35

Creating Program
Logic Models
T
his chapter identifies the basic elements of a program logic model.
Generally, these models have enough detail to support design, planning,
management, or evaluation. This chapter describes a program logic model
example and the action steps to create a model with a small group.
Learner Objectives
Describe the relationship between theory of change and program logic
models
Identify basic elements for a program logic model
Create a simple model
Recognize limitations of display
From Theory of Change to Program Models
Theory of change logic models are literally the foundation for program logic
models. When well developed, they can ensure intellectual rigor for program logic
models. Figure 3.1 illustrates the relationship of a theory of change model (com-
posed of strategies and results) to the primary elements of a program logic model.
Strategies reflect the resources, activities, and outputs needed to achieve results.
Results reflect the sequence of outcomes over time through impact. Outcomes (for
individuals) are generally progress in changes in awareness, knowledge, skill, or
behavior among targeted audiences. There are also outcomes for organizations and
systems. Although a plausible and evidence-based connection can be established,
CHAPTER 3
impact is often well beyond the scope (or feasibility) for the program being mod-
eled. Together, outcomes, which are closer to the effort, of multiple strategies plus
impact (further away) make up results. While program logic models are often built
on a theory of change, it is also possible to infer a theory of change from a program
logic model.
Assumptions Matter
It is important to be aware that specific assumptions are not illustrated in Figure 3.1.
Recall that assumptions are informed by beliefs and knowledge. Too often, program
models are built without the benefit of explicitly naming the assumptions and
underlying theory of change. This omission can help explain why tremendous con-
flict, even chaos can erupt during program development, planning, implementa-
tion, or assessment. In the absence of explicitly named assumptions, either a clear
theory of change does not exist or people hold multiple and conflicting variations
that reflect their deeply held views about what should/could work and why. This
can lead to diffuse or dilute programs that lack the focus and intensity needed to
produce intended results. Because of these implications, omitting this foundation
for your idea, program, or social change effort undermines its potential for success.
As noted previously, conceptualization and learning styles differ from person to
person. Organizational culture can also affect how design, planning, monitoring,
and measuring occur. Given these practical issues, we strongly suggest that both
theory of change and program logic models are eventually created to form the foun-
dation of shared meaning for all aspects of the program. The sequence in which they
are developed certainly should and will reflect the stakeholders preferences.
Key Elements of Program Logic Models
Program logic models display what an existing idea, new program, or focused
change effort might contain from start to finish. The elements in a program logic
36 PART I CONSTRUCTION
Do Get
Outputs Resources Activities Impact
Short-term
Outcomes
Long-term
Outcomes
Intermediate-
term
Outcomes
Strategies Results
Figure 3.1 Relationship of Program and Theory of Change Models
model consist of the recipe for a bounded investment of financial and social capi-
tal for a specified result. The level of detail increases so that the relationships shown
by the model illustrate essential linkages needed to make a plan fully operational for
each of the strategy strands identified in the theory of change. The primary
elements for each strand of a program logic model include resources, activities,
outputs, outcomes, and impact. Figure 3.2 is a template of the elements for most
program logic models.
These program logic model elements are defined as follows:
Resources are essential for activities to occur. They can include human, financial,
organizational, community, or systems resources in any combination. They are
used to accomplish named activities. Sometimes resources are called inputs.
Activities are the specific actions that make up the program. They reflect tools,
processes, events, technology, and other devices that are intentional in the program.
Activities are synonymous with interventions deployed to secure the desired
changes or results.
Outputs are what specific activities will produce or create. They can include
descriptions of types, levels, and audiences or targets delivered by the program.
Outputs are often quantified and qualified in some way. They simply characterize
the application of activities with selected audiences.
