Midterm Review | Terms of reference - UNMU | Uganda Nurses and

Midterm Review | Terms of reference - UNMU | Uganda Nurses and

Midterm Review | Terms of reference “Achieving implementation of the check-off system – the commitment to a democratic workplace” Project: GLO-0759 Q...

790KB Sizes 0 Downloads 4 Views

Recommend Documents

terms of reference - DPWH
order to ensure expeditions implementation of Road Network in Boracay Island,. Malay, Aklan. B. OBJECTIVE. The objective

Review for the Midterm Exam
o The cost of any action is measured in terms of foregone opportunities. o Rational ... A price ceiling is a legal maxim

Terms of Reference: Flag Selection Advisory Group Terms of
Sep 30, 2015 - Simon Morris (visual arts). • Jock Phillips (history). • Deidre Brown (Māori Trademarks and Maori an

REVIEW: KEY TERMS AND PEOPLE
Ivan III, the Great .... Why is it significant for Russian history that Mongol overlords used tribute as the principle n

Terms of reference: Social and Economic Benefits and Impacts Study
Terms of Reference. Social and Economic Benefits and Impacts Study. Capricorn Coast Boating Facility Feasibility Study .

A Review of Agriculture and Health Policies in Uganda - HarvestPlus
Apr 30, 2007 - 32. 4.1.2. Food Storage, Marketing and Distribution . .... 44. 5.1.2. Agricultural Extension: The Nationa

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUPPLY OF VEHICLES AND
Supply of vehicles and fleet management services over a twelve month period (Full .... displayed on the front windscreen

terms of reference oxfam - Jobs at Oxfam
Jul 8, 2016 - CONSULTANCY: 2 Fisheries Quality & Assurance Technical. Experts. LOCATION: Hargeisa, Somaliland & Bosaso,

TERMS OF REFERENCE Assistant Digital Engagement - UNHCR
Jul 14, 2017 - Assistant Digital Engagement Officer, IICA I (P1) ... Experience using Google Analytics or other web anal

Terms of Reference _ for international Terminal - Competitionline
The Jiangxi Fuzhou Municipal Government (FlVlG) proposes a project with the ... Therefore, there is little time to influ

Midterm Review | Terms of reference “Achieving implementation of the check-off system – the commitment to a democratic workplace”

Project: GLO-0759 QZA-15/0422 NSF: Developing organisations with dual mandate in Malawi, Rwanda and Uganda

19 April 2017

Norwegian Nurses Organisation (NNO) Uganda Nurses and Midwives Union (UNMU) Rwanda Nurses and Midwives Union (RNMU) Malawi National Organization of Nurses and Midwives (NONM)

Page 1 of 9

TOR | MTR 2017

Introduction This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Midterm Review (MTR) of the project “Developing organisations with dual mandate – Malawi, Rwanda and Uganda”. The project is implemented by National Organisation of Nurses and Midwives of Malawi (NONM), Uganda Nurses and Midwives Union (UNMU) and Rwanda Nurses and Midwives Union – with technical and financial support from the Norwegian Nurses Organisation (NNO) and a grant from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad). At the time of the MTR the project is in its second year of a three-year agreement period (Norad agreement number GLO-0759 QZA-15/0422). The project collaboration and partnership between NNO and NONM, UNMU and RNMU started in 2006, 2008 and 2013 respectively. In line with Norad’s guidance on MTRs, this MTR process was initiated as a collaboration between NONM, UNMU, RNMU and NNO and in close consultation with Norad.

Background The project grant agreement The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) has co-funded NNO’s international development work since 1989. Norad and NNO signed a new grant agreement for 2016-2018 under which this current MTR is a requirement. In the long term, the Project’s planned effect(s) on society are Good health among men and women in Rwanda, Uganda and Malawi (impact goals) and Increased influence of RNMU, UNMU and NONM on national public health issues (overall objective). The planned effects for the target group of the Project (outcomes) are: 1)

RNMU, UNMU and NONM are sustainable organisations for nurses and midwives in Rwanda, Uganda and Malawi

2)

RNMU, UNMU and NONM enabled to provide relevant services to nurses and midwives in Rwanda, Uganda and Malawi

3)

RNMU, UNMU and NONM are effective watchdogs and advocates

Brief background of the check-off system The check-off system is an important internationally recognised trade union right. For organizations based on membership, the collection of membership fees can be costly and time-consuming. The check-off system refers to the deduction of membership fees from a worker's pay check by the employer. This mechanism is an important way of allowing unions to effectively represent their members by avoiding the lengthy administrative task of collecting subscriptions individually. Organizations are thereby assured of the regular receipt of their dues. TOR developed by UNMU, NONM, RNMU and NNO | 19 April 2017

