CLEAR STRATEGY (2013 - 2018)

Submitted by jyuan@worldbank.org on Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:52
Image
CLEAR Strategy

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) defined a set of development targets to be achieved by 2015. Although a number of targets had been met by 2012, such as reducing extreme poverty by half, it is “not a time to relax,” noted Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General, United Nations. More than half billion people still face the challenge of poverty.

Recent years have seen a rapid increase in the need and demand for evidence-based programs and policies to drive effective and equitable development. This need and demand have revealed serious gaps in partner countries’ capacity to generate evidence based on robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and performance management (PM) and to use that evidence for decisionmaking to achieve development results.

But capacity development is not easily achieved. It requires sustained, adaptable, and innovative approaches to fill the gaps in capacity and address the factors that constrain the use of that capacity.

CLEAR (Centers for Learning on Evaluation and Results), a multilateral partnership, was established in 2010 to strengthen a network of recognized regional academic institutions to lead sustained and innovative M&E and PM capacity-building in partner countries.

CLEAR’s strategy encompasses two main principles:

  • dynamic learning-by-doing and experimentation to inform continuous refinement and testing
  • integration of global standards and knowledge with context-specific know-how and practical implementation

CLEAR’s original strategy and charter were developed in 2010 and the strategy is updated here in 2013, maintaining the two principles. This updated strategy reflects experiences and lessons from the first three years of on-the-ground implementation, incorporates the ideas of the institutions participating in the program, and takes into account the rapidly changing context for M&E/PM supply and demand – more active communities of practice in M&E/PM, international academic institutions and programs engaged in research and capacity building, and greater national and international emphasis not just on monitoring but also on evaluation using a variety of approaches.

The updated strategy thus reflects an evolving understanding of how CLEAR can be better positioned achieve its objectives.

