u.s.

Agency for International Development I EVALUATION PERIOD (mm/ddlyyyy)

ANNUAL EVALUATION FORM - FOREIGN SERVICE I FROM 04/01/2011 I TO 03/31/2012
SECTION I -ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
a. NAME (Last, First, MI) I
b. SSN (Last 4 digits) I
c. RANK/STEP
GLASS Ronald L. 4709 FS-02/14
d. POSITION AOSC TITLE I
e. POSITION FUNCTIONAL TITLE I
f. POSTIUSAID OFFICE 1
g. BACKSTOP
SUD. Gen. DeveloQ.ment Officer Director Office of Democratic Initiatives Russia 12
h. CAREER STATUS (Check appropriate box) - CAREER CANDIDATE [S] CAREER D OTHER D
SECTION 2 - AVTHENTICATION OF FINAL ANNUAL EVALVA TION
a. NAME OF RATING OFFICIAL (Last, First, MI)
NORTH Charles E.
SIGNA~~ . Ci~ D~/I
r II/ZO(L
b. NAME OF AC CHAIRPERSON SIGN~_ r .t!Z./7 !:-
Ried ler Tim C.
... ~ DAlf;I/1
't//I 12
~

SIG1~3U)~-'A
c. EMPLOYEE: (Signature acknowledges receipt of DATE
evaluation, not necessarily concurrence with evaluation)
EMPLOYEE DE- 1N1,:i~ osiGir D </;/1; ;(D/2..
SECTION 3 - FINAL ANNUAL EV ALVATION PERFORMANCE RESULTS
a. EMPLOYEE MET ALL SKILL STANDARDS FOR mSIHER CURRENT CLASS: YES [S] NO D
b. EMPLOYEE MET ALL WORK OBJECTIVES: YES [S] NO D
SECTION 4 - ROLE IN THE ORGANIZATION
Specify organizational setting, continuing responsibilities and functions within operating unit, including resources managed
Ronald Glass serves as the Director of the Office of Democratic Initiatives (ODI). Mr. Glass manages a staff of 13, including
two US Direct Hires (USDH), a senior US Personal Service Contractor (USPSC) and 10 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs) in
designing and overseeing a $28 million annual budget with 30 awards valued at $85 million. Of these, 20 awards valued at
$44 million are to Russian organizations, helping put USAID/Russia in the vanguard of USAID Forward objectives for local
partnerships. USAID/Russia's new Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) was approved in October 2011 and
includes a focus on building a resilient civil society. The democracy programs Mr. Glass manages - in areas as diverse as
electoral and political processes, human rights, civil society strengthening, rule-of-Iaw, independent media and information
communications technologies (lCT)- are vital to advancing the Mission's CDCS Development Objective of "Resilient Civil
Society & Responsive, Accountable Democratic Governance". In addition, they support US-Russian Bipartisan Presidential
Commission objectives for cooperating with Russian civil society in democracy and human rights strengthening initiatives. Mr.
Glass is a member of the Mission's senior management team and Management Control Review Committee. Mr. Glass reports
directly to the Mission Director. When required, he also manages functions of the post interagency working group secretariat
for US Government (USG) democracy strategy implementation planning.
USAID/Russia stands out as having one of the Agency's most demanding and politically sensitive programs in the world.
Its programs seek to catalyze an open, innovative and democratic society while engaging Russia in addressing global
development challenges. The program is guided by President Obama's 2009 "resef' in relations, enabling the U.S. and
Russia to work together on common issues while not shying away from core interests and principles. However, the GOR
routinely trumpets its frustration with USAID's in-country presence and its suspicion of its democracy and North Caucasus
programs. An anti-American campaign by senior government officials and state media targeted the Ambassador and USAID
and its staff during the December 2011 parliamentary and March 2012 presidential elections. Accusations that USAID and its
non-governmental organization (NGO) partners were orchestrating revolution and paying for protests enraged the tens of
thousands of Russians protesting election fraud in frigid temperatures. This poisonous atmosphere resulted in restrictions on
travel and communications for USAID staff, and threats to Russian partners, complicating an already challenging program.
This difficult working environment also makes USAID/Russia efforts to deepen the partnership with the GOR particularly
ambitious and requires especially skillful diplomacy. USAID/Russia programs also attract keen attention in Washington and
require frequent coordination with the Embassy and senior officials in StateIW, USAIDIW and the White House.
USAID/Russia's portfolio totals $202 million in 61 current awards, with a 2011 program budget of $54.4 million. The Mission
was awarded the Agency's Superior Honor Group Award in March 2012 for its implementation of the "resef' policy.