Page 2 of 9

TOR | MTR 2017

Labour laws in the respective countries require that members to trade unions pay their membership fees using the check-off system [checking this fact]. As such, implementation of the check-off system is a step-forward after several years of lobbying by the organisations. The issue of membership fee payments does not only concern areas of administration and financial sustainability, but also the legitimacy and representativeness by the union. The definition of a member differs somewhat between the organisations, but at the core is the payment of the membership fee – if you are to be counted and to receive benefits. Since the culture of the check-off system is relatively new in Uganda, Malawi and Rwanda, and because of the voluntary nature of joining trade unions, the organizations have put in place measures to improve the understanding of the system amongst their members (nurses). Such measures include, among others, sensitization and recruitment campaigns. Norwegian Nurses Organisation (NNO) The Norwegian Nurses Organisation safeguard nurses' organisational, technical, skills, development, pay and labour interests in Norway. NNO's objectives are multi-faceted and focused on policies of professional, socio-economic and representational concern, including international understanding and solidarity, and a society built on intercultural understanding and equality. NNO has worked to strengthen nurses’ organisations in developing countries since the 80s. https://www.nsf.no/ National Organisation of Nurses and Midwives of Malawi (NONM) The National Organisation of Nurses and Midwives of Malawi is a Non-Governmental and non-Partisan organisation established with the aim of safeguarding nurses and midwives' professional, organizational and socioeconomic interests. By influencing nursing / midwifery education and practice NONM also contributes to quality health care services in Malawi. http://nonmmw.org/ Uganda Nurses and Midwives Union (UNMU) The Uganda Nurses and Midwives Union (UNMU) is an independent, non-partisan, nondiscriminatory and professional Union representing nurses and midwives in Uganda. UNMU aims to promote and maintain a high standard of Nursing and Midwifery in Uganda; bargain, lobby and negotiate for better terms and conditions of service for its members; safeguard the social and economic welfare of members; and promote unity and solidarity among members. http://www.unmu.ug/

TOR developed by UNMU, NONM, RNMU and NNO | 19 April 2017

Page 3 of 9

TOR | MTR 2017

Rwanda Nurses and Midwives Union (RNMU) RNMU is committed to being a vibrant, self-sustaining organization that will protect the Professional image, improve Socio-Economic Welfare, and promote the interests of nurses and midwives through effective representation, capacity building and lead in the delivery of high quality care to the population in Rwanda. RNMU aims to have an empowered nurse and midwife who is motivated to provide high quality service and uphold professional excellence while enjoying quality life vision. http://www.rnmu.rw/

Objectives of the MTR The main objective of this MTR focuses on one thematic area, i.e. the implementation of the check-off system. The MTR shall document progress towards the achievement of implementation of the check-off system by ▪

assessing the organisations’ strategies in implementing the check-off system;



assessing the organisations preparation/planning as well as implemented activities and outputs against actual results to date;



documenting early signs of its success and/or failure (why is it working / why is it not working);



reviewing the (change) process that members go through when they accept, or fail to accept, the check-off system;



assessing the level of satisfaction among members using the check-off system;



assessing the roles/involvement as well as expectations and satisfaction of key stakeholders involved in the check-off system;



assessing coordination mechanisms and institutional arrangements, i.e. effectiveness and efficiency of management and supervision of activities related to the check-off system;



assessing opportunities, challenges and threats (risk), also related to the continuity of the check-off system;



considering cost-effectiveness – are investments (financial, human resources) in the check-off system yielding appropriate results?



identifying and suggesting possible and/or necessary changes, alternative and/or additional measures required to ensure effectiveness and efficiency of the check-off system, and how to integrate these changes (lessons learnt) into the work going forward.



considering NNO’s role and technical support, if any, in the work done towards achieving implementation of the check-off system.

