Learning From Logic Models
Learning From Logic Models
Article Information
Full Text (HTML)
How to cite
Download Acrobat
Related Resources
Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Inquiry
This brief offers a step-by-step approach for developing and using a logic model as a framework for a program or
organization’s evaluation. Its purpose is to provide a tool to guide evaluation processes and to facilitate practitioner
and evaluator partnerships. The brief is written primarily for program practitioners, but is also relevant and easily
These short reports are designed to frame and contribute to the public debate on evaluation, accountability, and
organizational learning.
A logic model provides the basic framework for an evaluation. It is a graphic that describes a program or organization
in evaluation terms. It illustrates a program’s theory of change, showing how day-to-day activities connect to the
results or outcomes the program is trying to achieve. Similar to a flowchart, it lays out program activities and
outcomes using boxes, and, using arrows to connect the boxes, shows how the activities and outcomes connect with
one another.
Developing a logic model should be one of the first steps in an evaluation. Once the model is completed, the
evaluation can be designed to determine whether the program is working as shown in the logic model. The logic
model can also become a tool for learning when evaluation data are applied directly to the model.
A logic model can be created by anyone with knowledge of the program or organization that is to be evaluated. It is
helpful for program personnel and evaluators to work together to create a logic model because program personnel
can offer the expertise needed to describe the program and its intended results accurately, and evaluators can help
The advantages in graphically displaying a program’s activities and outcomes using a logic model as opposed to
simply defining and listing them are at least threefold. First and foremost, there is power in visual representation.
Visual displays or graphics are proven and effective learning instruments. Second, a logic model ensures that a
program’s process is not overlooked in an evaluation. The model makes the evaluator accountable for looking at both
program process and outcomes. Third, a logic model can enhance the process of learning through evaluation. As
data are collected, the logic model can be used to put the data in perspective, examine the theory that underlies the
This brief offers a step-by-step approach for developing and using a logic model as a framework for a program or
organization’s evaluation. Its purpose is to provide a tool to guide evaluation processes and to facilitate practitioner
and evaluator partnerships. The brief is written primarily for program practitioners, but is also relevant and easily
The example of a hypothetical program, the Family Involvement Project (FIP), is used throughout the text to provide a
realistic context for and help clarify each of the steps described. In addition, a completed logic model for the program
Before you begin the brief, examine the full FIP logic model below carefully. Note whether the model adds to your
understanding of the program and whether it helps you to understand how the program’s process connects to the
outcomes. This logic model example should not only give you an idea of what a completed model looks like, but it
should also illustrate the value in using the logic model format.
Schools and community-based organizations are implementing family involvement programs throughout the country.
Sponsors of these programs, as well as the implementing organizations themselves, share an interest in
understanding and learning from the outcomes of these efforts so they can identify the most effective approaches or
program designs. Implementing organizations are especially interested in seeking ways to improve their program
strategies or activities so they can increase the likelihood of achieving their desired outcomes.
The Family Involvement Project (FIP) is a national organization that has a vision of improving outcomes for children
by increasing family member (with a primary focus on parents) involvement in their children’s education. To achieve
this, FIP recruits and trains parent leaders in communities using a series of workshops. The workshops teach parent
leaders how to get involved in their children’s education and also how to train other parents in their community to get
involved. FIP then supports ongoing training in communities by providing parent leaders with technical assistance on
training and disseminating materials on family involvement to all parents who go through the workshops.
FIP also works within communities to build a system of family involvement and training that is sustainable over time.
FIP builds relationships with schools to ensure that family involvement is welcomed and supported. In addition, FIP
builds coalitions of organizations locally that are interested in sustaining and building a family involvement agenda
The first step in logic model construction is to determine the appropriate scope for your model. Decide whether your
logic model should focus on a specific component of your work or broadly cover the entire program or organization.
For example, consider the issue that FIP, our hypothetical organization, may be experiencing. Program staff could
find that parent leaders are not recruiting and training as many parents in their communities as they originally
estimated. This could stem from a number of issues, including a problem with the content of FIP’s training for parent
leaders, a problem with their recruitment criteria for parent leaders, or FIP staff’s unrealistic expectations about parent
capacity and availability for recruitment and training. To determine the answer to their question, they can construct a
logic model like the one below that is smaller in scope than the one above and lays out the parent training component
in detail. This model will help them to design a system for collecting data to determine the source of their specific
Working within your chosen scope of work, begin to construct your model’s main components—or the information that
will go in the boxes on your model. This is the most time-intensive part of this process, but, as shown below, this can
be done in stages by starting with basic components and adding more detail later.
Use organizational documents you already have to help you construct your components. Refer to strategic planning
documents, mission statements, grant proposals, work plans, recruitment announcements, marketing/public relations
materials, training materials, or publications. Any document that describes the work you do will be helpful.
Start at a basic level by identifying your model’s core components and their relationships. Starting with the four
components described below—inputs, activities, short-term outcomes, and long-term outcomes—will help you clarify
the overall structure for your model. Their corresponding parts from the FIP logic model serve as examples.
implementation.
Activities: What happens during the implementation of your
program.