For Official Date Received by

Use Only Employee Statement Attached: Date Received Date Placed in Official
AMS/EXO
YES D NO D byHR Evaluation Folder

AID 461-1 (04/04) Page 1 of 4

NAME (Last, First, M I) SSN (Last 4 digits) EVALUATION PERIOD (mm/dd/yyyy)
GLASS, Ronald L. 4709 FROM 04/0 1/2011 TO 03/31/2012
SECTION 5 - PERFORMANCE PLAN
Establi sh Performance Pl an within 45 calendar days ofthe beginning of the evaluation period
1 - 3 work obj ectives with 1 - 2 performance measures for each work obj ective
a. PERFORMANCE PLAN
Work Objective (WO)1 (LEADERSHIP/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT): Lead USAID/Russia's democracy program designs
valued at $22 million for grant agreements in areas of elections & political process, independent media, ICT, peer-to-peer and
civil society strengthening, so as to promote more active participation of civil society in democratic processes.
Performance Measure (PM1): Staff mentored and trained in USG Democratic Strategy Implementation Plan (DSIP) and new
CDCS to ensure program planning, design, implementation and evaluation are conformed to these complementary strategies
across the $85 million democracy portfolio.
PM2: Democratic initiatives grantees and other partners encouraged to use methodologies and tactics enhancing
coord ination and increased levels of citizen engagement with democratic initiatives implementing partners.

W02 (TECHNICALITEAMWORK): As Russian elections loom in December 2011 (parliamentary) and March 2012
(Presidential), manage democracy programs to achieve more direct partnerships with Russian civil society organizations in
order to foster conditions for more transparent electoral and political processes, greater exercise of civil liberties, increased
respect for human rights and free speech, and greater independence of the media and internet
PM 1: To mitigate GOR sensitivities to USAID democracy assistance, the DSIP and democracy section of the new CDCS are
implemented in close coordination with USG interagency and Russian stakeholder partners.
PM2: Innovative alliances are developed among Russian partners with quasi-governmental commissions, public chambers
and th ink-tanks, giving voice and collective gravitas to defenders of democratic reform.

c. NAME OF RATING OFFICIAL (Last, First, MI)

NORTH Charles E.
d. NAME OF AC REPRESENTATIVE (Optional) SIG

EMPLOYEE: (Signature acknowledges receipt of

e.
performance plan, not necessari ly concurrence with plan)
TO SIGN D
SECTION 6 - FORMAL MID-POINT PROGRESS REVIEW
Includes any revisions to work obj ectives and perform ance measures
a. MID-POINT PROGRESS REVIEW
Mr. Glass delivered an impressive performance. He engaged with Mission management and his staff on the difficu lt and
sensitive process of planning for significant reductions in U.S. and Russian staff over the next several years . Anticipating
shrinking budgets, Mr. Glass proposed a major restructuring of his office to align sub-units with the newly approved CDCS,
empower Russian staff, and merge his office with the local governance office. He then fostered cross-office teamwork to
realize synerg ies between the civil society and local governance teams. Mr. Glass used strong human resource management
skills to translate his strategic vision of an integrated democracy program into design team compos itions and individual
assignments, balancing workloads to ensure efficient completion of urgent tasks. For example, with three weeks' notice, Mr.
Glass, responding to a White House directive to demonstrate USG commitment to human rights in Russia, deployed staff and
resou rces to enable 15 civil society leaders to travel to the U.S. to study prison reform . Insistent on the effective use of scarce
resources, he coached a USPSC employee in negotiating the restructuring of an under-performing rule-of-Iaw grant, freeing
up $580,000 for a new human rights project, and phased out activities not clearly aligned with the Mission's strategy.
SECTIO N 6b - AUTHENTICATION OF FORMAL MID-POINT P
c. NAME OF RATING OFFICIAL (Last, First, MI)
NORTH Charles E.
d. NAME OF AC REPRESENTATIVE (Optional) SI

