Program Theory and Logic Model

patrifl_14i6

chapter8.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Program Theory and Logic Model

165

C h a p t e r

THEORY OF CHANGE AND PROGR AM LOGIC MODELS

LISA WYATT KNOWLTON AND CYNTHIA C. PHILLIPS

Logic models were introduced in Chapter 3 when we discussed how they can be used to describe your social work program—Step 2 of

the six-step process of doing an evaluation. They were then briefly discussed in the previous chapter in rela- tion to how they can be used in actually designing a social service program.

Given what you already know about logic models from your previous readings, this chapter discusses them at a much more advanced level. In fact, this chapter presents two types of models that can be used in your modeling activities:

• Theory of Change Models. These are conceptual; that is, they are simply a general graphical representation of how you believe change will occur within your program. They are done before a program logic model is constructed.

• Program Logic Models. These are operational; that is, they are based off of your theory of change model. As depicted in Figures 3.2 and 3.3 in Chapter 3, they detail the resources, planned activities, outputs, and outcomes over time that ref lect your program’s intended goal. In an ideal world, they are constructed after a theory of change model is completed.

MODELS AND MODELING

Regardless of type—theory of change or program logic—good models are used to,

• explain an idea • resolve a challenge • assesses progress • clarify complex relationships among a

program’s elements or parts • organize information • display thinking • develop common language among

stakeholders • offer highly participatory learning

opportunities • document and emphasize explicit client and

program outcomes • clarify knowledge about what works and why • identify important variables to measure

and enable more effective use of evaluation resources

• provide a credible reporting framework • lead to a program’s improved design,

planning, and management

Concept Maps

Models are concept maps that we all carry around in our minds about how the world does (or should)

8If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

~ Lewis Carroll

Grinnell, R. M., Gabor, P. A., & Unrau, Y. A. (2015). Program evaluation for social workers : Foundations of evidence-based programs. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. Created from capella on 2023-01-30 18:28:35.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

166 Par t II: Designing Programs

work. They are tools we can use to convey a scheme, program, or project in a brief, clear visual format. They describe our planned actions and the expected results from our actions. A model is a snapshot of an individual’s or group’s current thinking about how their social work program will work.

Modeling is also a technique that encourages the iterative development of a program. More spe- cifically it creates a safe space for a program’s stake- holders to start a debate, generate ideas, and support deliberations. More important, it allows us to think more clearly about specific relationships between and among variables. Models are a single, coherent logic that reflects a consistent thread that connects your program’s overall design, implementation, and even- tual evaluation. This thread of logic is critical to your program’s effectiveness.

Modeling allows careful consideration of the relationship between what you actually do as a social worker (your day-to-day activities) and the results you obtain from your activities (outcomes). When tackled by a team—or a small group of stakeholders for that matter—models can be improved by engaging the knowledge and experience of others. The best models are socially constructed in a shared experience that is facilitated. The shared understanding and meaning they produce among social workers are valuable and enable success in subsequent steps of an evaluation’s implementation.

Moreover, models are also used to calibrate alignment between the program’s “big picture” and its various component parts. They can easily illustrate parts of a program or its whole system.

Two Types of Models: One Logic

As previously stated, there are two types of models: theory of change and program logic. They only differ by their level of detail and use. Nevertheless, they are both based on logic:

• A theory of change model is a very basic general representation of how you believe your planned change will occur that will lead to your intended results.

• A program logic model details the resources, planned activities, outputs, and their outcomes over time that reflect the program’s intended results.

The level of detail and features distinguish theory of change models from program logic models. The two types of models and their relative features are highlighted in Table 8.1.

On one hand, the two models are different from one another in relation to time frame, level of detail, number of elements, display, and focus. On the other hand, they are alike because they share the same research, theory, practice, and/or literature. Essentially, the two types are simply different views of the same logic that have a shared origin. The two model also differ in purposes:

• Theory of change models display an idea or program in its simplest form using limited information. These models offer a chance to test plausibility. They are the “elevator speech” or “cocktail-napkin outline” of an idea or project.

• Program logic models, on the other hand, vary in detail but offer additional information that assists in a program’s design, planning, strategy development, monitoring, and evaluation. Program logic models support a display that can be tested for feasibility. They are the proposal version of a social work program because they have fleshed out in detail—from a theory of change model—the resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and other elements of interest to those creating and/or using the model.

Examples

The following two examples briefly explain the gen- eral concepts and terms related to theory of change models and program logic models. Although we show one of each type of model, it’s important to keep in mind that these are only two examples from a much broader continuum of possibilities. There are many ways to express or display ideas and level of detail.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 8: Theory of Change and Program Logic Models 167

Theory of Change Model Example

Theory of change models are the critical founda- tion for all social work programs. Often these models exist as part of an internal mental framework that is “dormant” or undisclosed. They can also imply con- siderable knowledge, experience, research, and prac- tice. The evidence base for theory of change models typically is not made explicit.

Figure 8.1 shows a simple theory of change model for a community leadership program aptly titled “Community Leadership Program.” Read from left to right, it illustrates that the program contains two strategies: an academy leadership curriculum (Strategy 1) and an academy leadership experience opportunity (Strategy 2).

These two strategies, when combined together and successfully implemented, will then lead to “more and better” community leaders, which in turn will lead to better community development. In short, the two strategies within the Community Leadership Program, when successfully implemented, leads to positive results.