Download File
Pdf as plain
i
CLEAR STRATEGY (2013 - 2018)
Development Anchored in Evidence, Learning, and Mutual Accountability
September 30, 2013
ii
Table of Contents
Foreword............................................................................................................................iii
Introduction........................................................................................................................ iv
Context and Challenges ...................................................................................................... 1
Vision.................................................................................................................................. 2
Mission................................................................................................................................ 2
Theory of Change ............................................................................................................... 2
CLEAR at Work ................................................................................................................. 4
Regional Approach ......................................................................................................... 4
Global Learning .............................................................................................................. 6
CLEAR Phases of Development and Timeline .................................................................. 7
Phase I: Center Selection (2010 – 2013)......................................................................... 7
Phase II: Strengthening Regional and Global Capacity (2012 –2014)........................... 8
Phase III: Creating Regional and Global Sustainability (2013 – 2017 and beyond)..... 8
Governance ......................................................................................................................... 9
Board ............................................................................................................................... 9
Regional Advisory Committees........................................................................................ 9
Secretariat ........................................................................................................................ 9
CLEAR’s Value Proposition............................................................................................. 10
Risks and Risk Mitigation................................................................................................. 11
FIGURES
Figure 1. CLEAR Theory of Change.................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. CLEAR Centers................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. CLEAR Phases and Timeline.............................................................................. 7
BOXES
Box 1. Example of Enhancing the Enabling Environment................................................. 4
Box 2. Example of Leading Innovation in M&E................................................................ 5
Box 3. Example of Diversity of Stakeholder Reach ........................................................... 5
Box 4. CLEAR Centers....................................................................................................... 6
Box 5. Examples of Global Knowledge and Peer Learning ............................................... 6
Box 6. CLEAR’s Donors..................................................................................................... 9
Box 7. CLEAR’s Value Proposition................................................................................. 10
ANNEXES
Annex A - Performance Indicators and Targets ............................................................... 12
Annex B - Overview of Work Program............................................................................ 14
Annex C – Guiding Questions for Making Strategic Decisions....................................... 15
Foreword
*** A short optional introduction written by a Board Chair or member ***
iv
Introduction
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) defined a set of development targets to be achieved
by 2015. Although a number of targets had been met by 2012, such as reducing extreme poverty
by half, it is “not a time to relax,” noted Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General, United Nations. More
than half billion people still face the challenge of poverty.
Recent years have seen a rapid increase in the need and demand for evidence-based programs and
policies to drive effective and equitable development. This need and demand have revealed
serious gaps in partner countries’ capacity to generate evidence based on robust monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) and performance management (PM) and to use that evidence for decisionmaking
to achieve development results.
But capacity development is not easily achieved. It requires sustained, adaptable, and innovative
approaches to fill the gaps in capacity and address the factors that constrain the use of that
capacity.
CLEAR (Centers for Learning on Evaluation and Results), a multilateral partnership, was
established in 2010 to strengthen a network of recognized regional academic institutions to lead
sustained and innovative M&E and PM capacity-building in partner countries.
CLEAR’s strategy encompasses two main principles:
 dynamic learning-by-doing and experimentation to inform continuous refinement and testing
 integration of global standards and knowledge with context-specific know-how and practical
implementation
CLEAR’s original strategy and charter were developed in 2010 and the strategy is updated here in
2013, maintaining the two principles. This updated strategy reflects experiences and lessons from
the first three years of on-the-ground implementation, incorporates the ideas of the institutions
participating in the program, and takes into account the rapidly changing context for M&E/PM
supply and demand – more active communities of practice in M&E/PM, international academic
institutions and programs engaged in research and capacity building, and greater national and
international emphasis not just on monitoring but also on evaluation using a variety of
approaches.
The updated strategy thus reflects an evolving understanding of how CLEAR can be better
positioned achieve its objectives.
Context and Challenges
Effective and equitable development is guided by evidence. It requires that governments and
civil society monitor, measure, evaluate, and make evidence-based decisions about the programs
and policies that affect citizens’ lives.
But generating relevant and timely evidence and using it effectively has proved to be difficult.
The capacity for developing and implementing contextually appropriate monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) and performance management (PM) approaches varies across countries and
remains weak in many. At the same time, interrelated national and international forces have
fueled the need and demand for results measurement and evaluation knowledge.
At the national level, concerns regarding equity and effectiveness of development programs have
fueled citizens’ and civil society’s demand for transparency, access to information, and
accountability for results. In addition, major public sector reforms, including decentralization and
results-informed budgeting, have underscored the need for M&E and PM.
At the international level, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), agreed to in 2000, have
resulted in an emphasis on measuring results in key development areas1
. Subsequent agreements,
the Paris Declaration (2005), the Accra Agenda for Action (2008), and the Busan Partnership for
Effective Development (2011), similarly reinforced accounting for results.
The evaluation of the Paris Declaration concluded that little progress had been made with respect
to sound frameworks for monitoring results and concluded that “an enormous change of pace will
be required.” The 2011 Busan forum called for an action plan to build capacity to monitor
progress, evaluate impact, and ensure results-focused management, and it emphasized leveraging
diverse resources and south-south learning to do so. More recently, EvalPartners declared 2015
to be the Year of Evaluation to underscore more forcefully the need for evidence-based decisions.
As a consequence of these trends, professional networks and international programs equipped to
demand and supply M&E expertise and knowledge are gaining strength across the globe, but with
different degrees of influence, areas of expertise, and levels of quality and capacity2
. Academic
institutions are beginning to pay attention by offering courses to M&E/PM professionals, and
consulting firms are starting to populate a nascent market in the supply of M&E/PM services.
In addition, a wide range of international and national nongovernmental organizations have
strengthened their own M&E/PM, learning and accountability capacities, among them Oxfam,
PACT, and BRAC. But their reach is limited to their own constituencies, and they are often not
connected with the larger national and regional institutions to scale up their activities.
Despite these shifts in demand and supply, challenges remain. On the demand side, countries are
not implementing M&E/PM well enough to produce systematic and robust evidence and most
and have not advanced toward linking evidence to decisions. On the supply side, thoughtful and
knowledgeable professionals and an appropriate range of services to build government, civil
society, and philanthropic capacity to monitor and evaluate is still relatively limited.
CLEAR was established in 2010 to address these challenges.