Outcomes are about changes, often in program participants or organizations, as
a result of the program. They often include specific changes in awareness, knowl-
edge, skill, and behavior. Outcomes are dependent on preceding resources, activi-
ties, and outputs. Sometimes outcomes are parsed by time increments into short,
intermediate, and long term. Time spans for outcomes are relative and should be
specified for the idea or project described. However, short term is often 1 through
3 years, intermediate-term outcomes 4 through 6 years. Long-term outcomes might
be achieved in 7 through 10 years. The intervals specified for any given model
would depend on the size and scope of the effort.
For example, a small-scale project such as an adult education typing class in
one location might produce knowledge and skill outcomes in 6 weeks, where
behavior changes such as use or changes in employment might take somewhat
longer. Alternatively, a program targeting changes in global water quality might
specify changes in the awareness and knowledge of international policymakers
within 1 to 3 years; actual environmental improvements might not occur within
decades. Typically, dividing the project duration into thirds works pretty well as a
starting point. Relying on a literature or other evidence base can help inform
what is feasible.
Being clear about timing and expected results is important. The time span for
outcomes is project specific. Time is one of several important considerations. The
Creating Program Logic Models 37
Outputs Resources Activities Impact
Short-term
Outcomes
Long-term
Outcomes
Intermediate-
term
Outcomes
Figure 3.2 A Basic Program Logic Model
logical sequencing of any given outcome chain matters too. Think about what will
happen first, then what is likely to happen next. Also keep in mind that the sequence
may or may not be lockstep. Under some conditions, there may be different points
of entry into a sequence. The important thing is to explore the interconnections
and dependencies that do exist among the outcomes and impact you specify.
Impact is the ultimate intended change in an organization, community, or other
system. It carries an implication about time. It varies in its relative timing to the
actual program or change effort. Sometimes impact occurs at the end of the
program, but more frequently, the impact sought is much more distant. For some
efforts, this may mean impact can be cited in 7 through 10 years or more. This can
have important implications as it is well beyond the funding cycle for many typical
grant-funded programs or the patience of many managers or politicians. The logic
model is one way to show how the work you can do within these constraints may
contribute to a larger, grander impact.
The planned work of a program logic model includes resources, activities, and
outputs. These are the essential elements that are used to secure results or make
change happen. The intended results include what the program produces: out-
comes and impact.
Nonlinear Program Logic Models
Just as in theory of change models, very few ideas, programs, or projects actually
occur in a linear progression. Purposely, to aid learning, we simplified the display
of elements as a straight sequence. Reality suggests cycles, iterations (additional
attempts), and interactions are very common. This more organic development is
shown in Figure 3.3.
In this circular display, there is no specific starting point. Although the logic
model elements are constant, the work of design, planning, managing, or evaluat-
ing might begin with any element. In addition, this view shows how cycles of the
same activity might occur over time. Keep in mind, the illustration groups activi-
ties together. A more detailed view could be staggering to portray. Sometimes,
capturing reality in a display impedes communication.
Hidden Assumptions and Dose
A program logic model displays the elements that are most critical to establish-
ing and operating a program or social change effort. It specifies the activities and
their often interdependent relationship as well as what they are expected to gener-
ate. Program logic models do not necessarily include assumptions, but they rely on
them. They offer a view of the map that can inform action planning and, later,
implementation. Program logic models can also define the dose (e.g., number,
type, and duration of activities), quantify and describe the effects and benefits of
the program for a given dose and the ultimate change expected. Dose is an important
concept in effectiveness. A dilute dose can have the same impact as none at all. For
example, if your intended result is a large voter turnout in an election, a classified ad
38 PART I CONSTRUCTION
is not an adequate communication strategy. A comprehensive media plan coupled
with free transportation to the voting booths has greater chances of success. So, it
is important to design a program with enough of the right activities to secure the
outcome you intend.
Building a Program Logic Model
Program Logic Model Example
An example of a simple program logic model for securing improved health is
displayed in Figure 3.4. Read from left to right, this program model suggests that if
we recruit and retain participants and provide exercise, nutrition, and stress reduc-
tion, then we will secure improved health. Note the development of detail connecting
strategies to results in this model compared to the theory of change (see Figure 2.3).