Program Logic Model Example

Like theory of change models, program logic models are also visual methods of presenting an idea. And, like theory of change models, they are simply concept maps as mentioned in Chapter 3. They offer a way to describe and share an understanding of rela- tionships (or connections) among elements necessary to operate your social work program. Logic models

describe a bounded program: both what is planned (the doing) and what results are expected (the get- ting). They provide a clear road map to a specified end, with the end always being the outcomes and the ultimate impact of the program.

Common synonyms for logic models include concept maps, idea maps, frameworks, rich pictures, action, results or strategy maps, and mental mod- els. Program logic models delineate—from start to finish—a specified program effort. For example, a program logic model for our Community Leadership Program (based on the theory of change model pre- sented in Figure 8.1) would include the specified resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact:

• Resources (or inputs) are what are needed to ensure the program can operate as planned. For example, money to pay your tuition is needed before you can enroll in your social work program, along with a host of other resources you will need.

• Activities are the tactical actions that occur within the program such as events, various types of services, workshops, lectures, publications, and the like. Together, activities make up your program’s overall design—it’s the intervention package. This is where the rubber hits the road. For example, one of the activities of your social work program is the courses you take. This is the “guts” of your social work program.

Table 8.1: Features of Model Types.

Features Theory of Change Program Logic

Time frame No time Time bound

Level of detail Low High

Elements Few (“do + get”) Many

Primary display Graphics Graphics + text

Focus Generic Targets + specified results

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

168 Par t II: Designing Programs

• Outputs are descriptive indicators of what the specific activities generate. For example, this could simply be the number of students who graduate each year after they complete the activities (i.e., courses).

• Outcomes are changes in our clients’ awareness, knowledge levels, skills, and/or behaviors. The impact reflects changes over a longer period. For example, this could simply be the number of students who found social work jobs after graduating or the degree of your effectiveness as a social worker.

Figure 8.2 displays a simple program logic model for our Community Leadership Program shown as a theory of change model in Figure 8.1.

The program logic model illustrated in Figure 8.2 suggests that the program’s desired results include more and better community leaders, which in turn will lead to better community development efforts. It implies the leadership development agenda is about resolution of community challenges and that, if resolved, will contribute to better community development.

To “read” this model, first note on the far right-hand column (column 6) the intended impact (ultimate aim) of the program: community develop- ment. Then move to the far left-hand column (col- umn 1), where resources (or inputs) essential for the program to operate are listed. As you should know by now, program logic models employ an “if–then” sequences among their elements.

When applied to the elements in each column in Figure 8.2, it reads,

• IF we have these resources (column 1), • THEN we can provide these activities

(column 2). • IF we accomplish these activities (column 2), • THEN we can produce these outputs

(column 3). • IF we have these outputs (column 3), • THEN we will secure these short-term

outcomes (column 4). • and so on.

Box 8.1 illustrates another version of how this “if-then” logic can be used.

Academy Leadership Curriculum

Academy Leadership

Experiences

“More and Better”

Community Leaders

Community development

Strategies Results

Figure 8.1: Theory of change model for the Community Leadership Program.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Resources ImpactShort Term OutputsActivities

Curriculum and materials

Faculty

Sponsors ($)

Host and facility

Leadership Curriculum

Content

Leadership Experiences

Processes

Community development

Outcomes

Better Leaders

New leadership attitudes,

knowledge, skills, and behaviors

Increased community

awareness and action bias

Participant description

Completion rate

Participant satisfactionMarketing/

communication campaign

Graduates use knowledge and skills obtained

through the program to strengthen

the community

Participants

Intermediate/Long Term

Figure 8.2: Program logic model for the Community Leadership Program (from Figure 8.1).

G rinnell, R

. M ., G

abor, P . A

., & U

nrau, Y . A

. (2015). P rogram

evaluation for social w orkers : F

oundations of evidence-based program s. O

xford U niversity P

ress, Incorporated. C

reated from capella on 2023-01-30 18:28:35.

170 Par t II: Designing Programs

The program logic model depicted in Figure 8.2 is just one very simple representation of how a program might be designed. Many other variations of this exam- ple also exist that would still be logical and plausible.

LOGIC MODELS AND EVALUATION DESIGN

A clear and coherent program logic model provides great assistance during an evaluation’s design. It points out the key features and shows the relationships that may or may not need to be evaluated. At this level, eval- uation questions are the foundation for an evaluation’s design. If we apply this to our Community Leadership Program, for example, it’s more than appropriate to focus on our program’s intended results.

As illustrated in Box 2.1, a summative evaluation question could be: What difference did our program make in the community’s development? Perhaps a place to begin is in determining the contribution the program made to the actual generation of more and better community leaders.

In this example, an evaluation could consider both changes in the awareness, knowledge, skills, and behavior of the program’s participants as well as the impact they had on community development.

Stakeholders might also want to know about the con- tent of the two activities (i.e., leadership curriculum, leadership experiences) and quality of training. They might be curious about implementation fidelity and adaptation too. Figure 8.3 demonstrates a program logic model with typical evaluation questions.