1 United Nations, United Nations Millennium Declaration, Res. 55-2, 2000.
2 Examples include 3IE, JPAl, IPA. Also see for example, EvalPartners, http://mymande.org/evalpartners
2
Vision
Development anchored in evidence, learning, and mutual accountability
Mission
Through its network of regional Centers, CLEAR reaches across boundaries, languages, and
cultures to lead, innovate, and influence capacity-building in monitoring and evaluation and
performance management.
Theory of Change
CLEAR’s immediate objective is to strengthen a network of regional academic institutions to host
CLEAR Centers that become leaders in capacity development in M&E and PM.
CLEAR’s theory of change is illustrated in Figure 2. Although captured in static form the theory
of change is based on a dynamic learning-by-doing model. The Centers engage in a complex set
of parallel activities – stimulating demand and responding to demand with high quality services,
while concurrently strengthening their own capacity in M&E/PM.
This theory of change is based on the following eight assumptions:
 Increased use of evidence in decision making will contribute to improved development
results
 Strengthened context-specific and high-quality M&E systems (organizational processes
and structures, incentives, etc.) and practices will lead to greater use of evidence by
decisionmakers
 Improved enabling environment (e.g., incentives, legislation, institutional relationships,
communities of practice) and demand for M&E and PM will support effective use of
M&E and PM as tools for development
 Capacity at both levels –organizational and professional – and on both supply and
demand sides – is needed to strengthen M&E and PM systems and practices
 Innovations in M&E/PM will drive context-specific, practical, and cost-effective
approaches
 Capacity is built through a variety of strategically selected context-specific approaches
suitable for the clients’ needs and demands
 Regional institutions are well placed to lead capacity building, because they are able to
work on a consistent and sustained basis across different clients– government, civil
society, donors – and identify champions, leaders, professionals who will use M&E
 Global knowledge and standards customized to suit regional and local contexts are
central to building capacity
The theory of change is supported by: 1) Center-level work programs that focus on close
collaboration with strategic stakeholders and partners at the regional level and developing
sustainable and cost-effective models of capacity development; 2) global peer-learning; and 3)
continual improvement of the CLEAR program through monitoring, evaluation, and evidencebased
decisions. Performance indicators and targets related to the theory of change are noted in
Annex A.
Figure 1. CLEAR Theory of Change
4
CLEAR at Work
CLEAR comprises two main components
 Regional Approach– strengthen CLEAR Centers to provide applied, practical, and
innovative M&E capacity-building services across the region in which they are based
 Global Learning – generate, aggregate, and disseminate global knowledge and peerlearning
about what works, what doesn’t, and why, to strengthen the expertise of the
CLEAR Centers and communities of practice on M&E across regions
Approximately 80 percent of the budget is devoted to Regional Approach and 10 percent to
Global Learning. The remaining 10 percent is used for program governance and management,
including regular monitoring and reporting and mid-term and final evaluations. A broad overview
of the work program under each component is outlined in Annex B. This overview will guide the
development of the annual work programs and associated budgets.
Regional Approach
The CLEAR Centers are the backbone of the program. CLEAR competitively selected existing
academic institutions in partner countries to host and develop the Centers.3
Having wellestablished
academic institutions with regional influence uniquely provide opportunities for
reputational transfer to the centers, existing capacity building strengths, expertise, and so on.
Working across the region with key clients and influential stakeholders, the regional Centers’
objectives are to:
 Enhance the enabling environment and foster demand for M&E
 Strengthen organizational capacity to produce and use evidence
 Build critical mass of professional expertise
 Lead innovation in M&E and PM
At the same time, the CLEAR centers will build their own leadership, technical, managerial, and
administrative capacities for long-term sustainability. Over a five year period, the Centers will
develop revenue-generation and financing models in which strategically important activities that
do not generate revenues are subsidized through revenue-generating programs.
Box 1. Example of Enhancing the Enabling Environment
The Center in Anglophone Africa is collaborating with South Africa’s Department for Performance
Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), South Africa, to strengthen M&E systems in African countries.
As a first step in this process, CLEAR and DPME commissioned studies of six African countries’
M&E systems conducted by African researchers. The results were presented at a conference hosted
by the DPME with subsequent plans for improving the systems comprehensively – incentives,
institutional relationships, processes, and knowledge and skills of professionals – based on peerlearning
approaches.

