. There is no real knowledge of audience research that shows the reach of the independent media. 30b. Assist in conducting a national audience survey that determines the reach of independent media. 30c. Good independent media audience statistics could result in obtaining more advertising inside and outside Nicaragua. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 23 | Page ANNEXES FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NMP 24 | Page ANNEX 1: REFERENCES 25 References Borge & Asociados, “Principales resultados y hallazgos segmento de las preguntas de USAID Nicaragua,” Informe Ejecutivo, ENCUESTA NACIONAL DE OPINION PUBLICA. Nicaragua, Abril 2013. Cuadra, Elvira & Leonor Zúñiga Gutiérrez Jóvenes y cultura política en Nicaragua—La generación del 2000, Managua, Nicaragua: Centro de Investigaciones de la Comunicación (CINCO), 2011. Freedom House, Freedom of Press: Nicaragua 2012, www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom￾press/2012/Nicaragua. Freedom of expression and association.” 10 October 2008, htpp://www.rsf.org/Nicaragua-political-and￾judicial-harassment-10-10-2008,28891.htm. TheHopmann, Cornelius, María Edith Arce & Leonor Zúñiga Gutiérrez, Los medios y el periodismo ante el desafío digital: el caso de Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua: CINCO, 2012. InterMedia, “Urban Nicaragua Demographic Analysis,” Audience Scapes, 2010, www.audiencescapes.org/country-profiles/urban-nicaragua/communications-profile-164. Montenegro, Sofía, Los Medios de Comunicación como actores políticos en Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua: Centro de Investigaciones de la Comunicación (CINCO), 2007. Reporters Without Borders, “Nicaragua: Political and judicial harassment of NGOs threatens. World Bank Group, “World Goverance Indicators: Voice and Accountability, Nicaragua” 2012, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf.c162pdf. 26 ANNEX 2: USAID PROPOSED NEW MEDIA PROGRAM 27 Annexes USAID Proposed New Media Program TOOLS Independent Media Assessment Audience Survey CAPACITY BUILDING Training Journalists and Small media outlets Large Media Outlets Equipment Provide Advertising USAID Messages Network / Coalitions Building Independent Journalists National Radio Network Beyond Borders International Advertising International Links 28 29 30 31 ANNEX 3: QUESTIONNAIRES 32 GUIA ENTREVISTAS INDIVIDUALES ONG o MEDIO VINCULADO AL PROGRAMA (GRANTEES) Esta entrevista es parte de la evaluación del Programa de Medios de Nicaragua, auspiciado por la USAID. Su colaboración nos ayudará a recoger las impresiones e informaciones sobre el programa y a incluir sus sugerencias en nuestras conclusiones. Sus comentarios permanecerán anónimos y son para el conocimiento de las evaluadoras. Queremos que se sientan cómodos en hacer cualquier tipo de comentario. Le agradecemos que estén aquí y su colaboración. 1. Describa en qué consistía su proyecto y como trabajo con el medio de comunicación ONG. 2. En términos generales, ¿Cómo fue su experiencia con el Programa? 3. ¿Cuán difícil fue el proceso de solicitud de la subvención? ¿El de implementación? 4. ¿Qué personal de su organización estuvo dedicado a este proyecto y cuál era su formación? 5. ¿Cómo hacía para medir el impacto o alcance de su proyecto en materia de audiencia? 6. ¿Qué tal funcionó la alianza con los medios/ONG? 7. ¿Qué le aportó a su organización o medio de comunicación a esa alianza? 8. (PARA ONG) ¿Qué destrezas le pueden aportar organizaciones como la suya a los medios para que se fortalezcan? 9. (PARA MEDIO) ¿Si compara su situación antes de entrar al programa con su situación hoy, en que ha cambiado? 10. ¿Cuáles fueron las lecciones aprendidas? 11. ¿Cuáles recomendaciones le haría a la USAID para programas futuros de este tipo? 33 GUIA PARA CONVERSATORIO CON MEDIOS DE COMUNICACION VINCULADOS AL PROGRAMA DE MEDIOS DE LA USAID (GRANTEES) Este conversatorio es parte de la evaluación del Programa de Medios de Nicaragua, auspiciado por la USAID. Su colaboración nos ayudará a recoger las impresiones e informaciones sobre el programa y a incluir sus sugerencias en nuestras conclusiones. Sus comentarios permanecerán anónimos y son para el conocimiento de las evaluadoras. Queremos que se sientan cómodos en hacer cualquier tipo de comentario. Le agradecemos que estén aquí y su colaboración. 