This program logic model represented by Figure 8.3 is serving as a concept map to guide the evaluation of the program. The five key evaluation questions are contained at the bottom of their respective columns in Figure 8.3. Key questions for our Community Leadership Program include:

1. Is the program doing the right things? (column 1)

2. Is the program doing things right? (column 3) 3. What difference has the program made

among participants? (column 4) 4. What difference has the program made

across the community? (columns 5 and 6) 5. What are the ways community needs can

and should be addressed by the program? (columns 3–6)

Positioning questions on the logic model iden- tifies where the data might be found to address any given inquiry:

BOX 8.1 USING “IF-THEN” STATEMENTS IN DEVELOPING LOGIC MODELS

IF a certain set of resources (such as staff, equipment, materials) are available,

THEN the program can provide a certain set of activities or services to participants.

IF participants receive these services,

THEN they will experience specific changes in their knowledge, attitudes, or skills.

IF individuals change their knowledge, attitudes, or skills,

THEN they will change their behavior and usual practice.

IF enough participants change their behavior and practice,

THEN the program may have a broader impact on the families or friends of participants or on the community as a whole.

Thus a school-based alcohol prevention program could have the following theory:

As a result of the reduced alcohol use of individual youth, alcohol problems in schools will decline.

Social worker provide alcohol prevention training

to youth

Youth garin knowledge of

alcohol avoidance strategies

Youth practice alcohol avoidance

strategies

Youth reduce alcohol initiation and

use

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Is the program doing the right things?

Is the program doing things right?

What difference has the program made among participants?

What difference has the program made across the community?

What are the ways that community needs can and should be

addressed by the program?

32 4

Resources ImpactOutputsActivities

Curriculum and materials

Faculty

Sponsors ($)

Host and facility

Leadership Curriculum

Content

Leadership Experiences

Processes

Community development

Short Term

Outcomes

Better Leaders

New leadership attitudes,

knowledge, skills and behaviors

Increased community

awareness and action bias

Participant description

Completion rate

Participant satisfactionMarketing/

communication campaign

Graduates use knowledge and skills obtained

through the program to strengthen

the community

Participants

Intermediate/Long Term

Figure 8.3: Program evaluation model for the Community Leadership Program (from Figure 8.2).

G rinnell, R

. M ., G

abor, P . A

., & U

nrau, Y . A

. (2015). P rogram

evaluation for social w orkers : F

oundations of evidence-based program s. O

xford U niversity P

ress, Incorporated. C

reated from capella on 2023-01-30 18:28:35.

172 Par t II: Designing Programs

• Question 1 “tests” the logic constructed during the planning phase of the program. This question requires thoughtful connections to be drawn across activity accomplishment, implementation fidelity, and the attainment of desired outcomes/impact. It addresses the overall effectiveness of the selected activities and the related action in achieving the desired results.

• Question 2 examines implementation fidelity/ variance as well as the scope, sequence, penetration, and quality of activities.

• Questions 3 and 4 focus on the extent to which outcomes and impact have been achieved.

• Question 5, like Question 1, should span the whole model to surface program improvement needs. Questions 1 and 5 are more reflective but are essential to a program’s improved effectiveness.

These evaluation questions can be very helpful in the initial design and development of the program, as they help to aim the program’s intervention(s). The next step is establishing indicators. Models also help us to guide the conversation and exploration needed to determine outcome indicators (see previous chap- ter), or the measures of progress, for any given social work program.

Limitations

It’s important to note that the proper reference, “logic model,” in no way guarantees that the model is, in fact, logical. While many models do demon- strate some modicum of logic, however, a logical representation does not always equal plausibility, feasibility, or success. There’s some danger in seeing a graphic display on paper and considering it “true.” This notion of omnipotence can stem from a work- er’s limited domain knowledge, vested interests, and lack of perspective. Typically, models do not take unintended consequences into account, although every social work program has negative side effects.

Realistically, even when program theory and logic models are constructed and build on the insights of a broad representative stakeholder group, can anyone be sure who’s right? Every model must always be considered a draft. They are always incom- plete and provide a simple illustration that makes evaluation and program improvement more accessi- ble to individuals and groups. The mere existence of a model does not mean that the model—or the plans it represents—is ready for immediate implementa- tion or that it will readily deliver its intended results.

It’s essential to note that a logic model is a graphic display of the program captured at one point in time. It has to change in order to reflect best thinking and current evidence as these evolve over time. Creating and displaying variations of a model are experiences that can develop thinking about strategies/activities and their intended results. This development is a criti- cal process in model quality and, ultimately, in the feasibility of the efforts described.

One of the greatest value of logic models is their use in an iterative, intentional process aimed at improving the thinking they illustrate. This is best done through a facilitated sequence with selected stakeholders. Obviously, logic models do not ensure perfect pro- gram implementation fidelity or even quality. Nor do they remedy any of the many concerns about organi- zational structure and culture that can deeply affect the program’s effectiveness (see Chapters 5 and 6). Important action steps associated with quality include the identification of both the assumptions and the evi- dence used when developing models.

Models Begin With Results

Determining the results you desire is the first step in evaluating a program’s overall effectiveness, because knowing where you are headed—or where you want to go—is critical to picking the best route to use (see quote at the beginning of this chapter). Logic models always begin with results. Results consist of outcomes and impact; each appears in a sequence over time. While impact is the ultimate end sought, sometimes synonymous with vision, outcomes are earlier indica- tions of progress toward the results.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 8: Theory of Change and Program Logic Models 173

Start Here

Improved Program Effectiveness

Can we make better decisions?

