Program Theory and Logic Models PDF
Program Theory and Logic Models PDF
Program Theory and Logic Models PDF
Research
Program theory and logic models
Evaluation resources from Wilder Research
All human service programs are designed to make a difference in the lives of people or to
improve our society. But how? This resource guide discusses program theory and logic
models. Program theory explains why a program is expected to work and a logic model
illustrates a program theory. At the end of this section, there are a number of examples
and worksheets that can help you develop a program theory and logic model.
When you set out to design or redesign a program, you are choosing among many
options. For example, if you want to prevent alcohol use among teens, how do you
decide which activities to include? Since you can’t do everything that might help, which
services are most important? Which ones need to be combined with other services in
order to be most effective? These questions all get at your underlying program theory. A
program theory explains how and why a program is supposed to work. Spelling out that
theory can be one of the most important things you do for the success of your program. It
provides a logical and reasonable description of why the things you do – your program
activities – should lead to the intended results or benefits (Appendix A).
Clarity and plain language are essential. Can you explain it to your neighbor, or to your
third cousin at a family reunion? Don’t assume that your funders or staff members are any
more sophisticated in their need for a clear description. Not only will a clear program
theory help others see the sense of your program, it will help you make sure you are
actually providing the package of services that have the best possible chance of helping
participants. And when it comes to evaluating your results, a clear program theory makes
it much easier to choose the most appropriate outcomes (results) to measure.
Some ATOD prevention programs sound promising, but do not result in the desired
changes for participants. Of course, this could be because a good theory is not being
carried out well, but in some cases, the problem is the theory itself. Make sure that your
theory not only looks clear and makes sense on paper, but that it is based on good
underlying evidence about what makes programs successful and how people really
change. To avoid a shaky theory that leads to disappointing results, go deeper than
common assumptions about how certain activities lead to outcomes. Instead, consider
the available theories and research evidence that support these connections. In this way,
you can be more confident in the underlying strength of your service delivery model. If
you’re not sure what the current research is showing, take some time to find out. Talk
with colleagues in the field about what evidence they’ve seen lately. Look online or in a
For example, a program to reduce aggression based on social learning theory could have
an underlying theory like this: “IF program mentors model strategies for avoiding alcohol,
tobacco, or other drugs in social situations and provide opportunities for participants to
practice these strategies, THEN participants will develop skills in avoiding using these
substances.”
A program theory should also spell out why you expect the changes to happen. Between the
“if” and the “then,” there should be some solid evidence or some well-established connection
supporting the idea that your service package will accomplish your program goals.
A good program theory also reflects the fact that change happens in stages. For example,
many programs have a goal of changing some type of behavior. However, there are usually
several things that have to happen first. People usually change their behavior after first
learning some new information, developing a new skill, or changing their attitude about
something.
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.
As a result of the reduced alcohol use of individual youth, alcohol problems in schools
will decline.
To develop a program theory, select one of your activities and answer the following three
questions (Appendix B):
IF the activity is provided, THEN what – realistically – should be the result for
participants?
WHY do you believe the activity will lead to this result? (In other words, what is
your assumption about how this kind of change occurs? Are you drawing from an
established theory used by others?)
What evidence do you have that the activity will lead to this result (such as previous
results from your own or other programs, published research, or consistent feedback
from participants)?
Repeat the same three questions for each activity or service that you provide. Don’t
worry; you don’t need to develop a theory for everything! Administrative tasks, such as
training staff or doing paperwork, typically are not included in a program theory. These
activities, while a necessary part of running a program, are usually not the important
services that produce change in participants. Focus on the main services you provide –
the ones you most count on to promote positive results.
A program theory is similar in concept to logic models, which have become increasingly
popular in human services programs over the past several years. In simple terms, a logic
model is a picture of your theory – a drawing that shows how one thing leads to the next,
like a flow chart.
A logic model uses short phrases to represent things that you explain in more detail in the
program theory. Another key difference is that, while a logic model can just use an arrow
to show that one thing leads to the next, your program theory needs to lay out the evidence
to show why you believe one thing will lead to the next. A logic model is one
commonly-used tool for illustrating an underlying program theory. Most often, it is
presented in the form of a flow chart that illustrates the linkages between program
components and outcomes.
Inputs: any resources or materials used by the program to provide its activities
(e.g., money, staff, volunteers, facilities, equipment, supplies)
Sample logic models are attached at the end of the section (Appendix C & D). The
model is read as follows:
The first column lists the resources needed by the program to provide services.
The second column lists the actual activities/services provided by the program.
The third column lists the quantifiable products or outputs of the services provided.
Beginning with the fourth column, the model illustrates the outcomes of the program for
participants. The number of outcome columns varies depending on the underlying logic.
One frequent approach is to have the following three columns, but there may be more or
less:
The fourth column usually describes the immediate impacts or results of these
activities. They should be read as “if the activities are provided, then these outcomes
should result.” Immediate impacts typically refer to changes in knowledge, skills, or
awareness, as these types of changes typically precede changes in behaviors or
practices.
The fifth column typically describes intermediate outcomes. They should be read as
“if the immediate outcomes occur, then the intermediate outcomes should result.”
Intermediate outcomes usually refer to behavioral changes that follow the immediate
knowledge and awareness changes. As we move from immediate to intermediate
outcomes, the direct impact of the activity and accountability of the program decrease.