The program logic model provides detail for the theory of change by explicating the
elements from a basic logic model for each strategy strand. In a program model, the
details relative to resources, activities, and other elements are named.
Creating Program Logic Models 39
Intermediate
-term
Outcomes
Short-term
Outcomes
Activities
Outputs Resources
Impact
Activities
Outputs Resources
Impact
Short-term
Outcomes
Short-term
Outcomes
Activities
Outputs Resources
Impact
Short-term
Outcomes
Short-term
Outcomes
Short-term
Outcomes
Intermediate
-term
Outcomes
Intermediate
-term
Outcomes
Figure 3.3 Nonlinear Logic Model
40
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
H
e
a
l
t
h
D
o
G
e
t
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
O
u
t
p
u
t
s
S
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
L
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
I
m
p
a
c
t
N
u
t
r
i
t
i
o
n
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
F
u
n
d
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
F
a
c
u
l
t
y
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
-
t
e
r
m
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
R
e
p
e
a
t
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
M
o
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
E
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
C
o
a
c
h
e
s
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
W
i
l
l
i
n
g
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
u
i
t
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
C
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
a
a
n
d
S
t
a
f
f
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
D
a
t
a
M
e
s
s
a
g
e
s
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
a
C
o
a
c
h
i
n
g
T
o
o
l
s
a
n
d
L
o
g
s
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
R
e
l
a
x
a
t
i
o
n
F
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
F
a
t
/
C
a
l
o
r
i
e
s
N
u
t
r
i
e
n
t
s
E
n
d
u
r
a
n
c
e
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
A
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
S
k
i
l
l
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
.
4
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
H
e
a
l
t
h
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
L
o
g
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
Although still an overview and incomplete, this illustration provides a more
detailed view of what this health improvement program wants to do, plans to mea-
sure, and hopes to achieve. Beginning on the left with resources, this model
includes funds, facility, faculty, coaches, as well as eligible and willing participants
among its requisite inputs. To keep it simple, the strategies contain implied clusters
of activities in this illustration. The specific activities that contribute to outputs are
not named. Outputs from the intervention strategies and associated activities (exer-
cise, nutrition, stress reduction) could be numerous. For this illustration, we show
only the overarching categories of information that could be considered. Each cat-
egory would be repeated for each of the strands. These would include details about
the scope, sequence, and quality of the curriculum; staffing qualifications; and
information about participants and their participation. Activities inside these
strategy strands contribute to changes in knowledge, skill, and adherence.
Eventually, they can contribute to increases in strength, endurance, nutrients, flex-
ibility, and relaxation. Concurrently, over time, these same strategies also yield
reduced fat/calories. The retention and recruitment strategy strand also generates
some outputs and outcomes. Aggregated, activities within this strategy secure and
keep participants in the program. Note that this model uses arrows to show rela-
tionships. Sometimes they reflect a cluster (indicating synergies) rather than just
one:one relationships.
As is typical of many programs, several strategies may be shown as contributing
collectively to outcomes, rather than each strategy making its individual contribu-
tion to distinct outcomes in isolation. Collectively, the long-term outcomes gener-
ate improved health, which could be measured in a variety of ways (e.g., blood
pressure, blood lipid and sugar profiles, weight).
In contrast to the big picture view that theory of change models offer, program
logic models provide a closer, more detailed picture of operations. This view of the
program provides adequate detail to then create work plans. Program models can
provide a reliable outline for work plans that are used to implement and manage a
program or larger change effort. Just like theory of change models, program mod-
els are often logicalbut here, feasibility, given limited time and resources, is the
appropriate standard for assessing their value. A common question about program
logic models focuses on their level of detail. Essentially, the level of detail in
program logic models should be determined by their intended use and users.
Although somewhat situational, program logic models build out strategies to activ-
ities. Sometimes they can even get to the fine detail of tasks, although more often
that is described in an operations or action plan.