Are we doing the right work?

Are we achieving superior results?

Design

Planning and Implementation

Evaluation

Theory of Change (TOC)

Program Logic Model (PLM)

Figure 8.4: The effectiveness continuum and models.

Results are the best place to begin when you are struggling with deciding which interventions (strat- egy) you should use to solve the social problem. It’s important to avoid moving prematurely to specify what you want to do without knowing where you want to go. When it comes to program planning, specifying those outcomes most likely to occur soon and then those that will take more time to emerge helps determine what route (action path) might be best to use.

Social workers commonly complain their work is both activity focused and frantic. Considerable time and effort are spent on a flurry of tasks that frequently lack a clear relationship to the program’s intended results. Logic models can assist in sorting priorities because they both rely on—and help build—a visual literacy that makes action and expected consequences clear. Through the models and modeling, stakeholders can identify strong evidence-based interventions likely to contribute to the results sought. And those interventions with less (relative) value can be sidelined or discarded.

Logic Models and Effectiveness

In the workplace (and in life), almost everyone is interested in effectiveness. To that end, you need to ask—and answer—three questions:

• Are you doing the right work? • Can you make better decisions? • Are you getting superior results?

All three of these questions apply in any context—whether it’s in government or the private or nonprofit sector. They are among the most critical questions for social work administrators and line-level workers alike because they focus on key levers that influence performance. Doing the “right work” along with making “great decisions” secures “superior results.”

Logic models can help to answer the three ques- tions. Thus they are a useful tool for anyone interested in developing more effective social work programs.

Figure 8.4 demonstrates key points of the design, planning, implementation, and evaluation that the two types of models can support. Theory of change models are most helpful during the ini- tial design of a program (left side of diagram). As plans or evaluation require greater detail, program logic models can make a substantial contribution to these later stages of work (right side of diagram). The types of models and their uses form a continu- ous loop that can provide feedback about a single program throughout its life cycle.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

174 Par t II: Designing Programs

Logic models as both a concept mapping tool and a strategic process offer considerable value to your program and, subsequently, its effectiveness. They can be used for different purposes at different times in the life cycle of a program. Theory of change models can dramatically influence program planning because they rely on knowledge to offer choices about doing the right work. In this stage, the selection of interven- tion strategies to produce the intended results occurs.

Program logic models help with more pre- cise decisions about selecting the most promising evidence-based interventions that will be the most effective to achieve the intended results. They also aid in the design of an evaluation. They can assist in pointing to optimal areas of inquiry and help to deter- mine whether progress is being made and what differ- ence has occurred relative to results.

Some social service organizations use logic mod- els routinely. They are a standard tool that promotes alignment and synergy. For example, a program eval- uation can be designed and implemented more eas- ily when a clear theory of change model and program logic model are already in existence.

BASIC PROGRAM LOGIC MODELS

The remainder of this chapter identifies the basic elements of program logic models. Generally, these models have enough detail to support a program’s overall intervention strategy, design, implementation, and evaluation.

As we know, theory of change models are the foundation for program logic models. When well developed, theory of change models can ensure intellectual rigor for program logic models. Figure 8.5 illustrates the relationship of a theory of change model (composed of strategies and results) to the pri- mary elements of a program logic model (composed of resources, activities, outputs, short-term outcomes, intermediate-term outcomes, long-term outcomes, and impact). The theory of change model is illustrated in the top horizontal row, and the program logic model is illustrated in the bottom horizontal row.

Notice that under the “Do” column in Figure 8.5, theory of change models use the term “strate- gies” and program logic models use the three terms “resources,” “activities,” and “outputs.” Under the “Get” column, theory of change models use the term “results,” and program logic models use the four terms, “short-term outcomes,” “intermediate-term outcomes,” “long-term outcomes,” and “impact.”

Assumptions Matter

It’s important to be aware that specific assumptions are not illustrated in Figure 8.5. Recall that assump- tions are informed by beliefs, past experiences, intuition, and knowledge. Too often, program logic models are built without the benefit of explicitly naming the assumptions and underlying the specific theory of change. This omission can help explain why tremendous conflict, even chaos, can erupt during program development, planning, implementation, and assessment.

Do Get

OutputsResources Activities ImpactShort-Term Outcomes

Long-Term Outcomes

Intermediate- Term

Outcomes

Strategies Results

Figure 8.5: Relationship of program and theory of change models.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 8: Theory of Change and Program Logic Models 175

In the absence of explicitly named assumptions, either a clear theory of change does not exist and/or people hold multiple and conflicting variations that reflect their deeply held views about what should, or could, work and why. This can lead to diffused or diluted social work programs that lack the focus and intensity needed to produce their intended results. Because of these implications, omitting this “founda- tion” for your program undermines its potential for success.

As noted previously, conceptualization and learn- ing styles differ from person to person. Organizational culture also affects how design, planning, monitor- ing, and measuring occur within any given program. Given these practical issues, we strongly suggest that both theory of change and program logic mod- els eventually be created to form the foundation of shared meaning for all aspects of your program. The sequence in which they are developed certainly will reflect your stakeholders’ preferences.

Key Elements of Program Logic Models

Program logic models display what a social work pro- gram might contain from start to finish. Its elements consist of the recipe for a bounded investment of financial and social capital for a specified result.