1. En términos generales, ¿Cómo fue su experiencia con el Programa? 2. ¿Cuán difícil fue el proceso de solicitud de la subvención? ¿El de implementación? 3. ¿Qué personal de su organización estuvo dedicado a este proyecto y cuál era su formación? 4. ¿De qué forma miden el alcance o el impacto de su medio en su audiencia? 5. ¿Cómo valora el estado de los Medios en el país? 6. ¿Qué tal funcionó la alianza con las organizaciones civiles? 7. ¿Qué le aportó a su medio de comunicación esa alianza? 8. ¿Considera que su medio de comunicación se encuentra más fortalecido el día de hoy que antes de iniciar el proyecto? 9. ¿Cuáles fueron las lecciones aprendidas? 10. ¿Cuáles recomendaciones le haría a la USAID para programas futuros de este tipo? 34 GUIA PARA CONVERSATORIO CON ORGANIZACIONES DE LA SOCIEDAD CIVIL VINCULADAS AL PROGRAMA DE MEDIOS DE LA USAID (GRANTEES) Este conversatorio es parte de la evaluación del Programa de Medios de Nicaragua, auspiciado por la USAID. Su colaboración nos ayudará a recoger las impresiones e informaciones sobre el programa y a incluir sus sugerencias en nuestras conclusiones. Sus comentarios permanecerán anónimos y son para el conocimiento de las evaluadoras. Queremos que se sientan cómodos en hacer cualquier tipo de comentario. Le agradecemos que estén aquí y su colaboración. 1. En términos generales, ¿Cómo fue su experiencia con el Programa? 2. ¿Cuán difícil fue el proceso de solicitud de la subvención? ¿El de implementación? 3. ¿Qué personal de su organización estuvo dedicado a este proyecto y cuál era su formación? 4. ¿Cómo valora el estado de los Medios en el país? 5. ¿Qué tal funcionó la alianza con los medios? 6. ¿Qué le aportó a su organización esa alianza? 7. ¿Qué destrezas le pueden aportar organizaciones como la suya a los medios para que se fortalezcan? 8. ¿Cuáles fueron las lecciones aprendidas? 9. ¿Cuáles recomendaciones le haría a la USAID para programas futuros de este tipo? 35 GUIA PARA CONVERSATORIO CON PERIODISTAS NO VINCULADOS AL PROGRAMA Este conversatorio es parte de la evaluación del Programa de Medios de Nicaragua, auspiciado por la USAID. Su colaboración nos ayudará a entender mejor la situación de los medios en Nicaragua y brindar recomendaciones para un programa de fortalecimiento de medios de comunicación en Nicaragua. Sus comentarios permanecerán anónimos y son para el conocimiento de las evaluadoras. Queremos que se sientan cómodos en hacer cualquier tipo de comentario. Le agradecemos que estén aquí y su colaboración. 1. ¿Cómo es la situación de los medios de comunicación en Nicaragua? 2. ¿Cómo definirías que es un medio independiente? 3. ¿Cuáles son los principales problemáticas/retos que enfrentan los medios independientes? 4. ¿Cuáles áreas son las que consideras que necesitan más apoyo para que medios independientes se fortalezcan? 5. ¿Qué medios están realizando mayores aportes al periodismo investigativo y la información ciudadana? 6. ¿Cómo ves la situación de los medios en el futuro? 7. ¿Qué acciones recomendarías para fortalecer estos medios (capacitaciones, compra de pautas, promover alianzas, etc.)? 8. ¿Cuáles recomendaciones le haría a la USAID para programas futuros de este tipo? 36 GUIA PARA CONVERSATORIO CON PERIODISTAS MUJERES NO VINCULADAS AL PROGRAMA DE MEDIOS DE LA USAID Este conversatorio es parte de la evaluación del Programa de Medios de Nicaragua, auspiciado por la USAID. Su colaboración nos ayudará a entender mejor la situación de los medios en Nicaragua y brindar recomendaciones para un programa de fortalecimiento de medios de comunicación en Nicaragua. Sus comentarios permanecerán anónimos y son para el conocimiento de las evaluadoras. Queremos que se sientan cómodos en hacer cualquier tipo de comentario. Le agradecemos que estén aquí y su colaboración. 1. ¿Cómo es la situación de los medios de comunicación en Nicaragua? 2. ¿Cuáles son los principales problemáticas/retos que enfrentan los medios independientes? 3. ¿Consideran que en los medios de comunicación nicaragüenses, las mujeres se enfrentan a dificultades particulares para desarrollarse profesionalmente? 4. ¿Cuáles serían las problemáticas/retos con que se enfrentan las mejores periodistas para ejercer su profesión? 