Evaluation of Global Contract & Agency Labour Project

Background:
The use of Contract and Agency Workers is on the increase in the global labour market as evidenced by labour market surveys and research. In many countries the development has adverse impact on workers rights and empowerment of unions. The issue has been raised several times in global and regional venues with ICEM as well as other Global Federations. It is a problem recognised globally among many labour union federations. The project addresses how the labour movement should meet the challenges of companies increasing use of contract and agency workers.

Purpose/objective:
The objective of the evaluation has been
•To assess the results of the support provided to ICEM by LO to strengthen the trade union rights of contract workers and workers that are employed through labour agencies.
•To assess the modality of cooperation with ICEM and provide recommendations on areas for improvement, in particular related to monitoring and reporting on performance by ICEM.

Methodology:
A review of the relevance of the project and project activities, an assessment of results produced or what results are likely to be produced by the end of the project in 2013, the efficiency in project execution, an assessment of sustainability, and an assessment of project impact.

Key findings:
The Contract and Agency Labour project is targeting two regions with highly diversified country environments, Asia and Latin America. So far, unions in nine countries in Asia and five countries in Latin America have directly benefited from the project during 2010-2011. Comparing the above with the number of ICEM affiliates and countries in these two regions, the outreach of the project has so far covered a limited number of unions and countries. This is because the project is very small compared to its level of ambition and potential target group.
 
There are several project outcomes presented in the progress reports. Some of these are linked to project outputs. Among others, there is evidence from some countries where unions made direct use of knowledge gained from training/sensitization workshops and/or counselling/supervision by regional coordinators which assisted unions in mobilisation of Contract and Agency Labour workers and/or address these issues in collective agreements.  The progress reports also contain a wealth of information about country level changes and outcomes. Only in a few cases can these be attributed to project activities and outputs i.e. the progress reports are not specifically reporting on project activities, outputs and outcomes but rather on country and regional developments related to CAL in general.

The above reflects a general challenge with project design i.e. the lack of a clearly defined scope of the project with a consistent framework for implementation and monitoring. The project objectives (purposes) and associated outputs, activities and inputs are not presented with a clear logic linking one element at one level to another at a higher level.

Recommendations:
While there is evidence to suggest that the project is empowering ICEM affiliates, the main challenge with this project is the lack of a consistent framework for management, implementation and monitoring i.e. it is not clear what the project is to achieve and how.  This impacts on quality of monitoring and reporting.
•The project log frame should be revised with an ambition to produce a consistent project framework to guide implementation. It should show clear linkages from the purpose level served by one or more outputs to be delivered by activities segregated by each output (i.e. a consistent logic).
•When revising the project design, more resources should be allocated to regional and national level activities on account of global level inputs, this to promote higher outreach for the main beneficiaries; the unions. 
•The above should be translated into a work plan to guide implementation and for more effective monitoring and reporting. It should be accompanied by a budget presented along two dimensions i.e. by type of cost and by activity, this to be able to monitor efficiency in spending.
•Progress reports should be reporting on achievements against annual targets as presented in annual work-plans (planned versus actual outputs). A simple performance assessment framework with milestones distributed for the duration of the project can be used to assess project outcomes. 
•ICEM has a portfolio of many small projects with overlapping agendas/purposes. However, since some of them are funded by different sources they are managed as separate projects. When external partners support a project they should do so through joint funding arrangements and not by earmarking their contributions to a specific project, activity or cost item (or a share of each item as the case is for the CAL project).
•ICEM should consider merging projects that today are segregated due to different funding partners or geographical locations but otherwise serving the same purpose. This will reduce transaction cost, and significantly improve monitoring and assurance from a fiduciary perspective (one overall audit rather than individual special purpose audits of each project).
•The above will be important to address when ICEM is merging with IMF and ITGWF which will expand the portfolio of projects.

Comments from the organisation, if any:
ICEM and the cooperating partner have difficulties in moving to joint funding arrangements and merging projects.
The weaknesses of the project design will be addressed immediately.