The level of detail within a logic model must show the relationships that illustrate the essential linkages that are needed in order to make a plan fully opera- tional for each of the strategy strands identified in the theory of change model. The primary elements for each strand of a program logic model include resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact.

Figures 3.2 and 3.3 in Chapter 3 are the basic tem- plates of the elements for most program logic models. This is good time to review these two figures. The ele- ments within these two figures are 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 specific activities. Sometimes resources are called inputs.

• Activities are the specific actions that make up the program. They reflect tools, processes, events, evidence-based interventions, technology, and other devices that are intentional in the program. Activities are synonymous with interventions deployed to secure the program’s 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.

• Outcomes are about changes in our client system, often in program participants or organizations, as a result of the program’s activities. They often include specific changes in awareness, knowledge levels, skills, and behaviors. Outcomes are dependent on the preceding resources, activities, and outputs. Sometimes outcomes are deconstructed by time increments into short, intermediate, and long term (e.g., Figure 8.3).

Time spans for outcomes are relative and should be specified for the program described. However, short term is often 1 to 3 years, intermediate term 4 to 6 years, and long term 7 to 10 years. The intervals specified for any given model would depend on the size and scope of the effort.

For example, a small-scale program such as an adult education typing class in one location might produce knowledge and skill outcomes in 6 weeks, where behavioral changes, such as changes in employment status, 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 for several decades. Typically, divid- ing the project duration into thirds works pretty well as a starting point. Relying on additional evidence- based material also helps to inform us as to what’s fea- sible and realistic.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

176 Par t II: Designing Programs

Being exceedingly clear about timing and expected results is of paramount importance. The time span for outcomes is program specific. The logi- cal sequencing of any given outcome chain also mat- ters. 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 and barrel. Under some conditions, there may be different points of entry into a sequence. The important thing is to explore the interconnec- tions and dependencies that do exist among the out- comes and impact you specify.

Impact is the ultimate intended change in an orga- nization, community, or other client system. It carries an implication about time. It varies in its relative tim- ing to the actual program or change effort. Sometimes impact occurs at the end of the program, but, more fre- quently, the impact sought is much more distant.

For some efforts, this may mean impact can be cited in 7 to 10 years or more. This can have important

implications, as it’s well beyond the funding cycle for many typical grant-funded programs or the patience of many managers or politicians. A program logic model is one easy way to show how the work you do (your activities) within these constraints will hope- fully contribute to a meaningful impact (your desired outcome that was obtained via your activities).

Nonlinear Program Logic Models

Just as in theory of change models, very few logic mod- els of social work programs are developed in linear progressions. 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 8.6.

In this circular display, there is no specific starting point. Although the logic model elements are constant, the work of design, planning, manag- ing, or evaluating might begin with any element.

Intermediate -Term

Outcomes

Short-Term Outcomes

Activities

OutputsResources

Impact

Activities

OutputsResources

Impact

Short-Ter m Outcomes

Short-Term Outcomes

Activities

OutputsResources

Impact Short-Term Outcomes

Short-Term Outcomes

Intermediate -Term

Outcomes

Intermediate- Term

Outcomes

Figure 8.6: Nonlinear logic model.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 8: Theory of Change and Program Logic Models 177

In addition, this view shows how cycles of the same activity might occur over time. Keep in mind that Figure 8.6 groups activities together. A more detailed view could be staggering to portray. Sometimes capturing reality in a display impedes communication.

Hidden Assumptions and Dose

As we know by now, a program logic model displays the elements that are most critical to establishing and operating a social work program. It specifies the activities and their interdependent relationship as well as what they are expected to achieve. Program logic models do not necessarily include assumptions, but they rely on them.

They offer a view of the map that can inform a program’s action plan and, later, its implementation. They can also quantify the “dosage” (e.g., number, type, and duration of activities) and describe the effects and benefits of the program for any given dos- age, in addition to the ultimate change expected.

Getting the Dosage Right

Dosage is an important concept in effectiveness. A diluted dosage can have the same impact as no dosage at all. For example, if your mini-program’s intended result is a large voter turnout in a local election (outcome), a classified ad may not be the best communication strategy (activity to achieve the outcome). A comprehensive media plan (Activity 1), for example, coupled with free transportation to the voting booths (Activity 2) has a greater chance of success (outcome). So it’s tremendously impor- tant to design your program with enough of the right activities and dosage to secure your intended outcome.

BUILDING A LOGIC MODEL

An example of a program logic model for an improved-health program is displayed in Figure 8.7. As can be seen in the second column from the far left, the total intervention package, or overall interventive

strategy, if you will, is actually composed of four activities. More often than not, a program’s interven- tion package rarely relies on just one activity—they usually rely on multiple activities, as is evident in Figure 8.7.

The program logic model portrayed in Figure 8.7 suggests that IF we provide our participants with an exercise activity, a nutrition activity, a stress-reduction activity, and a retention activity, THEN their health will improve. Notice the word activity in the previ- ous sentence and the “if-then” logic. Thus there are four activities (second column) that make up the com- plete intervention package for the improved-health (far right column) program. And we couldn’t do the activities without the resources as outlined in the far left column.

Activities are sometimes called components, services, or interventions. The components of your social work program, for example, are all the courses you take in addition to other services your program makes available to you such as advising, providing/ sponsoring a social work club, field trips, emergency loan funds, a social work library, study area, computer area, and so on.