5. ¿Cuáles áreas son las que consideras que necesitan más apoyo para las mujeres periodistas se desarrollen en iguales condiciones? 6. ¿Cómo se puede promover la equidad de género en los medios de comunicación? 7. ¿Cómo ves la situación de los medios en el futuro? 8. ¿Cuáles recomendaciones le haría a la USAID para programas futuros de este tipo? 37 MINI-ENCUESTA (MEDIOS Y ONG—GRANTEES & SUBGRANTEES) Esta mini-encuesta es parte de la evaluación del Programa de Medios de Nicaragua, auspiciado por la USAID. Su colaboración nos ayudará a recoger las impresiones e informaciones sobre el programa e incluir sus sugerencias en nuestras conclusiones. Esta encuesta es solo para conocimiento de las evaluadoras y sus nombres serán anónimos para USAID y para el implementador del proyecto. Muchas gracias por su cooperación. Por favor, circule la respuesta correcta. 1. Favor indicar su tipo de entidad/organización: a. ONG b. Medios c. Ns/Nr 2. Nombre de su entidad/organización: ________________________________________________ 3. Su cargo en la organización: a. Director/Presidente b. Coordinador del Proyecto c. Asistente/técnico en el proyecto d. Administrativo e. Otro, favor especificar: ____________________________________________________ 4. ¿Qué tiempo lleva activa su organización? a. Menos de un año b. Entre uno y cinco años c. Más de cinco años 5. ¿En general como valoraría que fue su experiencia con el proceso de subvenciones? a. Positiva d. Neutro b. Positiva, pero con dificultades e. Negativa, aunque logramos hacer algunas cosas c. Negativa 6. Evalúe, por favor, como el Programa le asistió en los siguiente aspectos: Pregunta Si, definitivamen te Si, un poco Sin cambio Estamos peor Estamos mejor enfocados en lo que queremos lograr Mejor estrategia Personal más calificado Mejor liderazgo Más clientes/socios/audiencia Mas fuente de financiamiento Mejor cooperación con otros medios y/o organizaciones Somos más conocidos y más respetados 38 Aumentamos atención a temas de género Tenemos una audiencia más diversa Mejoró la calidad de la información y los programas Ayudó a que nos mantuviéramos vigentes 7. ¿Volvería a participar en el programa? a. Si, sin dudarlo c. Sí, pero si realizan mejoras b. Tal vez si, Tal vez no d. No, no aplicaría de nuevo. e. Ns/Nr 8. ¿Le ayudo el programa a mitigar los riesgos y enfrentar mejor los retos de su organización? a. si b. No c. No sé d. Ns/Nr 9. ¿Cuáles son las principales necesidades de su entidad? a. Capacidad gerencial/administrativa b. Capacidad técnica c. Capacidades financieras d. Aumentar ventas/anuncios o socios/clientes e. Capacidad institucional f. No aplica/No corresponde g. Ns/Nr 10. ¿Qué otras actividades le recomendaría a la USAID en Nicaragua para fortalecer el sector de medios? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________ 11. Otros comentarios: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 39 MINI-ENCUESTA: PERIODISTAS NO VINCULADOS AL PROGRAMA Estamos en proceso de evaluar el Programa de Medios auspiciado por la USAID. Una de las áreas de interés para la evaluación es conocer las oportunidades de colaboración para programas futuros. Le agradecemos su colaboración en proveernos ideas, opiniones y sugerencias en esta mini-encuesta que nos ayuden a recomendar a USAID para nuevos programas. Las respuestas son confidenciales y solo serán utilizadas por las evaluadoras. ¡Muchas gracias! 1. Favor, indicar en qué tipo de medio se desempeña principalmente? a. Impreso (diario, revista) b. Radio c. Televisión d. Internet/en línea e. Otro: ________________ 2. ¿Cuál es su función en su medio? a. Propietario/Gerente b. Conductor c. Editor d. Redactor e. Asistente f. Camarógrafo g. Coordinador de proyecto h. Administrativo i. Otro: __________? 