TOR developed by UNMU, NONM, RNMU and NNO | 19 April 2017

Page 4 of 9

TOR | MTR 2017

Scope of the MTR While assessing the progress on implementation of the check-off system within the areas mentioned above, the MTR shall consider and discuss each country’s specific context, including ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Infrastructure and (availability of) technology Legal context – of each country and organisation (Political) will and commitment (in signing and implementing check-off agreements) Local capacity, competency and allegiance in implementing the check-off system (i.e. the Government, or other, administration/bureaucracy) Political system (centralized vs. decentralized) The various health institutions, e.g. private, public, faith based and NGO run Attitudes among nurses – members and non-members

The MTR shall also discuss ▪ ▪

potential linkages / contribution of sustainable nurses’ unions to the achievement of the Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs); potential linkages / contribution of sustainable nurses’ unions to national health strategies / plans.

Geographical scope / limitations ▪

The MTR shall collect data from all the regions in each country, of which at least two regions in each country shall be visited for face-to-face interviews. Data from other regions may be collected through skype interviews, phone interviews, email, surveys collected by staff in the region, etc. The geographical scope and limitations shall be clearly explained in the proposal.

The MTR shall produce ▪

Presentation of initial findings – validation meetings with UNMU, NONM, RNMU and NNO (should be done in a cost-effective way, e.g. NNO by skype if NNO is not in the region).



A draft final report



A final report, containing 1) one overall comparative analysis with conclusions and lessons learnt – including an executive summary; 2) three country specific sections – including country specific summaries; 3) recommendations / strategies for how to implement the change, including roles and responsibilities.



Minimum 3 brief (1-2 page) cases that document lessons learnt (in appendices to the report)



Minimum one presentation (seminar)

TOR developed by UNMU, NONM, RNMU and NNO | 19 April 2017

Page 5 of 9



TOR | MTR 2017

One Results Example (achievements) from each country (according to Norad template, see appendix I)

MTR approach and methodology The Consultant Team is free to suggest methodology; however, the MTR must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. Data must be triangulated and any weaknesses, gaps or limitations shall be clearly explained. The data shall be robust in its basis for analysis and conclusions, also at the level of outcomes and impact. The MTR team shall consider the following: ▪

A desktop review of all relevant documentation, including (but not limited to): - The organisations’ constitutions and other related policies; - Work-plans, budgets, accounts and reports related to member mobilization, sensitization and check-off; - Membership database / records - Financial records, bank statements - Agreements, MoUs and meeting protocols related to the check-off system



Face-to-face interviews and discussions with all key stakeholders involved in implementation of the check-off system. (A list of key partners and stakeholders to be identified at an early stage and a consultation process developed. All stakeholders consulted should be in a position to present their views in confidence to the team and to identify issues, opportunities, constraints and options for the future).



Electronic interviews through teleconference or written comments, e.g. email; where partners cannot be reached for face to face interviews

The MTR team is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach ensuring close engagement with the leadership and staff of the organizations, NNO, different health institutions, government counterparts, and other key stakeholders.

Team composition A team of independent consultants will conduct the MTR - one Lead Consultant (with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in the region) and one Country Expert from each country (Uganda, Malawi and Rwanda). The Lead Consultant is responsible for submitting the proposal and identifying and managing his/her team.

TOR developed by UNMU, NONM, RNMU and NNO | 19 April 2017

Page 6 of 9

TOR | MTR 2017

The consultants cannot have participated in the project preparation, formulation, and/or implementation (including the writing of project documents) and should not have a conflict of interest with the project’s and/or organisations’ related activities. The team of consultants shall be able to demonstrate: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Considerable documented experience from work with evaluations and evaluation methodologies; Good knowledge of the trade union movement at least at national level in each country; Good knowledge of member-based organisations and familiarity with organizational development processes; Familiarity with the health sector, at least at national level in each country; Have experience and knowledge about the working cultures and socio-economic / political contexts of each country, including labour laws; Have experience in organizing results presentation seminars; Excellent analytical and communication skills; Excellent English language skills.

The Lead Consultant shall in addition: ▪ ▪ ▪

Have experience in managing and administering a team of consultants; Be experienced in practicing sound financial management; Be able to demonstrate a record of good time management and deliverables of high quality.

Mid-term review roles and responsibilities NNO NNO will contribute to the development of the TORs, oversee the tender process for the consultants, contract the Lead Consultant (who manages the team) and manage payments to the Lead Consultant. NNO shall give technical backstopping and do quality assurance with data and reports. NNO is also responsible for liaison with Norad as the back donor. NNO shall take part in data collection field visits if possible. Lead Consultant The Lead Consultant will submit the proposal to NNO and will manage his/her team as described in his/her proposal and as detailed in the signed assignment contract. This includes quality assurance of deliverables, time management, travel arrangements, administration of subsistence, keeping proper account of finances, etc. The Lead Consultant is also responsible for liaising with NNO and local partner, presenting initial and final findings, etc.