3
The Center for East Asia was folded into the program, based on its existing relationship with IEG.
Box 2. Example of Leading Innovation in M&E
The Center in South Asia is highlighting the role of technology in M&E. It is showcasing the
methodology and teaching South Asian M&E professionals how mobile telephones can be used
for real-time data collection and for making the data publicly available cost-effectively.
Box 3. Example of Diversity of Stakeholder Reach
Governments are typically the main actors in M&E/PM services. Nevertheless, there is a need
for more pivotal and politically-neutral participation of academic institutions, private sector, civil
society and other organizations with M&E/PM services. The Center in Latin America has had, as
an organizing principle, the approach of hosting activities designed to foster learning and sharing
among these diverse stakeholders.
The Centers’ regional strategies and approaches are described in each Center’s project document.
As of 2013, CLEAR has established five Centers: two in Africa (Anglophone Africa and
Francophone Africa), two in Asia (East Asia and South Asia), and one in Latin America. The
selection of a center in Brazil is expected to be concluded by the end of 2013. Additionally, in
order to have pre-established guidance for questions about future expansion, the Board has asked
the Secretariat to develop an Expansion Strategy Paper, which was given to the Board in
September 2013, to be discussed more fully in a future Board meeting.
Figure 2. CLEAR Centers
6
Box 4. CLEAR Centers
Global Learning
CLEAR’s global learning component anchors the overall program by supporting the regional
Centers, generating innovative and internationally benchmarked knowledge of and approaches to
capacity development, and building international brand recognition.
Specifically, this component:
 Develops and shares global knowledge. CLEAR develops, aggregates, and shares
global knowledge and expertise to strengthen the Centers’ technical and professional
capacity and to benefit the wider M&E communities of practice. It particularly identifies
and fills gaps in knowledge needed at the regional level.
 Facilitates peer-learning through the network. CLEAR facilitates peer-learning,
knowledge-exchange, and mentoring across regions on what works, what does not, and
why.
Box 5. Examples of Global Knowledge and Peer Learning
Global Knowledge. Based on increasing demand from partner countries and organizations,
CLEAR has developed a two-week, in-depth, hands-on technical course on impact evaluation not
available elsewhere. For example, the upcoming course in Uganda in June 2013 attracted 300
applicants and core funding partnership from 3IE and the World Bank. International experts
collaborate with Center staff and regional experts to conduct the course for teams of regional
professionals implementing impact evaluations. The workshops use regional examples and handson
learning exercises. Through the CLEAR workshops, the participants also connect with others
doing similar evaluations and with organizations and partners that demand their expertise.
Peer-Learning. CLEAR hosts an annual peer-learning forum for Centers and their partners. The
Center in Latin America will host the next forum to analyze lessons on M&E from developments
in Latin America, a region leading in how to institutionalize and use M&E, and to pilot a seminar
on developing champions and leaders on the use of evidence for policymaking.
CLEAR Phases of Development and Timeline
CLEAR is envisaged to run initially for five years for each selected Center. Starting in 2011 with
the selection of the first CLEAR Center (whose initial funding will end with 2016) to the addition
of the fifth CLEAR Center in 2012 (whose initial funding will end in 2017), the program will
support regional Centers for a limited time. The Board will determine whether, and how, the
program is expanded to additional Centers and regions, based on a number of factors such as
regional needs, demand, and resources. Figure 3 shows the timeline.
CLEAR’s strategy is to enable financial and technical support to assist the Centers to establish
themselves, become recognized for their expertise and services, and begin generating income.
The institutions’ sustainability and income-generating model will take time to evolve, depending
on context and demand. A full evaluation in 2017 will assess progress and provide new
directions to the program.
Figure 3. CLEAR Phases and Timeline
Phase I: Center Selection (2010 – 2013)
The first phase of CLEAR consisted primarily of getting the program started. From developing
and implementing a competitive process to selecting the regional institutions to house the
CLEAR Centers, to establishing a functioning governance structure and operational procedures
for the program, CLEAR became a reality during phase one.
8
Phase II: Strengthening Regional and Global Capacity (2012 –2014)
After the initial selection of Centers, the program is now focused on strengthening the capacity of
the Centers. During this phase the Centers are working on building demand for their services,
networks, and service delivery capacity by:
 Beginning their capacity building programs on a start-up and pilot basis
 Refining their regional strategies based on initial implementation
 Further establishing their leadership and technical capacity and credibility
 Strengthening their management and administrative capacity
 Beginning institutionalizing the program in the host academic institutions
The global program is assisting with developing global knowledge, strengthening regional
Centers capacities, and also developing and piloting a deeper cross-regional program
encompassing the Centers and their stakeholders.
Phase III: Creating Regional and Global Sustainability (2013 – 2017
and beyond)
The third phase, which CLEAR is now entering, shifts the emphasis to developing ongoing
engagements with clients and constituents in key government agencies and civil society
organizations and networks. Through a rich network of partnerships, the Centers will draw on
local, regional, and global innovations – in content and approach – to better meet the needs of
developing country constituents, while combining quality, depth, and practicality in their work
programs.
Thus the emphasis of the program will gradually shift from an “incubation” and “seed
investment” to a sustainable decentralized capacity development model. The global component in
phase three will continue to assist the Centers with their leadership, technical, management, and
administrative capacities and for developing a network of practice that draws on regional and
global knowledge and innovations.
As part of this work, the Centers will engage in developing and implementing global programs
that support the development of the network and take peer-learning forward.
Governance
CLEAR’s governance structure comprises a Board, the Centers’ Regional Advisory Committees
(RACs), and the Secretariat. The governance and institutional arrangements are expected to evolve as
the program matures to meet new challenges and changing contexts.
Board
The Board is CLEAR’s main high-level decisionmaking body
and comprises member representatives from the organizations4
providing financial support to the program through the trust
fund established at the World Bank. The Board invites
participation in its meetings from the non-Board members
(such as Centers’ RACs or experts and officials from partner
countries) as appropriate. The Board meets at least twice a
year to set goals and policy directions for the program, review
and approve work programs and budgets, and commission
independent evaluations.
Regional Advisory Committees
Governance at the level of the Centers includes Regional Advisory Committees (RACs), established
by each Center. RACs provide advice and guidance regarding the Centers’ strategies and work
programs based on their expertise and knowledge of regional issues with respect to M&E. This
governance structure ensures participant diversity, country input, and stakeholder support. The
Centers select their own RAC members with the approval of the Board.
Secretariat
The CLEAR program and associated funds are managed by a Secretariat. The Secretariat is currently
hosted at the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank to leverage the Bank’s
resources, expertise and convening power. The World Bank manages the trust fund and carries the
fiduciary and legal responsibility for the program. The Secretariat develops the overall strategy,
manages the grants to the Centers, contributes to the global program, executes the Board's decisions,
and handles the administration of funds.
The Secretariat is headed by a senior professional member of IEG and staffed with professional and
administrative World Bank staff. The Head of the Secretariat reports to the IEG Director on
CLEAR’s Board.
The governance structure will be reviewed by 2017, once the initial funding phase is close to
completion. The review will assess how the CLEAR Centers are functioning in their regions and as a
network. One key of the aspects of this review will be to determine whether the Secretariat could be
shifted to one of the Centers (among other choices). This review will also include an assessment of
the functions of the Secretariat and how it could continue to operate in the future.