Note the development of detail connecting the four activities (i.e., the total intervention pack- age) to results in this program’s logic model com- pared to a the theory of change model for the same program. The program logic model simply provides much more detail than the theory of change model for the same program by explicating the elements from a basic logic model for each activity strand. In a program logic model, for example, the details rela- tive to the program’s resources, activities, outcomes, impact, and other elements are labeled and placed in a sequential order.

Although still an overview and incomplete, the logic model illustration provides a detailed view of what this health-improvement program needs for resources, wants to do, plans to measure, and hopes to achieve. Beginning with the far left column with resources, this program’s logic model includes funds, facility, faculty, and coaches, as well as eligible and willing participants, among its requisite inputs.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Improved health

Do Get

Resources Activities Outputs Short-Term Outcomes

Long-Term Outcomes

Impact

Nutrition activities

Funds

Facility

Faculty

Intermediate- Term Outcomes

Repeats for each strategy

Motivation Retention

Knowledge

Exercise activities

Stress- reduction activities

Coaches

Eigible and willing

participants

Retention and recruitment activities

Curricula and staff

Participant data

Messages and media

Coaching tools and logs

Awareness

Relaxation

Flexibility

Fat/Calories

Nutrients

Endurance

Strength

Adherence

Skill

Figure 8.7: Logic model for an improved-health program.

G rinnell, R

. M ., G

abor, P . A

., & U

nrau, Y . A

. (2015). P rogram

evaluation for social w orkers : F

oundations of evidence-based program s. O

xford U niversity P

ress, Incorporated. C

reated from capella on 2023-01-30 18:28:35.

Chapter 8: Theory of Change and Program Logic Models 179

Once again, the program’s overall intervention contain four activities, or components. Outputs from the four activities could be numerous. For this illus- tration, we show only the overarching categories of information that could be considered.

Each activity would be repeated for each of the strands. These would include details about the scope, sequence, and quality of the curriculum; staffing qual- ifications; and information about participants and their participation. Activities “inside” these compo- nent strands contribute to changes in the participants’ knowledge levels (short-term outcome), skills, and adherence (intermediate-term outcomes). Eventually, they can contribute to increases in the participants’ strength, endurance, nutrients, flexibility, and relax- ation (long-term outcomes).

Concurrently, over time, these same activities also yield reduced fat/calories (another long-term out- come). In fact, reducing fat/calories could indeed have a column of its own—to the immediate right of the long-term-outcomes. It would come just to the left of the program’s impact, or improved health.

The retention and recruitment activity strand also generates some outputs and outcomes. Aggregated, activities within this component secure and keep par- ticipants in the program. Note that this model uses arrows to show relationships. Sometimes they reflect a cluster (indicating synergies) rather than just one-to- one relationships.

As is typical of many social work programs, sev- eral activities, or components, within an interven- tion package are shown as contributing collectively to outcomes rather than each component making its individual contribution to distinct outcomes in iso- lation. Collectively, the long-term outcomes gener- ate improved health, which could be measured in a variety of ways (e.g., blood pressure, blood lipid, sugar profiles, weight, physical fitness).

In contrast to the big-picture view that theory of change models offer, program logic models provide a closer, more detailed picture of a program’s opera- tions. This view of the program provides adequate detail to create well-conceptualized and operation- alized work plans. Program logic models provide a reliable outline for work plans that are then used to

implement and manage a program. Just like theory of change models, program logic models are based on logic, but, here too, feasibility—given limited time and resources—is the appropriate standard for assess- ing their actual realistic value.

A common question about program logic mod- els focuses on their level of detail. Essentially, their detail level is determined by their intended use and users. Although somewhat situational, they build out an overall intervention into activities. Sometimes they can even get into detailing the tasks that are con- tained within the activities, although more often that is described in the program’s operations manual or action plan.

From Strategy to Activities

Some program logic models can be extremely com- plex, but the steps to create them are generally the same as for more simple efforts (see Figures 3.2 and 3.3 in Chapter 3). Large-scale programs or multi- year change efforts (sometimes called “initiatives”) often are composed of many activities aimed at tar- get audiences across many sites over a considerable time period. Often a single activity has numerous components—and sometimes even subcomponents.

As previously stated, program logic models usu- ally do not display underlying beliefs or assumptions. They are nevertheless important elements in the conscious exploration of multiple target audiences. Sometimes social work programs are implemented in a cascade with some overlap in time, which requires a particular sequence of activities. When this is the cir- cumstance, it can be helpful to focus on a function, a given intervention, or one partner’s 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 execution relies on integrated action—but the work that precedes it may require focused developmental attention on smaller parts.

Using our health-improvement program exam- ple, Figure 8.8 provides an orientation to how the exercise activity strand is reduced to subactivities. It breaks the activity into greater detail.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

180 Par t II: Designing Programs

As can be seen in Figure 8.8, it becomes evi- dent that exercise, as an activity, is made up of four key subactivities: physical exercise (strength), physi- cal exercise (endurance), education, and assessment. Together, all four of the subactivities represent a com- prehensive activity called exercise. And the exercise activity is just one of the four activities to improved health. Recall that the whole theory of change for this example includes three other activities to improved health: nutrition, stress reduction, and retention and recruitment.