From Strategy to Activities
Some program logic models can be extremely complex, but the steps to create
them are generally the same as for more simple efforts (see Figure 3.2). Large-scale
programs or multi-year change efforts (sometimes called initiatives) often are
composed of many strategies aimed at target audiences across many sites over con-
siderable time.
Creating Program Logic Models 41
Program logic models usually do not display underlying beliefs or assumptions.
They are nevertheless important elements in the conscious exploration of multiple
target audiences. Sometimes programs or change efforts are implemented in a cas-
cade with some overlap in time, which requires a particular sequence of strategies
and associated activities. When this is the circumstance, it can be helpful to focus
on a function, a given strategy, or one partners designated work. The task is often
simplified by thinking about a single aspect and then connecting it back to the
whole with some of the inherent complexity reduced. Ultimately, program execu-
tion relies on integrated actionbut the work that precedes it may require focused
developmental attention on smaller parts.
Using the health improvement program example, Figure 3.5 provides an orien-
tation to how the exercise strategy strand might be reduced to activities. It breaks
the strategy into greater detail for the purposes of selection and design.
In Figure 3.5, it becomes evident that exercise as a strategy is made up of
several key activities. They include physical exercise (strength and endurance),
education, and assessment. Together, all of these activities represent a compre-
hensive strategy, exercise, that is just one means to improved health. Recall that
the whole theory of change for this example also includes stress reduction, nutri-
tion, and retention. It is the combination of strategies reflected in the whole
program that is most likely to secure results. Each strand of a comprehensive
program logic model needs to illustrate the contribution of each strategy as well
as the interdependence.
As you specify the activities content of your strategy you are naming more precisely
what makes up the given strategy. Later, the whole model is tested for feasibilityboth
practically before implementation and literally when the program is evaluated.
In Figure 3.6, we provide a view with greater detail for only the exercise strategy.
42 PART I CONSTRUCTION
Results
Do Get
Strength
Activities
Endurance
Activities
Exercise
Education
Fitness
Assessment
Exercise Strategy
Figure 3.5 One Strategy With Multiple Activities
43
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
S
k
i
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
D
a
t
a
a
n
d
E
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
L
o
g
s
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
A
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
E
n
d
u
r
a
n
c
e
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
E
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
1
6
-
w
e
e
k
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
f
i
n
a
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
k
i
l
l
w
i
t
h
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
S
k
i
l
l
w
i
t
h
e
n
d
u
r
a
n
c
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
(
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
/
w
e
e
k
)
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
e
x
e
r
t
i
o
n
/
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
T
i
m
e
(
l
e
n
g
t
h
/
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
#
a
n
d
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
d
a
t
a
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
l
o
g
s
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
n
j
o
y
m
e
n
t
L
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
I
m
p
a
c
t
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
-
t
e
r
m
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
O
u
t
p
u
t
s
S
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
H
e
a
l
t
h
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
p
r
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
f
i
t
n
e
s
s
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
F
a
c
u
l
t
y
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
W
i
l
l
i
n
g
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
C
o
a
c
h
e
s
F
u
n
d
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
.
6
E
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
D
e
t
a
i
l
In this illustration, we show the detail of activities within the exercise strategy. It
also suggests the many decisions hidden in program design and planning. In choos-
ing activities, it is critical that the relationship among strategies and activities is
intentional. The strategies and the cluster of appropriate activities should also be
chosen with reference to a target audience. Remember, logic models use ifthen
sequences from left to right in the columns and among the features as you read
from left to right.
Action Steps for a Program Logic Model
The practical construction of a program logic model often begins with one or
more information sources (e.g., research, interviews, documents). We recommend
that people begin both theory of change and program logic models with the named
ends. People are most clear about their intended results (outcomes and impact).
Our experience is that you do know what you want to accomplish. The results
sought reflect both the impact intended and the outcomes over time. Next, name
the changes or outcomes that will be part of your progress toward impact.
