Evaluation of the Bangladesh Social Marketing ProgramEvaluation of the Bangladesh Social Marketing ProgramThis evaluation focuses on the Social Marketing Company (SMC), formerly called the Social Marketing Project (SMP). This activity has been funded by USAID since 1974 and has had continuing technical assistance from Population Services International (PSI). It has long been acknowledged as a major factor in the increase of short-term methods contraceptive prevalence in Bangladesh (60 percent condoms and 21 percent oral contraceptive pills according to the 1989 Contraceptive Prevalence Survey). Its field sales force is regarded as among the best in the country. SMC sponsored the nations first wide-scale family planning and oral rehydration solution (ORS) multi-media advertising and information, education, and communication (IEC) campaigns. The program is an important element in USAIDs family planning and oral rehydration therapy (ORT) program. After 16years as a project operating under a council chaired by the government, it was established as a private non-profit company with a private sector board in 1990. Its social objectives remain unchanged.
Evaluation Purpose and Methodolog- y.SMC has not been externally evaluated on its own since 1986. Selected aspects were covered in the 1986 Overall Evaluation of the USAID/Bangladesh Family Planning Services Project, the February 1990 Population Sector Review, and the September 1990 Family Planning and Health Services Project Midterm Evaluation (released in July 1991). The present evaluation was scheduled for September 1990 but was delayed due to SMCs recent reorganization.
Initial discussions with USAID at the beginning of the evaluation assignment resulted in agreement on the four key issues to be addressed:It was further agreed that these issues should be addressed within the context of SMCs overall organization and management, as increased technical and managerial sustainability is an underlying issue. Inaddressingthekeyconcerns,theevaluationteamwasalsochargedwithassessingtheextent to which relevant recommendations from the three prior evaluations have been implemented. However, the 1990 Family Planning and Health Services Project Midterm Evaluation, only received by USAID in July 1991, was not officially available to SMC prior to the arrival of the evaluation team.
The evaluation team also worked through the year to develop a plan for a possible new family planning and health services policy incorporating the current Family Planning and Health Services Directive, a draft that was later circulated as a draft for the USAID Midterm Evaluation. This plan, however, was not prepared by USAID prior to beginning the evaluation project. It was developed by the evaluation team and endorsed by USAID. Furthermore, the team decided to proceed with a second evaluation after the first. The second evaluation went through, and USAID was subsequently able to use it to establish the proposed policy that is under consideration.
The evaluation team was also able to identify the key problems that the USAID assessment of those issues would address. These problems include:• The potential for an inadequate programing model and/or incomplete quality control systems that are currently implemented on an annual basis in the most effective manner.• The requirement to include an independent, high-quality group of experts, on staff training to assist the evaluation team in developing, implementing, and implementing a policy that is tailored for a specific group of SMC employees and related stakeholders.• A lack of quality assurance in the organization for a large number of employee roles and/or an inability to prioritize, and/or manage costs relating to, employee training and support for various employees and their families.• The need for a robust, unified, and flexible workforce.• There being a lack of sufficient oversight for high-risk, multi-employee, or otherwise non-performing occupations.• The lack of consistent management practices with regard to employee age and responsibilities.• A significant shortage of staff positions with strong support and training for the individual staff who have to go on to become responsible adults.• The failure to adopt a comprehensive, cost-effective and measurable plan for the family planning and health services needs.• The fact that employees have been not provided the financial incentives that must be provided to them to develop the policy.• Concerns regarding their health and financial needs or about the lack of timely, timely response to an employee’s requests and concerns over their health (e.g., the employee’s relationship to the parent or a parent’s physical health, or a change of jobs associated with the position), that an individual or an employer may make to them regarding the specific family planning benefits they may be eligible for, that an employer may not be able to establish effective policies for them (e.g., those benefits are not available for certain roles, or cannot be provided for certain individual roles,) that this individual would be ineligible for an employer-funded child care program, that the individual would be ineligible for a family planning and health services subsidy, or that this individual’s employer was subject to a law that would prohibit the individual from receiving insurance coverage. And, this individual had to have obtained and/or participate
This evaluation was conducted by two consultants fielded by the Population Technical Assistance Project. Activities included assembly and review of pertinent documents, discussions with
representatives of key organizations (including research and advertising subcontractors to SMC, other USAID-sponsored programs, and other donors), and field visits to the CBS project site in Brahmanbaria and the SMC area office in Mymensingh. Briefings were held with USAID and SMC. Extensive consultations were also held with both organizations during data collection, analysis, and preparation of this report, and draft sections were constructively reviewed by the USAID Project Officer.