It’s the combination of the four activities reflected in the whole program that is most likely to secure the program’s desired results. Each strand of a compre- hensive program logic model needs to illustrate the contribution it makes to the overall desired result as well as its interdependence.

As you specify the subactivities content of your activity, you are naming more precisely what makes up the given activity. Later, the whole model is tested for feasibility—both practically before its implementation and literally when the program is evaluated. This may be a good time to reread Chapter 7 in reference to how a client system’s prac- tice objectives must be in congruent with the pro- gram’s objectives.

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, past experiences, hunches, documents):

• First, we recommend that you begin with both a theory of change model and a program logic model with the named ends. You are most clear about your intended results (outcomes and impact). Our experience is that you must know what you want to accomplish before beginning a logic model. Put this on the far right in your model (impact).

• Second, name the changes or outcomes that will be part of your progress toward your program’s intended impact. Unpacking this sequence is important because it makes it easier to see the strength of the connection between what you do (activities) and what you can get (outcomes).

• Third, we suggest tackling the specific activities, or interventions, that are required to achieve the outcomes you have specified in the second step. Interventions/activities are what causes the outcomes. Outcomes do not change by osmosis. They change because of interventions/activities.

• Fourth, list all the resources (inputs) that you need to implement your intervention package.

• Finally, outputs reflect the information 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, according to Figure 8.9, the steps to draft a program logic model are ordered in this way:

Step 1: Identify the results that your total intervention package (various activities) will ultimately generate—the impact of your program.

Results

GetDo

Strength Activities

Endurance Activities

Exercise Education

Fitness Assessment

Exercise Activity

Figure 8.8: The exercise activity with four subactivities.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 8: Theory of Change and Program Logic Models 181

Step 2: Describe the time-ordered series of outcomes (or changes) that will show progress toward your overall impact.

Step 3: Name all the activities needed to generate the outcomes.

Step 4: Define the resources (inputs) that are needed to produce the activities.

Step 5: Identify the outputs that reflect the accomplishment of activities.

Creating Your Program Logic Model

As should be evident by now, the format of your logic model helps you to organize your program’s infor- mation in a useful way. Think of a program you are affiliated with now or want to create and its intended results. For each activity, 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’s important to make choices about the outcomes that are realistically and practically feasible with your limited financial resources.

With some experience you will begin to recog- nize commonly used activities that reflect knowledge from our profession. For example, marketing/com- munications, recruitment, retention, professional development or education, advocacy, and policy are activities often found in program logic models.

Examples of subactivities under a marketing/ communications activity could include preparing a

database of target markets, generating news releases, creating and sending a newsletter, establishing a web- site, and distributing public service announcements. We suggest you tackle one activity at a time. Aim to define the same level of detail for each activity. Box 8.2 presents some challenges when developing logic models and provides some possible solutions to each challenge.

Guiding Group Process

You can practice your group work skills when you develop logic models. The best method for gen- erating a program logic model is to work with your stakeholders. Stakeholders are situational, but they generally are those who have an interest in—or are likely to—benefit from your program. As you know, stakeholders often include funders, program staff, and program participants. The facilitation of mod- eling requires some advance planning and a com- mitment to both discipline and quality during the process.

If you’ve already constructed a theory of change model, use it to catalyze the creation of a program logic model. If not, defining shared understanding for specified results gets your group process effort started. It’s important to note that logic models need to be continually updated to respond to the dynamics of its external environment (context). They also reflect living systems that are not mechanistic but are con- stantly changing.

GetDo

Outputs

Step 5 Step 2

Step 1

Step 4 Step3

Activities Impact Short-Term Outcomes

Long-Term Outcomes

Intermediate- Term

Outcomes

Strategies Results

Resources

Figure 8.9: Steps in creating a program logic model.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

BOX 8.2 CHALLENGES AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS OF LOGIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Oftentimes stakeholders may have doubts or concerns about developing a logic model process. There may be concerns about the time and resources needed or the usefulness of the product. To help you alleviate these fears, we have listed some of the most common challenges to the logic model effort and suggested some possible solutions.

Challenge: “We’ve had trouble developing a logic model because our key stakeholders (e.g., staff, funders) cannot agree on the right services or outcomes to include.”

• Although it might be difficult, keep key stakeholders involved, including staff, program participants, collaborators, or funders. Involving stakeholders does not mean they need to be involved with all tasks, and they do not need to have sign-off authority. Their role can be as simple as inviting them to review materials or help you think through some of your stickier questions or issues.

• Focus on the process, not the product. Take time to explore the reasons for disagreement about what should be captured in the logic model. Look for the assumptions, identify and resolve disagreements, and build consensus. Agencies that work through disagreements about the logic model typically end up with a stronger model with which everyone can be satisfied.

Challenge: “We’re not really interested in developing a logic model, but our funder requires it.”

• Look for examples of how other organizations have used logic models in meaningful and interesting ways. Many agencies have gone into the process with skepticism or lack of interest but ultimately found the process valuable.

• Try to focus on the fun and interesting aspects of the process. Building a logic model provides an opportunity—all too rare in the everyday provision of services—to discuss what it is about your work that is most meaningful and to renew your appreciation for the ways your program can change lives and communities. Focusing on the importance of this discussion—rather than seeing it as just a task to complete—can increase engagement in the process.