3. ¿Cuántos años tiene su medio? a. Menos de un año b. Entre 1-5 anos c. Más de 5 años 4. ¿Alcance de cobertura? a. Nacional b. Regional c. Municipal d. Departamental e. Ns/Nr 5. Favor, indique la forma en que ve estas características de los medios en Nicaragua hoy. Muy Buena Buena Deficient e Mala Calidad de la veracidad y balance de los contenidos Libertad de expresión Condiciones de trabajo para los periodistas Periodismo investigativo Acceso a la información Acceso de los periodistas a funcionarios públicos 40 Personal calificado en los medios Personal calificado en ventas y anuncios Capacidad administración financiera y gerencial 6. ¿Cuáles son los principales retos de los medios en Nicaragua hoy? Responda todos los que aplique. Falta de seguridad financiera Deficiente protección para los derechos de los periodistas Marco legal que dificulta trabajo de los medios Falta de equipos técnicos Capacidad institucional débil (para atraer anunciantes, fondos, etc...) Falta de conocimientos de las nuevas tecnologías Competencia desigual entre medios No se 7. ¿Cuáles son las principales fortalezas de los medios en Nicaragua? a. Independencia b. Calidad de los contenidos c. Profesionalismo de los periodistas d. Sostenibilidad financiera e. Variedad de anunciantes f. Otro: ________________ 8. ¿Anticipa cambio en la situación de los medios en el futuro mediano? a. si b. No c. No se d. Ns/Nr 9. ¿En qué forma? a. Para mejor b. Para peor c. Ns/Nr 10. ¿Cómo pudiera la comunidad internacional y principalmente la USAID apoyar a los periodistas y/o los medios en Nicaragua? a. Apoyo técnico/capacitación b. Apoyo con equipos c. Comprando espacios/pautas d. Capacitación gerencial/administrativa 11. Otros: especificar: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 41 MINI-ENCUESTA: PERIODISTAS MUJERES NO VINCULADAS AL PROGRAMA Estamos en proceso de evaluar el Programa de Medios auspiciado por la USAID. Una de las áreas de interés para la evaluación es conocer las oportunidades de colaboración para programas futuros. Le agradecemos su colaboración en proveernos ideas, opiniones y sugerencias en esta mini-encuesta que nos ayuden a recomendar a USAID para nuevos programas. Las respuestas son confidenciales y solo serán utilizadas por las evaluadoras. ¡Muchas gracias! 1. Favor, indicar en qué tipo de medio se desempeña principalmente? a. Impreso (diario, revista) b. Radio c. Televisión d. Internet/en línea e. Otro: ________________ 2. ¿Cuál es su función en su medio? a. Propietario/Gerente/Director b. Conductor c. Editor d. Redactor e. Asistente f. Camarógrafo g. Coordinador de proyecto h. Administrativo i. Otro: __________? 3. ¿Cuántos años tiene su medio? a. Menos de un año b. Entre 1-5 anos c. Más de 5 años 4. ¿Alcance de cobertura? a. Nacional b. Regional c. Municipal d. Departamental e. Ns/Nr 5. Favor, indique la forma en que ve estas características de los medios en Nicaragua hoy. Muy Buena Buena Deficiente Mala Calidad de la veracidad y balance de los contenidos Libertad de expresión Condiciones de trabajo para los periodistas Periodismo investigativo Acceso a la información Acceso de los periodistas a funcionarios públicos Personal calificado en los medios Personal calificado en ventas y anuncios Capacidad administración financiera y gerencial 6. ¿Cuáles son los principales retos de los medios en Nicaragua hoy? Responda todos los que aplique. Falta de seguridad financiera Deficiente protección para los derechos de los periodistas 42 Marco legal que dificulta trabajo de los medios Falta de equipos técnicos Capacidad institucional débil (para atraer anunciantes, fondos, etc...) Falta de conocimientos de las nuevas tecnologías Competencia desigual entre medios No se 7. ¿Cuáles son las principales fortalezas de los medios en Nicaragua? a. Independencia b. Calidad de los contenidos c. Profesionalismo de los periodistas d. Sostenibilidad financiera e. Variedad de anunciantes f. Otro: ________________ 43 8. ¿En general, considera que en los medios de comunicación nicaragüenses, las mujeres se enfrentan a dificultades particulares para desarrollarse profesionalmente? a. Si b. No (Pase a pregunta 12) c. Ns/Nr (Pase a pregunta 12) 9. Si su respuesta es afirmativa, indique cuales serían las principales dificultades (Elija un máximo de 2 respuestas) a. Mujeres acceden a salarios más bajos que los hombres b. Se prioriza a los hombres para asumir cargos gerenciales c. Existe acoso sexual hacia las mujeres d. Las mujeres son vistas como más vulnerables que los hombres e. Preparación académica de las mujeres es menor f. Conocimientos técnicos de las mujeres es menor g. Pocos propietarios de medios son mujeres h. El contexto actual es más hostil hacia las mujeres periodistas i. Las condiciones de trabajo son más difíciles