TOR developed by UNMU, NONM, RNMU and NNO | 19 April 2017

Page 7 of 9

TOR | MTR 2017

The organisations (UNMU, RNMU, NONM) The organisations are responsible for providing documents and information as requested by the consultant team, setting up meetings as requested by the consultant team, giving support in local logistics and travel arrangements, ensuring good time management, etc. The organisations shall contribute to the development of the TORs and local budget estimates, assist with the tender process for the consultants, contribute to the selection of the consultants, and do quality assurance of data and reports. Timeframe of the mid-term review process The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows: Deadline for submission of inputs to TORs by partners 21 March Submission of TORs to Norad 30 March TORs approved by Norad 20 April Start of tender process, CFPs, no later than 21 April Tender/Proposal process closes 31 May Selection of consultants/team 2 – 23 June Contracting 26 – 30 June Preparatory work/Data collection 1 July – 15 August Validation meetings 15 August – 31 August st 1 draft report deadline 15 September Feedback from NNO, UNMU, NONM, RNMU on 1st draft report 29 September 2nd draft report deadline 10 October Feedback from NNO, UNMU, NONM, RNMU on 2nd draft report 18 October Final report deadline 25 October Seminar / Presentation November

Information use The final report shall be used to influence the organisations’ theory of change and related strategies and activity plans. The final report shall also influence NNO’s strategy in funding and technical support. Likewise, the report content shall contribute to the further development of a learning culture. The report and cases may be published on the organisations’ and NNO’s websites. The Results Example shall be published on the Norad results portal.

TOR developed by UNMU, NONM, RNMU and NNO | 19 April 2017

Page 8 of 9

TOR | MTR 2017

Financial framework of the Mid-term review The indicated total financial ceiling for the MTR is NOK 250 000 (estimated equivalent of USD 29 260).

Payment modalities and specifications ▪ ▪ ▪

25% of payment upon signing of the agreement 25% upon submission of the draft MTR report 50% upon presentation of the final MTR report

Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing (contract).

Application process Recommended presentation of Proposal: ▪

Summary CV or brief personal history form for all team members (1-2 pages each);



References (three) for all team members;



Technical proposal / brief description of approach to the assignment (methodology), and a rationale for why you consider yourself as the most suitable for the assignment (2-3 pages); (There is no need to repeat the information from the TOR. We are looking for a concise account of how the assignment will be executed).



Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price and all other related costs (such as local logistics, travel, per diem, communication etc.), supported by a breakdown of costs.

All application materials should be submitted to [email protected] marked with “MTR Assignment” in the subject field, no later than 31 May 2017.

TOR developed by UNMU, NONM, RNMU and NNO | 19 April 2017

Page 9 of 9

TOR | MTR 2017

Appendix I – ‘Results template’ All examples must be prepared in the following format: HEADING: Maximum 59 letters including spaces. Should contain SUBJECT, VERB and OBJECT (to illustrate the actors and what the activities are). Make sure the main result is being spelled out. The name of the country should not be part of the main heading. INGRESS: One sentence. Should be as short and precise as possible. It needs to state the problem, the project and the result. If possible, use numbers. WHY: One paragraph. Why was the project started – what was the problem at the starting point? Please use baseline data. WHAT: One paragraph. What kind of project is it? What was the goals? Please explain the «theory of change»: What was the reason behind choosing this type of project in order to solve the problem? Whom implemented the project? HOW MUCH: Money and time. How much funding came from Norway? Please use NOK (if possible). RESULTS: This is the main content of the example. • What was the effect of the project? Were the results as planned? Please be precise and concrete when documenting the results. • How do you know it was this project who gave the results? • Say something about the relation between the resources used and the results • Please describe other effects: Did you get other unplanned results? Were there any negative effects of the project? LESSONS LEARNED: Please describe in a few bullet points some of the lessons learned from the project. What factors were important in order to achieve the results described above? What did we learn, and what could have been done in a different way? REFERENCES: Must be used. References can be evaluations, reviews, yearly reports etc. External references (evaluations and reviews) give extra weight, but it is also okay to use other information such as yearly reports. If the documentation is electronic, a link should always be provided. PHOTOS: Please use photos if applicable. Please remember to check the rights to use the photos, and please refer to the name of the photographer. PARTNERS: Please name all involved partners in the project.

TOR developed by UNMU, NONM, RNMU and NNO | 19 April 2017