Challenge: “I just want to get my logic model finished. I don’t want to spend much time on it.”

• Logic models that are rushed often end up displaying faulty logic, insufficient evidence, or models copied from other programs that don’t quite fit yours. Keep asking yourself “IF-THEN-WHY” questions to make sure that the model is sound. IF you provide a service, THEN what should be the impact for participants? WHY do you think this impact will result? What evidence do you have to support that connection?

• Make it more interesting by seeking a range of evidence. If you already know the published research

by heart, look for additional types of evidence, such as theoretical frameworks, unpublished evaluation results, or experiences reported by program participants.

• If possible, recruit a facilitator from outside your agency who is trained and experienced in logic model development.

Challenge: “The goal of my program is to change an entire community, not just to influence the lives of a small group of participants.”

• Think through each step that must occur. For instance, how does each activity impact individuals? In what ways does their behavior change? What has to occur in order for these individual changes to result in widespread community change?

• Consider issues or events outside the control of your agency that may promote or impede the change you are seeking. If needed, develop strategies for monitoring or documenting these issues.

Challenge: “My logic model is so complicated that nobody can understand it.”

• Focus on the most important activities and outcomes. The model does not need to describe everything that you do; it should show the services and goals that are the most important to you.

• Avoid social work jargon at all costs. Describe your activities and outcomes in “real-life” language that is understood by a wide range of stakeholders. Try it out on someone unfamiliar with your work—a neighbor or a relative, for instance.

• Cut back on detail. Be specific enough to clearly explain what will happen as a result of your activities but without excessive detail.

Challenge: “I’m nervous about developing a logic model because it might make funders hold us more accountable for our results.”

• Include (and subsequently measure) only outcomes that are realistic. If you do not want to be held accountable for something, it must not be an essential outcome goal. Outcomes are not hopes or wishes but reasonable expectations.

• Incorporate time frames into the logic model to show stakeholders the amount of time it will take to achieve long-term goals. Example: If you have only 1 or 2 years to show impact, you should not measure outcomes that may take longer to emerge. Instead, measure the intermediate steps toward those outcomes—the results that your program can reasonably expect to achieve.

• Remember that a logic model should be a dynamic tool that can and should be changed as needed; it is not a rigid framework that imposes restrictions on what you can do.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. O

xf or

d U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 8: Theory of Change and Program Logic Models 183

For these two reasons (and others), it’s neces- sary to expect program logic models to be continuity revised. In association with some public specification of time, outcomes, and impact, can be explored 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 brainstorming the model’s elements by nominat- ing contributions on sticky notes. This quickly gener- ates a large number of possibilities for each element. Redundancies should be noted and celebrated as commonly held.

Then the group can sort them into those that must be kept, those that could be kept, and those that will not be kept (are not relevant). Once the results are named, then it’s possible to compose content for the other elements. In this disciplined sequence, each stakeholder contributes to the whole, and each contri- bution has the benefit of an internal test relative to the program’s design.

There are several variations on this approach. From a group, you could invite individuals or pairs to generate models in the sequence shown previ- ously and then integrate and reconcile the variations. This approach helps avoid “groupthink” but requires strong process facilitation with content knowledge.

A generic model or template for a given program may be available. With some advance planning it’s possible to identify one of these prototypes and intro- duce it to your group. Then the content adaptations can focus on improving it so that the content is relevant to your purposes, conditions, and planned results.

Regardless of the process, strategic decisions about your model’s components and its relationships between elements should be made from among all the content generated. It’s important to consider criteria for choices that reflect context, target audience(s), research, practice, literature, program benchmark- ing, as well as resource parameters. It can be very helpful to have draft models critically reviewed in a “mark-up.”

Microsoft Visio is an excellent software program to construct logic models, but many other applications such as Word and PowerPoint are also useful. These as well as Inspiration software are all readily avail- able. Take care in using technology for model creation because it can exclude valuable participation from your stakeholders. Box 8.3 lists a few online resources you can use to help you in developing logic models.

SUMMARY

Logic models are simply a visual display of the path- ways from actions to results. They are a great way to review and improve thinking, find common under- standings, document plans, and communicate and explicate what works under what conditions.

Now that you have mastered the contexts of evalu- ations (Part I) and know how to construct social work programs via logic models (Part II), you are now in an excellent position to evaluate the social work pro- gram you have constructed—Part III: Implementing Evaluations.

BOX 8.3 SELECTED ONLINE RESOURCES TO HELP CREATE LOGIC MODELS

• Everything You Want to Know About Logic Models http://www.insites.org/documents/logmod.htm

• Logic Models and How to Build Them http://www.uidaho.edu/extension/LogicModel.pdf

• Theory of Change Assistance and Materials http://www.theoryofchange.org

• Logic Model Development Guide http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/Tools/Evaluation/Pub3669. pdf

• Community Tool Box http://ctb.ku.edu/tools/en/sub_section_main_1877.htm

• Logic Model Builder http://www.childwelfare.gov/preventing/developing/toolkit

• Using a Logic Model for Evaluation Planning http://captus.samhsa.gov/western/resources/bp/step7/ eval2.cfm#b

• How to Build Your Program Logic Model http://captus.samhsa.gov/western/resources/bp/step7/ eval3.cfm

• Developing a Logic Model: Teaching and Training Guide http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/ lmguidecomplete.pdf

C op

yr ig