Box 6. CLEAR’s Donors
10
CLEAR’s Value Proposition
CLEAR’s value is in its comprehensive approach to
meeting the complex challenge of developing M&E
capacity across the globe. CLEAR’s work is as much
about generating public goods and directly building
country capacity as it is about a sustainable model in
which the selected regional institutions begin operating
independently of direct program funding. It requires
upfront investment of resources – intellectual and
financial – not readily available in partner countries.
Innovation through global-local integration. CLEAR facilitates the integration of contextspecific
knowledge, experience, and on-the-ground implementation with global standards by
developing a rich network of regional and international partnerships. More than a collection of
Centers with a centralized pool of funding, CLEAR’s comparative advantage is in connecting
international best practices with local needs and demands.
Ownership by clients. CLEAR represents a gravity shift toward partner country ownership by
enabling the Centers to drive capacity development in partnership with their clients and
customized for relevance to country contexts.
Branding through excellence. By ensuring high quality and standards, CLEAR allows
institutions not only to build the CLEAR brand but also to establish their own reputations for
excellence in M&E capacity development.
Sustainability. By strengthening the institutional capacity of competitively selected and well
regarded academic institutions, CLEAR focuses on building sustainable in-region capacity to
build capacity. CLEAR requires the Centers to develop a business model that is ultimately selffinancing.