para mujeres madres de familia j. Otro; Especifique:________________________________________________________________________ 10. ¿Cómo se podría promover una mayor equidad de género en los medios de comunicación? (Elija un máximo de 2 respuestas) a. Mas educación de género para los medios de comunicación b. Mas capacitación para empoderar a las mujeres c. Mas conocimiento gerencial/financiero para las mujeres d. Mas conocimiento profesional/técnico para las mujeres e. Más acceso a recursos para que mujeres creen sus propios medios f. Mejores condiciones laborales para mujeres madres de familia g. Campaña para elevar la protección de mujeres periodistas h. Mayor protección laboral frente al acoso i. Igualdad salarial j. Otro ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. ¿Considera que en el medio o alguno de los medios de comunicación donde usted trabaja ocurre alguna de estas de las situaciones que se describe en la pregunta 10? a. Si b. No c. Ns/Nr 12. ¿Anticipa cambio en la situación de los medios en el futuro mediano? a. Si b. No (Pase a la pregunta 15) c. Ns/Nr (Pase a la pregunta 15) 13. ¿En qué forma? a. Para mejor b. Para peor c. Ns/Nr 14. ¿Cómo pudiera la comunidad internacional y principalmente la USAID apoyar a los periodistas y/o los medios en Nicaragua? a. Apoyo técnico/capacitación b. Apoyo con equipos c. Comprando espacios/pautas 44 d. Capacitación gerencial/administrativa 15. Otros: especificar: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 45 ANNEX 4: SURVEY RESULTS 46 Survey results Media Organization and NGO Beneficiaries of NMP 12 8 Figure 4: Type of grantee NGO MEDIA 12 0 3 1 4 0 5 10 15 Figure 5: Position in Media Outlet or NGO Director/President Project coordinator Project assistant Administrative Other, especify 47 0 7 13 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Less than 1 year Between 1 and 5 years More than 5 years Figure 6: Length of Employment in Organization 15 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Positive Positive, but with difficulty Neutro Negative, although we do some things Negative Figure 7: Experience Participating in Program 17 3 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 Yes, without hesitation Yes, but if they make improvements Maybe, maybe not No, I would not participate again Figure 8: Would You Participate in the Program Again? 48 85% 5% 0% 10% Figure 9: NMPHelped to Mitigate Risk and Better Face the Challenges of My Organization Yes No Do not know n/r 2 14 20 17 5 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Management / administrative capacity Technical capacity Financial capabilities Increase sales / ads / clients Institutional Capacity n/r n/r Figure 10: Main Needs of My Organization 49 Survey results Non-NMP Beneficiary Media Organizations 27% 27% 0% 37% 0% 9% Figure 11: Media Type Print Radio TV Internet Other N/R 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Host Assistant Cameraman Project coordinator Administrative Other Editor Writer Owner / Manager /Director Figure 12: Position in the Media Outlet 50 0% 55% 45% Figure 13: Years of Existence of Media Outlets Less than 1 year Between 1 and 5 years National Regional Municipality State n/r 7 2 1 0 1 7 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 14: Reach of Media Outlets 51 1 3 5 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Independence Content quality Professionalism of journalists Financial sustainability Variety of advertisers Other n/r Figure 15: Major Strengths of the Media in Nicaragua 6 3 2 Figure 16: Do You Think There Will be a Change in the Situation of the Media in the Future? Yes No n/r 52 7 7 5 5 1 Figure 17: How Could the International Community and USAID Support Journalists and Media in Nicaragua? Technical support / training Support with equipment Financing publicity Management / administrative training n/r 9 7 3 8 6 4 7 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Financial insecurity Inadequate protection for the rights of journalists Dificult legal framework Lack of technical equipment Weak institutional capacity (to attract advertisers, funds etc.) Lack of knowledge of new technologies Unfair competition between media n/r Figure 18: Main Challenges of the Media in Nicaragua Today 53 54 55