e. EMPLOYEE: (Signature acknowledges receipt of mid-point SIG

progress review, not necessarily concurrence with review)
IGN D

A ID 461-1 (04/04) Page 2 of 4

NAME (Last, First, MI) SSN (Last 4 digits) I EVALUATION PERIOD (mm/dd/yyyy)
GLASS, Ronald L. I 4709 I FROM 04/01/2011 I TO 03/31/2012
SECTION 7 - ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE, SKILLS AND POTENTIAL
a. RATING OFFICIAL'S STATEMENT ON PERFORMANCE, SKILLS AND POTENTIAL (For more information, see the EEP
Guidebook, Chapter V. Preparing & Completing the AEF)
Mr. Glass made major strides in improving the effectiveness of one of the Agency's largest and most politically
sensitive democracy programs. His skills and actions were crucial to USG support for Russian initiatives for free and fair
Duma and presidential elections. Personally targeted by a state-controlled-media smear of USAID and its partners, Mr.
Glass maintained a professional, positive demeanor and kept his staff focused on their invaluable role. The Minister
Counselor for Political Affairs hailed his "infectious enthusiasm for fostering democracy in Russia."
WO #1: Mr. Glass used his exceptional technical and leadership skills to lead his staff in aligning the democracy
portfolio with the Mission's new CDCS and the DSIP, the Obama administration's priorities for USAID's democracy
programs in Russia. He facilitated a highly participatory and inclusive office retreat and used his strategic vision and
exceptional professional expertise to mentor his staff on translating these core principles into concrete program
adjustments. Through that retreat, Mr. Glass also coached the staffs of the democracy and governance offices to
strengthen their cohesion and commitment to cross-office teamwork. He drew on his in-depth knowledge and
experience to inform and lead his team in a thorough and strategic analysis of Russian democracy to identify
opportunities and challenges for the USAID program, and coached them on data gathering to seek out expertise and
best practices from other countries. He then led them in the design and launch of ten new, and frequently cutting-edge,
activities to increase the use of information technology by civil society, strengthen independent media's capacity to use
the internet, strengthen civil society at the regional and national level, and support strategic, long-term Russian partners
to achieve their organizational vision and sustainability. Staff and colleagues praised his willingness to share his rich
knowledge of democracy programming, and his high expectations that program managers be experts in their sector, not
just their projects. A colleague observed that Mr. Glass "deftly leads the discussion [in office meetings] and introduces
new and valuable ideas to the conversation." He identified rising leaders, supporting their growth with training and
greater responsibility. Some staff noted Mr. Glass needs to be more attentive to how different people respond to and
perceive his management style, an area he has noted for self-improvement.
Mr. Glass directly engaged with Russian civil society partners, challenging them to increase their effectiveness and
sustainability. Using strong communication skills, cultural sensitivity, and technical knowledge, he overcame skepticism
in convincing partners to adopt "total quality control" management processes to strengthen internal structures and
systems, foster sustainability, and enhance connections with citizens. The election monitoring NGO heeded his advice
and improved their ability to withstand intense official scrutiny. He convinced a prominent human rights NGO to change
its outreach plans to appeal to a broader and more diverse audience. A colleague noted "he saw the need to do that and
never let up on it as a goal."
WO #2: Mr. Glass played an instrumental role in swiftly developing and building inter-agency support for a $9 million
package of election-related activities-including a concurrent impact evaluation, and a series of eight public opinion
surveys-approved by the Ambassador and used by the White House to track progress. Mr. Glass then led his staff in
preparing timely analyses and progress reports to inform urgent and frequent high-level, inter-agency meetings. He
demonstrated his resource management and teamwork skills in enlisting Washington and Mission colleagues to translate
the plan into amended awards and new contracts for election partners in advance of Russia's Duma and presidential
elections, despite the receipt of essential funding late in the fiscal year. Mr. Glass's close and continuous
communication with key technical staff in the E&E Bureau and with Political Section leadership ensured a shared
understanding of unfolding events among USG staff centrally involved in democracy programs in Russia. A senior
political officer praised his efforts to "break down the stove-piping that can occur in a large Embassy." Mr. Glass's
leadership to break down those barriers will be increasingly important in the coming months before the Duma elections.
Mr. Glass developed innovative NGO alliances by convening multiple roundtables of partners and experts to share
new, effective ways for citizens to monitor and report on election violations. The partners praised the opportunity to
safely and openly share ideas with each other. The roundtables directly led one partner to create and launch an
innovative, int~rnet-based map of citizen-reported election violations-over 8,000 violations reported-that helped spark
a nation-wide citizen outcry over fraud in the Duma elections. After cyber-attacks brought down the on-line map duri ng
th e Duma election, Mr. Glass swiftly enlisted Washington to provide funds and dispatch technical expertise on cyber-
security to three partner NGOs, protecting their ability to operate in the run up to the presidential election.
Mr. Glass has been an important colleague and leader in the Mission. His exceptional technical skills, strategic
vision, and comm itment to the Agency's mission demonstrate his ability to assume greater responsibility.