Proiect ImplementationOrganization and ManagementSince incorporation as a private non-profit company in 1990 and the hiring of new executive management,SMChasmademajororganizationalandmanagementgains. Examplesincludeinternal reorganization resulting in less top heavy management, better and more sophisticated use of management information system (MIS) data, higher productivity in such operations as packaging and sales, professionalizationof the research and advertising unit, improvements in and better codification of operating systems and procedures, and structured outreach to new business opportunities with the potential to subsidize SMCs main product lines and increase financial sustainability. SMCs impressive gains should continue, using clearly articulated management objectives as guidelines.
SMC still needs improvement in disseminating information effectively and efficiently to USAID and in developing functional relationships with other organizations, such as USAID projects involved in complementary activities as well as other donors.
SMCs reporting requirements are spelled out in the USAID-PSI and PSI-SMC cooperative agreements. Though one category of reports is now behind schedule, USAID generally gets basic information on monthly sales and quarterly progress. However, USAID is not aware of many of the management and business innovations described in this report and voices frustration about not getting data on cost recovery and other aspects of the operation that enjoyed lower priority when the agreements were signed but are now major concerns. SMC, as a marketing organization, should be able to market itself more effectively to USAID and other organizations (e.g., other donors, local groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, etc.).
[Page 2]
SPM’s top U.S. policymaker, David A. Cohen, also pointed out USAID’s failure to provide adequate information regarding the “pay and conditions” standards it was setting for its employees—the kind of information that it is supposed to provide to its management with. USAID officials noted that their most recent efforts (including the ones mentioned above with the Federal Acquisition Regulation Authority (FARRA) and with the Department of Labor) have not met the standards mentioned in a 2014 GAIS. Moreover, according to USAID’s 2013 Annual Report on the Department of Commerce’s (DOE) fiscal year for fiscal year 2015, the same standards “did not meet” in 2013.
The following list of areas where USAID failed to meet the national standards is a partial list, but also offers an overview of the various areas where USAID tried to make the most significant impact on the department. In its 2014 “Paid Out” report, the USDO noted that it “provided the following information” about its “pay and conditions” and related provisions, which it deemed not to meet “by standards established by the Commission and in compliance with law.” The “PPO” section contained no more than 3 items (emphasis in the text), including four bullet points on USDO’s work on “pay and conditions,” for instance.
1: The Federal Direct Marketing Policy adopted in September 2010 (“FDP”). This Policy describes “specific requirements” developed for U.S. retail companies that offer discounts of 5% or more on sales at specified locations abroad and that those discounts are valid in the States and on retail outlets with a location in the U.S. for at least two years (this Policy also describes “special tax incentives” with a 10% average rate offered to foreign partners of all domestic retailers. It is also noted that this Policy also describes a “rewards formula” developed to ensure that the following are available to U.S. retailers and to those companies that sell through the United States (“rewards”), that the rates are applicable to all retail outlets in the U.S., and that the prices of the goods sold to U.S. customers are in some other market internationally and that the discounts are for a period of five years or less or expire for at least four consecutive years if the prices of the goods sold abroad are not in other markets internationally.” This Policy also describes U.S. corporate standards and “the requirements for disclosure to its stakeholders.”
2: USAISSC (see paragraph (n)) and USAIDF (see paragraph (k)) have recently been implementing “purchases, discount and rebate programs,” to cover a number of other programs that the U.S. government has undertaken and continues to do. In March 2014,
USAID