Partnerships to reduce fragmentation. CLEAR changes the way in which countries and donors
work together. It catalyzes collaboration across the globe and reduces costly fragmentation of
support for evaluation capacity development by working in partnership with ten donors and five
institutions with their partner academic institutions and in-country financial supporters.
Box 7. CLEAR’s Value Proposition
 Innovation
 Ownership
 Excellence
 Sustainability
 Partnership
Risks and Risk Mitigation
It takes time and perseverance to build sustainable institutional capacity focused on achieving
long-term goals, and to base it on a model that is decentralized, networked, and ultimately selfsustaining.
The work is new and inherently risky.
Risk to strategic focus. Because of the number of donor and institutions involved, and because
the program rests on a decentralized implementation model, there is a risk that the vision,
mission, and overall strategy could be diffused. This risk will be managed by regular Board and
Center meetings, decisions focused on achievement of the vision and mission of the program, and
regular monitoring and evaluation.
Risk to CLEAR brand and reputation. CLEAR’s brand faces reputational risks if, as the
Centers become operational and receive demands for services, they lack the requisite capacity for
the volume and quality of delivery required. This risk will be managed by instituting quality
standards, and expert mentoring and support through the global program to enable the Centers to
work selectively, strategically, and with high standards.
Risk of slow implementation. There is a risk of slow implementation of the program due to the
legal, financial, and procurement requirements of the World Bank, which carries the fiduciary and
legal responsibility for the program. This risk will be managed by working closely with the Bank
teams responsible for these issues. On the host institutions’ side, there is risk of slow
implementation due to government clearance procedures or host institutions’ requirements. This
risk will be managed by keeping in close contact with all stakeholders engaged in clearing or
facilitating program implementation.
Risk to long-term sustainability. The longer-term sustainability of the CLEAR Centers will
depend on devising business models that blend income-generation with forward-looking demandstimulating
work and innovations that may not yield revenues. The host institutions will also need
to take charge of strengthening the position of the Center within the institution. The risk to longterm
sustainability will be managed by strengthening the Centers’ leadership, management, and
technical capacities, and ensuring that they build strategies that include income–generation
activities (although this may not be feasible in some environments). In addition, the host
institutions’ governance and management bodies will be engaged in program development to
ensure their ownership of the Centers’ work. To further the sustainability efforts of the centers,
at the 4th Global Forum, a major section of the “working days” will be devoted to business
planning for guiding the work of the centers and program – for sustainability.
Risk to governance. There is a risk that a lack of common understanding of the roles and
responsibilities of the various partners – the Board, the Secretariat, the host institutions, and the
Centers’ management – will lead to poor decisions and weak coordination. This risk will be
managed by regular meetings and reviews of different groups’ responsibilities.
Numerous key program-level decisions will have to be made in the coming years to manage risks
and ensure the long-term success of the CLEAR program. These decisions will be screened
through the set of questions noted in Annex C.
Annex A - Performance Indicators and Targets
Results Indicators Targets
Highest-Level Outcomes to
which CLEAR Contributes
Stakeholders use evidence in
making decisions for
improved development results
1. Strategic clients (those who are important for
influencing changes in M&E systems) report they
are using evidence for decisionmaking
1. By 2018, 70% of strategic clients and stakeholders
surveyed report increased use of evidence in
decision making
Higher-Level Outcomes to
which CLEAR Contributes
Strengthened context-specific
M&E systems and practices
1. Strategic clients report that CLEAR regional
Centers have contributed to the strengthening of
M&E systems
2. Strategic clients report that they apply what they
have learned from CLEAR.
1. By 2018, an external evaluation commissioned by
the Board indicates that Centers have contributed to
strengthening of M&E systems.
2. By 2018, an external evaluation commissioned by
the Board indicates that at least 70% of CLEAR
clients are using the knowledge, skills, or
information they gained to raise evaluation practice
CLEAR’S Outcomes
Regional Approach
 Enhanced enabling
environment and
strengthened demand
 Strengthened
organizational capacity to