AID 461-1 (04/04) Page 3 of 4

NAME (Last, First, MI) SSN (Last 4 digits) EVALUATION PERIOD (mm/dd/yyyy)
GLASS, Ronald L. 4709
FROM 04/01/2011 I TO 03/31/2012
SECTION 7 - ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE, SKILLS AND POTENTIAL - CONTINUED
0
b. 360 INPUT SOURCES (Check all that apply):

EMPLOYEE'S SELF-ASSESSMENT CUSTOMERS MANAGERS PEERS SUBORDINATES AIF OTHERS

[gI [gI [gI [gI [gI D D

0
c. ADDITIONAL MANDA TORY 360 INPUT SOURCES FOR THE FOLLOWING BACKSTOPS: CONTROLLERS, CONTRACT
OFFICERS AND LEGAL ADVISORS - ONLY

RECEIVED 3600 INPUT FROM USAIDIW (Check as appropriate):

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT GENERAL COUNSEL REQUESTED, BUT NOT RECEIVED
D D D D
d. EV ALUA TION OF WORK OBJECTIVES:

WORK OBJECTIVE #1 WORK OBJECTIVE #2 WORK OBJECTIVE #3

MET [gI NOT MET D MET [gI NOT MET D NI A D MET D NOTMET D N/A D
SECTION 8 - APPRAISAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND COMMENTS

1) RIEDLER, Tim C. [C'f,

a. APPRAISAL COMMITTEE MEMBER NAMES (Last, First, MI):
I
2) SLATER, William K. 3) STEEDLE, Nancy R. I
b. APPRAISAL COMMITTEE COMMENTS (As appropriate):

Privacy Act Statement: The following statement is required to be attached to the subject form by the Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-
579: 88 Statute 1896). This form is used to evaluate the performance of Foreign Service and Senior Foreign Service employees.
Disclosure of information provided will not be made outside the Agency without written consent of the employee concerned except:
(a) pursuant to any applicable routine use listed under USAID's Foreign Service Employee Personnel Records System (USAID 1) in
USAID's Notice of System of Records (available from the Information and Records Division) for implementing the Privacy Act
published in the Federal Register, or (b) when disclosure without the employee's consent is authorized by the Privacy Act and
provided for in USAID Regulation 15. The Social Security Number is provided voluntarily by the individual to enable proper entry
of this report into the employee's records. Failure to provide the required information could lead to mistaken identity entailing
administrative complications with possible inconvenient or adverse consequences for the employee.

Confidentiality of Records : This form is an efficiency report which shall be subject to inspection only by those persons authorized
by Section 604 of the Foreign Service Act, 22 U.S .c. 4004.

AID 461 -1 (04/04) Page 4 of 4