Unpacking this sequence is important because it makes it easier to see the strength
of the connection between what you do and what you can get. We suggest tackling
the activities required to achieve the outcomes you have specified in your third step.
Activities are about how intended changes will occur. Fourth, resources/inputs
become the essential ingredients of activities. And finally, outputs reflect the infor-
mation needed to verify that activities named earlier in the process reach the right
audiences and are of the quality and quantity needed to produce results. So, the
steps to draft a program logic model are ordered in this way:
1. Identify the results that one or more strategies will ultimately generate.
2. Describe the stepwise series of outcomes (or changes) that will show progress
toward impact.
3. Name all the activities needed to generate the outcomes (for each strategy).
4. Define the resources/inputs that link directly to and will supply the activities.
5. Identify the outputs that reflect the accomplishment of activities.
Figure 3.7 illustrates these action steps and their sequence.
Creating Your Program Logic Model
The format of a logic model format helps organize information in a useful way.
Think of an idea, project, or program you manage now or want to create and its
results. For each strategy, brainstorm elements that might be cited in short-term
outcomes first but are clearly linked to your intended results. Do the same for
resources, activities, and outputs. It is important to make choices about the out-
comes that are feasible with your limited resources. This is discussed in greater
detail in the next chapter.
44 PART I CONSTRUCTION
With some experience, you will begin to recognize commonly used strategies
that reflect knowledge from your field or discipline. For example, marketing/
communication, recruitment, retention, professional development or education,
advocacy, and policy are strategies often found in program models. Examples
of activities under a marketing/communication strategy could include prepare
database of target markets, generate news releases, create and send a newsletter,
generate a Web site, and prepare public service announcements. We suggest you
tackle one strategy at a time. Aim to define the same level of detail for each strategy.
Selected examples of archetypes, or tested recipes, are described in Chapter 7.
Creating a Program Logic Model Together
We think the best method for generating a program logic model engages a small
group, especially if the members are stakeholders in the idea or program it repre-
sents. Stakeholders are situational, but generally are those with an interest in or
people likely to benefit from the program. Logic modeling often includes funders,
program staff, and program participants. Intentionally including stakeholders
supports best contributions as well as some subsequent benefits relative to imple-
mentation. The facilitation of modeling requires some advance planning and a
commitment to both discipline and quality during the process. A determination
about the status of a shared understanding and meaning for specified results gets
your effort started. It is important to note that models may need to be updated to
respond to the dynamics of an external environment (context). They also reflect
living systems that are not mechanistic but changing. For these two reasons (and
others), it is necessary to expect models will be revised. With limits on time,
impact and outcomes can be identified and selected. This can be accomplished a
number of ways.
We have had success in using the action steps noted, particularly when each
participant contributed to the model elements via small sticky notes. This quickly
Creating Program Logic Models 45
Do Get
Outputs
Step 5
Step 2
Step 1
Step 4
Step 3
Resources Activities Impact
Short-term
Outcomes
Long-term
Outcomes
Intermediate-
term
Outcomes
Strategies Results
Figure 3.7 Steps in Creating a Program Logic Model
generates a large number of possibilities for each element. Redundancies should be
noted and celebrated as commonly held. Then, the group can sort them: those that
must be kept, that could be kept, and those that are not relevant. Once the results are
named, then it is relatively easy to specify the other elements. In this disciplined
process each stakeholder contributes to the whole and each contribution has the
benefit of an internal test relative to design.
We often use Microsoft Visio to construct our models, but many other applica-
tions such as Word and PowerPoint have drawing options. These as well as
Inspiration software are all readily available. The Supplemental Readings list at the
end of the chapter identifies some examples of other free and commercial software
applications. Take care in using technology for model creation because it can
exclude valuable participation.