The sixth column describes the long-term outcomes. They should be read as “if the
intermediate outcomes occur, then the long-term outcomes should result.” These
outcomes usually refer to more global changes, such as community impacts. Again, at
this level, the direct impact of the activity and accountability of the program decrease.
Illustrating the important features of your program approach to other stakeholders, such
as participants, collaborating agencies, or legislators; some programs have incorporated
the logic model into program brochures and displayed them at their agency.
Training new program staff about the program theory and approach – some programs
have used the logic model as the basis of their training, so that new staff understand
how the program works and their role in promoting positive benefits for participants.
Controlling ‘program drift’ – some programs have reviewed the model periodically to
ensure that the services that they are providing are still consistent with the program’s
intended purpose and approach.
Providing a basis for developing an evaluation design – once the logic model is
developed, you can use it to decide which participant outcomes are the most
important ones to measure.
We have discussed what a well-built logic model can do for your program. Here are the
four steps to develop a high-quality model (Appendix E).
When you developed a program theory, you spelled out the major services that you
provide and the intended benefits of those services. Review this list and make sure the
connections between each activity and its outcomes are crystal clear and logical.
Consider the order in which results should occur. What would be the first changes
experienced by participants? How would these initial changes promote other, more long-
term changes? Hint: Behavior change is rarely the first result. People usually need to
change their knowledge, attitudes, or skills before they start to change behavior. Likewise,
moving farther down the line, community change usually cannot occur until enough
individuals (or the right individuals) change their behavior or practices.
Inputs are the resources and raw materials that go into your program. Consider the
resources that you need to operate your program, such as funding, staff, or volunteers.
Some programs may require a facility, transportation services, educational materials, and
other resources. You do not need to be overly precise in the logic model regarding the
amount of each resource that is needed.
Outputs quantify the services you provide. Remember: Outputs are different from
outcomes. While outcomes describe the actual impact (the change that results), outputs
simply describe the amount of service provided. Outputs are most often expressed in
numbers, such as the number of people who participate in an activity or the hours of
service received.
The model may end up being simple or complicated, but should accurately reflect the
complexity of your program. Use arrows to show the connections between your inputs
and your activities, between your activities and outputs, and between your outputs and
each sequence of outcomes. Remember that one activity could lead to multiple outcomes,
or that multiple activities could lead to only one outcome. A logic model template is
provided in Appendix E to aid in this process.
Answer the following questions (Appendix G). If your answer to any question is “not
sure” or “no,” go back to the model and consider making revisions. It usually takes
multiple revisions of the model before it reaches its final form.
Does the logic model include all of the program’s most important activities or services?
Do the outcomes represent changes that are important to your program’s participants?
Likewise, does the model contain the outcomes of greatest interest to your
stakeholders, such as staff or funders?
Are the outcome goals plain enough to be understood by any stakeholders who might
review your logic model? Are the goals realistic?
Are the connections between your inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes realistic?
Are they reasonable based on existing research, theory, or other evidence?
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 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
(staff, funders, etc.) cannot agree on the right services or outcomes to include.”
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?
If possible, recruit a facilitator from outside your agency who is trained and
experienced in logic model development.
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 jargon. 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, a relative.
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”
Only include (and subsequently measure) 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 one or two
years to show impact, you should not measure outcomes that may take longer to
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.
Taking the time to work through the process carefully and thoughtfully can be a very
worthwhile endeavor. It can help you:
Build consensus and clarity among your staff and other stakeholders about your
essential program activities and expected outcomes.
Spell out the beliefs and assumptions that underlie your choice of activities and
intended outcomes.
Assess your program’s likelihood of success and identify factors that could impact
success. For instance, how do the manner, amount, and quality of activities affect the
likelihood of achieving the outcomes?
Work with stakeholders to develop a sound program theory, or a theory that explains
how and why the program is supposed to work.
Logic models are pictures of program theories. A logic model connects activities of a
program with the expected outcomes of a program in a clear, logical fashion.
Logic models can be very useful in describing a program to potential participants and
funders, and can be helpful in identifying key concepts for program evaluation.
Using a logic model for evaluation planning, (also includes a Logic Model Worksheet):
http://captus.samhsa.gov/western/resources/bp/step7/eval2.cfm#b
1. In what ways would you like the lives of participants to be different/improved after they receive services? How will you
know if you have accomplished your goals? How will participants’ knowledge, attitudes, feelings, or behavior be
different?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2. In what ways would you like the community to be different/improved as a result of your program activities? How will
you know if you have accomplished your goals? How will the community be different?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
3. What do stakeholders feel about these goals? Are these goals in line with the mission of the program?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Does each of these activities refer to services provided directly to participants? Administrative functions of the
program, such as hiring staff or preparing budgets, are certainly an important part of providing community
programming and should be reflected in your work plans. However, administrative activities that are not expected to
lead directly to changes for participants should not be included in an evaluation design.
Does your list contain any redundancies (i.e., same basic activity described in several different ways)? If so, eliminate
duplicate activities. In designing your evaluation, we want to consider your core activities without redundancies.
Of those activities listed, which do you feel are most important in terms of either the potential for impact on the participants
or the level of resources that are devoted to the activity?
Yes Unsure No
Do the outcomes represent meaningful benefits or changes for participants?
Will the outcomes help you communicate the benefits of your program?
Does your model include the outcomes of greatest importance to your key
stakeholders?
Does the model include all important program activities that participants
receive?