Logic model

A logic model (also known as a logical framework, theory of change, or program matrix) is a tool used by funders, managers, and evaluators of programs to evaluate the effectiveness of a program. They can also be used during planning and implementation.[1] Logic models are usually a graphical depiction of the logical relationships between the resources, activities, outputs and outcomes of a program.[2] While there are many ways in which logic models can be presented, the underlying purpose of constructing a logic model is to assess the "if-then" (causal) relationships between the elements of the program.

Versions

In its simplest form, a logic model has four components:[3]

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes/impacts
what resources go into a program what activities the program undertakes what is produced through those activities the changes or benefits that result from the program
e.g. money, staff, equipment e.g. development of materials, training programs e.g. number of booklets produced, workshops held, people trained e.g. increased skills/ knowledge/ confidence, leading in longer-term to promotion, new job, etc.

Following the early development of the logic model in the 1970s by Carol Weiss, Joseph Wholey and others, many refinements and variations have been added to the basic concept. Many versions of logic models set out a series of outcomes/impacts, explaining in more detail the logic of how an intervention contributes to intended or observed results.[4] This will often include distinguishing between short-term, medium-term and long-term results, and between direct and indirect results.

Some logic models also include assumptions, which are beliefs the prospective grantees have about the program, the people involved, and the context and the way the prospective grantees think the program will work, and external factors, consisting of the environment in which the program exists, including a variety of external factors that interact with and influence the program action.

University Cooperative Extension Programs in the US have developed a more elaborate logic model, called the Program Action Logic Model, which includes six steps:

In front of Inputs, there is a description of a Situation and Priorities. These are the considerations that determine what Inputs will be needed.

The University of Wisconsin Extension offers a series of guidance documents[5] on the use of logic models. There is also an extensive bibliography[6] of work on this program logic model.

Advantages

By describing work in this way, managers have an easier way to define the work and measure it. Performance measures can be drawn from any of the steps. One of the key insights of the logic model is the importance of measuring final outcomes or results, because it is quite possible to waste time and money (inputs), "spin the wheels" on work activities, or produce outputs without achieving desired outcomes. It is these outcomes (impacts, long-term results) that are the only justification for doing the work in the first place. For commercial organizations, outcomes relate to profit. For not-for-profit or governmental organizations, outcomes relate to successful achievement of mission or program goals.

Uses of the logic model

Program planning

One of the most important uses of the logic model is for program planning. Here it helps managers to 'plan with the end in mind' Stephen Covey, rather than just consider inputs (e.g. budgets, employees) or just the tasks that must be done. In the past, program logic has been justified by explaining the process from the perspective of an insider. Paul McCawley (no date) outlines how this process was approached:

  1. We invest this time/money so that we can generate this activity/product.
  2. The activity/product is needed so people will learn how to do this.
  3. People need to learn that so they can apply their knowledge to this practice.
  4. When that practice is applied, the effect will be to change this condition
  5. When that condition changes, we will no longer be in this situation.

While logic models have been used in this way successfully, Millar et al. (1999) has suggested that following the above sequence, from the inputs through to the outcomes, could limit one’s thinking to the existing activities, programs and research questions. Instead, by using the logic model to focus on the intended outcomes of a particular program the questions change from ‘what is being done?’ to’ what needs to be done?’ McCawley (no date) suggests that by using this new reasoning, a logic model for a program can be built by asking the following questions in sequence:

  1. What is the current situation that we intend to impact?
  2. What will it look like when we achieve the desired situation or outcome?
  3. What behaviors need to change for that outcome to be achieved?
  4. What knowledge or skills do people need before the behavior will change?
  5. What activities need to be performed to cause the necessary learning?
  6. What resources will be required to achieve the desired outcome?

By placing the focus on ultimate outcomes or results, planners can think backwards through the logic model to identify how best to achieve the desired results. Planners therefore need to understand the difference between the categories of the logic model.

Performance evaluation

The logic model is often used in government or not-for-profit organizations, where the mission and vision are not aimed at achieving a financial benefit. In such situations, where profit is not the intended result, it may be difficult to monitor progress toward outcomes. A program logic model provides such indicators, in terms of output and outcome measures of performance. It is therefore important in these organizations to carefully specify the desired results, and consider how to monitor them over time. Often, such as in education or social programs, the outcomes are long-term and mission success is far in the future. In these cases, intermediate or shorter-term outcomes may be identified that provide an indication of progress toward the ultimate long-term outcome.

Traditionally, government programs were described only in terms of their budgets. It is easy to measure the amount of money spent on a program, but this is a poor indicator of mission success. Likewise it is relatively easy to measure the amount of work done (e.g. number of workers or number of years spent), but the workers may have just been 'spinning their wheels' without getting very far in terms of ultimate results or outcomes. The production of outputs is a better indicator that something was delivered to customers, but it is still possible that the output did not really meet the customer's needs, was not used, etc. Therefore, the focus on results or outcomes has become a mantra in government and not-for-profit programs.

The President's Management Agenda[7] is an example of the increasing emphasis on results in government management. It states:

"Government likes to begin things — to declare grand new programs and causes. But good beginnings are not the measure of success. What matters in the end is completion. Performance. Results."[8]

However, although outcomes are used as the primary indicators of program success or failure they are still insufficient. Outcomes may easily be achieved through processes independent of the program and an evaluation of those outcomes would suggest program success when in fact external outputs were responsible for the outcomes (Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman, 2004). In this respect, Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman (2004) suggest that a typical evaluation study should concern itself with measuring how the process indicators (inputs and outputs) have had an effect on the outcome indicators. A program logic model would need to be assessed or designed in order for an evaluation of these standards to be possible. The logic model can and, indeed, should be used in both formative (during the implementation to offer the chance to improve the program) and summative (after the completion of the program) evaluations.

The logic model and other management frameworks

There are numerous other popular management frameworks that have been developed in recent decades. This often causes confusion, because the various frameworks have different functions. It is important to select the right tool for the job. The following list of popular management tools is suggested to indicate where they are most appropriate (this list is by no means complete).

Organizational assessment tools

Fact-gathering tools for a comprehensive view of the as-is situation in an organization, but without prescribing how to change it:

Strategic planning tools

For identifying and prioritizing major long-term desired results in an organization, and strategies to achieve those results:

Program planning and evaluation tools

For developing details of individual programs (what to do and what to measure) once overall strategies have been defined:

Performance measurement tools

For measuring, monitoring and reporting the quality, efficiency, speed, cost and other aspects of projects, programs and/or processes:

Process improvement tools

For monitoring and improving the quality or efficiency of work processes:

Process standardization tools

For maintaining and documenting processes or resources to keep them repeatable and stable:

Notes

  1. ↑ Innovation Network. "Logic model workbook" (PDF). Retrieved 28 August 2012.
  2. ↑ McCawley, Paul. "The logic model for program planning and evaluation" (PDF). University of Idaho.
  3. ↑ W. K. Kellogg Foundation (2001). W. K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide.
  4. ↑ Weiss, C.H. (1972). Evaluation Research. Methods for Assessing Program Effectiveness. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
  5. ↑ guidance documents
  6. ↑ bibliography
  7. ↑ President's Management Agenda (2002)
  8. ↑ Results.gov: President's Management Agenda
  9. ↑ http://www.evaluationsupportscotland.org.uk/article.asp?id=9&node=gettingstarted
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Logic model.

General References


Other resources

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 4/24/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.