In Summary
High-quality program logic models depend on the evidence base found in their
parallel but simpler theory of change models. Program logic models display several
important elements: resources; activities; outputs; short-, intermediate-, and long-
term outcomes; and impact. To create a program logic model start with the
intended results: outcomes and impact. Then, activities (which are consistent with
strategies in the theory of change model) are selected. Next, resources and outputs
are cited. We believe creating models with deep participation of stakeholders
improves their quality and encourages their use.
Lear ni ng Resources
Reflection
1. What are the implications of a program logic model built without a specific
theory of change?
2. Think of a successful business and its product or service. What is the under-
lying program logic that shows the explanations for profitability?
3. Feasibility relies on several aspects. Can you name some?
4. What are strengths and limitations of a linear or a nonlinear display? Would
individuals from different fields (and their relevant cultures) answer simi-
larly or differently? Why?
5. Why is being specific about results important?
46 PART I CONSTRUCTION
Application
Specify the result of a shared program, project, or idea. Draw a theory of change
model for the program, project, or idea. Then, attempt a program logic model.
Using sticky notes or pieces of paper, brainstorm the outcomes that need to happen
to secure the result. Organize them into short, intermediate, and long term. Pick
one short-term outcome. Brainstorm what activities are critical to that outcome.
Organize the activities relative to a single or multiple strategies. For given strategies
and their activities, name the resources needed. From the activities, cite what out-
puts are possible. Organize these elements as one model.
References and Supplemental Readings
Texts
Frechtling, J. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Green, E. L. (2005). Reinventing logic models: A stakeholder-driven group approach.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, OH.
Mayeske, G. W. (1994). Life cycle program management and evaluation: An heuristic approach.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.
United Way of America. (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., & Patton, M. Q. (2007). Getting to maybe: How the world is
changed. Toronto: Vintage Canada.
Wong-Rieger, D., & David, L. (1996). A hands-on guide to planning and evaluation. Ottawa:
Canadian Hemophilia Society.
Journal Articles
Cooksy, L. J., Gill, P., & Kelly, P. A. (2001). The program logic model as an integrative frame-
work for a multimethod evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24(2), 119128.
McLaughlin, J. A. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your programs performance story.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 6572.
Millar, A., Simeone, R. S., & Carnevale, J. T. (2001). Logic models: A systems tool for perfor-
mance management. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24(1), 7381.
Rush, B., & Ogborne, A. (1991). Program logic models: Expanding their role and structures for
program planning and evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 6, 95106.
Internet Resources
For comprehensive bibliographies and links to additional resources, see:
Logic model resources. (n.d.). Atlanta, GA: The Evaluation Working Group of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from http://www.cdc
.gov/eval/resources.htm#logic%20model
Creating Program Logic Models 47
Jung, B. C. (2007). Evaluation resources on the Internet. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from
http://www.bettycjung.net/Evaluation.htm
For logic model development toolkits, see:
Enhancing program performance with logic models. (n.d.). Madison: University of Wisconsin
Cooperative Extension Service. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from http://www.uwex.edu/
ces/lmcourse/
Graig, E. (n.d.). Logic models: A tutorial. Useable Knowledge, LLC. Retrieved October 25, 2007,
from http://www.usablellc.net/Logic%20Model%20(Online)/Presentation_Files/index
.html
Point K: Practical tools for planning, evaluation and actionLogic model builder. (n.d.).
Washington, DC: Innovation Network. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from
http://www.innonet.org/index.php?section_id=64&content_id=185
Community toolbox: Developing a theory of change or logic model. (n.d.). Lawrence: University
of Kansas. Retrieved October 2007, from http://ctb.ku.edu/tools/en/section_1877.htm
For logic model development software, see:
Logic model. (n.d.). Toronto: Performancesoft, Inc. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from
http://www.performancesoft.com/solutions/logic-model/software.asp?Solution=plm
Outcome tracking software and outcomes-based applications. (n.d.). Durham, NC: Results
Technologies Solutions, Inc. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from http://resultstechnologies
.net/resources/primary_attributes.php
48 PART I CONSTRUCTION