produce and use evidence
 Critical mass of
professional expertise
 Innovation in M&E
1. Centers' range of capacity development increases
from baseline to encompass different objectives,
modalities, and M&E methodologies to address
M&E capacity at different levels
2. Centers work with strategic clients and
stakeholders for their region
3. Centers provide services in countries throughout
their region
4. Centers lead M&E innovation within their
regions
5. Clients indicate that the Centers’ services and
1. By their 3rd year, Centers demonstrate in their
annual work plan the capacity to offer capacity
building through a variety of modalities aimed at
different capacity objectives (increase from
baseline)
2. By their 3rd year, Centers demonstrate in their work
plans the capacity to address a range of M&E topics
and methodologies (increase from baseline)
3. By their 3rd year, at least 50% of Center projects
engage clients from outside of the Center’s home
country.
4. By their 3rd year, at least 80% of service clients
score the quality of service as a 4 or higher (on a 5
point scale).
5. By 2018, an external evaluation indicates that the
Results Indicators Targets
activities are of high quality Centers are functioning well with respect to their
strategic plans and objectives
CLEAR Program-Level
Outputs
Regional Centers Established
and Functional
1. Centers established in host institutions
2. Centers functioning well against their plans
1. By 2012, five Centers selected and operational
2. By 2018, an external evaluation indicates that the
Centers are functioning well with respect to their
strategic plans and objectives
3. By 2018, Centers’ % of revenue-generating
activities and programs increase from baseline
(targets will vary Center to Center)
Outcomes of Global
Learning
 CLEAR global knowledge
 Peer-learning through the
network
1. CLEAR is recognized for excellence and
innovation in supporting regional Centers
2. CLEAR Centers and their constituents participate
the CLEAR global programs and peer-learning
events
3. CLEAR develops high-quality global knowledge
products and capacity development approaches
1. By 2018, Center directors and staff report that they
have been able to apply knowledge gained from
other regional Centers through the CLEAR
initiative
2. By 2018, the regional Centers elect to continuing
sharing knowledge and expertise through a global
network
3. By 2018, a survey of strategic clients and
stakeholders indicate that at least 80% recognize the
CLEAR global brand as a source of excellence and
innovation in M&E
14
Annex B - Overview of Work Program
Key Tasks, Milestones, and Deliverables Period/Completion Date Deliverables/Targets
REGIONAL APPROACH
Regional Centers Selected 2010- 2012 Five Centers Selected
Regional Centers Operational 2011-2018 Annual Work Plans, Annual Reviews, Strategy Updates
GLOBAL LEARNING
Global knowledge and capacity
2011-2018 One international knowledge product/capacity building
approach developed, per year
2011-2018
Global program mentoring for implementing
knowledge/capacity approaches, on demand and based on
Centers’ work programs
Peer Learning 2011-2018 Annual global forum once per year, designed in collaboration
with the sponsoring Center.
Network Support 2011-2018
Quality assurance guidelines, by end 2013
Operational manual, by end 2013
Network development activities – ongoing
Website, dissemination, & communications– ongoing
GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Board Meetings 2010-2018 Twice/year
Secretariat Work Program
Approval of Work Programs
Reporting
2010-2018
2011-2018
2010-2018
Annual
Annual
Quarterly; Annual reports
Monitoring 2010-2018 Quarterly; Twice-yearly on-site
Evaluation 2013; 2018 Mid-term by 2013 and Final by 2018
Annex C – Guiding Questions for Making Strategic
Decisions
Guiding questions for when opportunities and problems arise and the Board must make strategic
decisions.
Problem/Opportunity:
a. If an opportunity, what is it?
b. If an opportunity, would taking advantage of the opportunity be consistent with the vision and
mission of the program?
c. If a problem, what is the problem (i.e., what results would we like to be achieving but are
currently unable to achieve)?
d. If a problem, what evidence is there that the problem exists?
Solution/Response:
e. Does the solution/response proposed support the vision and mission of the program?
f. Is it the optimal way to solve the problem or respond to the opportunity?
g. Will the solution/response materially change the way in which the program is implemented?
h. Will the change result in improvements?
i. What is the capacity (and associated funding) required for developing and implementing the
solution/response?
j. Is the solution/response worth the cost?
k. What are some alternatives?
l. What is the cost of the alternatives?
m. How will know that the solution/response has been effective?
Date
Topic Tag
Regional Center Tag
Resource Type Tag
Language Type Tag
Image Thumb
s