Short-term outcomes: The direct result of your program
Choose the order for identifying the components of your model that works the best for you. You can start with your
inputs and move toward your outcomes or vice versa. For example, if you have gone through a process like strategic
planning in which you have already identified your long-term outcomes, you may want to start there and work back
Now that you have defined the model’s basic components, consider adding more detail. If you are already satisfied
that you have captured everything you need, move onto the next step. If you feel you need to add more detail to
explain the program better, consider adding any of the following components to your model. Although these
components are not included on the full FIP model above, the diagram below illustrates what they might be if added.
Outputs: These fall between activities and short-term
desired impact.
Once you have identified the components of your model, the hard part is over. The next step is to take what you have
done and put it in graphic form, putting boxes around the components and attaching arrows to show the relationships
between them.
Consider these criteria about the “look” of your logic model as you develop it: 1
When you have finished a draft of the model, ask others to review it for accuracy and readability. Refine and revise it
until both you and others who have provided feedback are satisfied.
Step 4: Use Your Logic Model as an Evaluation Framework
Now that you have your logic model, you can begin to use it as a framework for your evaluation. Because the focus of
this brief is on logic models and not on evaluation principles and techniques,2 the implementation of these next steps
is described only briefly below. While typically an evaluator will lead the implementation of these steps, this should be
a participatory approach with program personnel providing input to guide the evaluator’s direction.
Develop indicators for your logic model components. Indicators are measures used to determine if the boxes, or
components, in your logic model have been achieved. When applied and interpreted together, they will help you
Develop indicators for each component on the logic model. 3 You will need multiple indicators for each component of
your model in order to understand fully whether the component has or has not been achieved. Multiple indicators will
also strengthen an argument you may need to make later that your program is working as shown in the logic model.
Use process indicators to measure your activities. For example, to look at the activity on the FIP logic model of
Use outcome indicators to measure your short- or long-term outcomes. For example, to measure the FIP long-term
outcome of increasing involvement of parents associated with FIP in their children’s education, the following
indicators can be used:
training
the components on your logic model. These will help you determine if the arrows you drew are accurate and
meaningful. For example, indicators to determine whether increasing parent knowledge on how to become involved in
their children’s education can lead to increased involvement may include the following:
education
Keep in mind that not all indicators are created equal. While you can likely generate a long list of possible indicators
for each component on your logic model, some of them will make more sense for you to track than others. For
example, some will require fewer resources. Or you might be able to use a single indicator for multiple components
on your model.
Is the indicator defined and data collected in the same way over
time?
Are data for the indicator currently being collected or can cost-
methods for tracking them and collecting the information you need. Common data sources include program records,
program participants, community members, or trained observers. Common methods include document/record review,
Remember that you might already be collecting some of the data needed to track your indicators. For example, a
review of FIP program records would likely reveal that staff are already collecting useful data, such as the number of
parents trained by each parent trainer or measures of satisfaction from parents regarding participation in the
trainings.
At regular intervals in your data collection process, apply your indicator data to your logic model. Lay out the data
directly onto the model so you can get a complete picture of whether your program is working as intended. Determine
which parts of the model are working well and which are not. Determine whether you need to make programming
changes or whether your model needs to be revised to portray your program more accurately.
In addition, periodically use your data to revisit and reexamine your overall theory of change. You may find that you
need to modify some of the assumptions on which you based your original model and that, as a result, the model
needs to be revised.
For example, consider again the FIP logic model. As described in Step 1, the program could be experiencing the
problem that parent leaders are not recruiting and training as many family members or other parents in their
communities as they originally estimated. The evaluation may uncover the finding that parent leaders need support in
their outreach efforts beyond the technical assistance that FIP staff members provide. In response to this finding, FIP
staff may feel that they need to add to their activities the development of peer networks in communities. The addition
of this component will change the overall program theory and, therefore, the logic model.
The important point is to use the logic model as a learning tool throughout the evaluation. Do not set it aside once the
model is completed and the evaluation designed. When your data is applied directly to your model, you will find the
data is easier to interpret and the findings easier to apply and use. The goal is to use the logic model as a feedback
and learning tool—with the model initially informing the data and then the data ultimately informing the model.
Additional Resources
Connell, J., & Kubisch, A. (1996). Applying a theories of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive
community initiatives: Progress, prospects and problems. New York: The Aspen Institute, Roundtable on
Milligan, S., Coulton, C., York, P., & Register, R. (1996). Implementing a theories of change evaluation in the
Cleveland Community Building Initiative. Cleveland, OH: Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change.
Evaluation Techniques
United Way of America. (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. Alexandria, VA: Author. [To
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (1998). W. K. Kellogg Foundation evaluation handbook. Battle Creek, MI: Author. [To
order, contact Collateral Management Company, 1255 Hill Brady Road, Battle Creek, MI 49015, 616-964-0700. Ask
1 Adapted from Tufte, E. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
2 For a more in-depth discussion of evaluation techniques see references cited under Additional Resources.
3 For a more in-depth discussion of the types of indicators, see another brief in the Reaching Results series: Horsch,
K. (1997). Indicators: Definition and use in a results-based accountability system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family
Research Project.
4 Horsch, K. (1997). Indicators: Definition and use in a results-based accountability system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard