1. History of logic models

2. Uses of the logic model
    Program planning  Evaluation 

3. Various types of logic models
     The Inputs --> Activities --> Outputs --> Outcomes template    Intervention Mapping logic models  

4. Advantages

5. Disadvantages

6. References

7. Further reading

Logic models are used by planners, funders, managers and evaluators of programs and interventions to plan, communicate, implement and evaluate them.^[3][2] They are being employed as well by health scientific community to organize and conduct literature reviews such as systematic reviews.^[4][5] Domains of application are various, e.g. waste management,^[6] poultry inspection,^[7] business education,^[8] heart disease and stroke prevention.^[9] Since they are used in various contexts and for different purposes, their typical components and levels of complexity varies in literature (compare for example the W.K. Kellogg Foundation^[10] presentation of logic model, mainly aimed for evaluation, and the numerous types of logic models in the Intervention Mapping framework^[11])). In addition, depending of the purpose of the logic model, elements depicted and the relationships between them is more or less detailed.

History of logic models

Citing Funnell and Rogers account,^[12] Joy A. Frechtling (2015) encyclopedic article^[2] traces logic model underpinnings in the 1950s. Patricia J. Rogers (2005) encyclopedic article^[3] rather trace it back to 1967 Edward A. Suchman book^[13] about evaluative research. Both encyclopedic article and LeCroy^[14] one (2018) mention an increasing interest, usage and publications about the subject.

Uses of the logic model

Program planning

One of the most important uses of the logic model is for program planning. It is suggested to use the logic model to focus on the intended outcomes of a particular program. The guiding questions change from "what is being done?" to "what needs to be done"? McCawley suggests that by using this new reasoning, a logic model for a program can be built by asking the following questions in sequence:

1. What is the current situation that we intend to impact?
2. What will it look like when we achieve the desired situation or outcome?
3. What behaviors need to change for that outcome to be achieved?
4. What knowledge or skills do people need before the behavior will change?
5. What activities need to be performed to cause the necessary learning?
6. What resources will be required to achieve the desired outcome?^&91;15&93;

By placing the focus on ultimate outcomes or results, planners can think backward through the logic model to identify how best to achieve the desired results. Here it helps managers to 'plan with the end in mind', rather than just consider inputs (e.g. budgets, employees) or the tasks that must be done.

Evaluation

The logic model is often used in government or not-for-profit organizations, where the mission and vision are not aimed at achieving a financial benefit. Traditionally, government programs were described only in terms of their budgets. It is easy to measure the amount of money spent on a program, but this is a poor indicator of outcomes. Likewise it is relatively easy to measure the amount of work done (e.g. number of workers or number of years spent), but the workers may have just been 'spinning their wheels' without getting very far in terms of ultimate results or outcomes.

However, nature of outcomes varies. To measure the progress toward outcomes, some initiatives may require an ad hoc measurement instrument. In addition, in programs such as in education or social programs, outcomes are usually in the long-term and may requires numerous intermediate changes (attitudes, social norm, industry practices, etc.) to advance progressively toward the outcomes.

By making clear the intended outcomes and the causal pathways leading to them, a program logic model provides the basis upon which planners and evaluators can develop a measurement plan and adequate instruments. Instead of only looking at the outcome progress, planners can open the "black box" and examine if the intermediate outcomes progress as planned. In addition, the pathways of numerous outcomes are still largely misunderstood due their complexity, their unpredictability and lack of scientific / practical evidences. Therefore, with proper research design, one may not only assess the progress of intermediate outcomes, but evaluate as well if the program theory of change is accurate, i.e. is successful change of an intermediate outcomes provokes the hypothesized subsequent effects in the causal pathway. Finally, outcomes may easily be achieved through processes independent of the program and an evaluation of those outcomes would suggest program success when in fact external outputs were responsible for the outcomes.^[16]

Various types of logic models

The Inputs --> Activities --> Outputs --> Outcomes template

Many authors and guides use the following template when speaking about logic model:^{[2][3][10][14][17]}

Many refinements and variations{{Which|date=October 2018}} have been added to the basic template. For example, many versions of logic models set out a series of outcomes/impacts, explaining in more detail the logic of how an intervention contributes to intended or observed results.^[18] Others often distinguish short-term, medium-term and long-term results, and between direct and indirect results.

Intervention Mapping logic models

Bartholomew et al. Intervention Mapping approach^[11] makes an extensive use of logic model through the whole life-cycle of a health promotion program. Since this method can start from as far as a vague desired outcomes (authors example is a city whose actors decide to address "health issues" of the city), planners goes through various steps in order to develop effective interventions and properly evaluate them (see Intervention Mapping entry for a more detailed account). Distinguishable but closely interweave logic models with different purposes are being developed through the process:

• Logic model of the problem, which is a graphical depiction of at-risk population and its social environment behaviours (factors) leading to the health problem and their respective causal pathways (attitudes, beliefs, skills, etc.). This may include as well at-risk population physical environment related causes such as polluants or lack of physical activity infrastructure and their respective causes, i.e. environmental agents behaviours leading to the physical environment causes and their respective causal pathways;
• Once the most relevant behaviours and causal pathways are identified, planners develop a logic model of change. This is a model of behavioural changes (performance objective) that should happen and their corresponding necessary changes higher in the cause-effects chain.
• Finally, a logic model of the intervention is developed. This model describe the various activities that will happen and the cascades of effects they are expected to cause toward the desired outcome.

Evaluators thereafter use the logic model of the intervention to design a proper evaluation plan to assess implementation, impact and efficiency.

Advantages

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

Disadvantages

There are some potential disadvantages of logic models due to tendencies toward oversimplification.^[20] These include:

1. Program logic is no guarantee of actual logic in how the program may work. The world is complex, and some situations cannot be ascertained before they are implemented, so some programs may even progress against the "logic" of the model.
2. It is a partial representation of a complex system.
3. It is a representation of reality, not reality itself. Programs are not linear
4. Normally, it does not include effects besides those initially expected.
5. They do not necessarily establish causality. Many factors exert influence upon the effects.

References

Further reading

• {{cite book | vauthors = Hernandez M, Hodges S | chapter = Crafting logic models for systems of care: Ideas into action. | title = National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services and their Families Program | date = July 2003 | url = http://cfs.fmhi.usf.edu/TREAD/CMHseries/IdeasIntoAction.html }}
• {{cite journal | vauthors = Alter C, Murty S | date = 1997 | title = Logic modeling: A tool for teaching practice evaluation. | journal = Journal of Social Work Education | volume = 33 | issue = 1 | pages = 103–117 }}
• {{cite journal | vauthors = Conrad KJ, Randolph FL | date = 1999 | title = Creating and using logic models: Four perspectives. | journal = Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly | volume = 17 | issue = 1–2 | pages = 17–32 }}
• {{cite journal | vauthors = Hernandez M | date = 2000 | title = Using logic models and program theory to build outcome accountability. | journal = Education and Treatment of Children | volume = 23 | issue = 1 | pages = 24–41 }}
• {{cite journal | vauthors = Julian DA | date = 1997 | title = The utilization of the logic model as a system level planning and evaluation device. | journal= Evaluation and Program Planning | volume = 20 | issue = 3 | pages = 251–257 }}
• {{cite journal | vauthors = McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB | date = 1999 | title = Logic models: A tool for telling your program's performance story. | journal = Evaluation and Program Planning | volume = 22 | issue = 1 | pages = 65–72 }}
• {{cite journal | vauthors = Stinchcomb JB | date = 2001 | title = Using logic modeling to focus evaluation efforts: Translating operational theories into practical measures. | journal = Journal of Offender Rehabilitation | volume = 33 | issue = 2 | pages = 47–65 }}
• {{cite web | vauthors = McCawley PF | date = 2001 | title = The Logic Model for Program planning and Evaluation. | work = University of Idaho Extension. | url = http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/extension/LogicModel.pdf | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101117070740/http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/extension/LogicModel.pdf | archive-date = 17 November 2011 }}
• {{cite web | work = Innovation Network's Point K Logic Model Builder | date = 2006 | title = A set of three online evaluation tools that includes a Logic Model Builder | url = http://www.innonet.org/index.php?section_id=4&content_id=16 | url-access=registration }}
• {{cite journal | vauthors = Unrau YA | date = 2001 | title = Using client exit interviews to illuminate outcomes in program logic models: A case example. | journal = Evaluation and Program Planning | volume = 24 | issue = 4m | pages = 353–361 }}

• Colleges of oxford
• Colleges of Princeton University
• College Softball
• Colleges of technology in Japan
• Colleges of Technology (Japan)
• College sport
• College sports
• College Sports Ground
• College Sports Television
• College Sports TV
• College Square
• College Square Mall
• College Stanislas
• College Stanislaus
• College Station-Bryan
• College Station-Bryan Metropolitan Area
• College Station-Bryan Metropolitan Statistical Area
• College Station-Bryan metropolitan statistical area
• College Station-Bryan MSA
• College Station Bryan MSA
• College Station-Bryan, Texas metropolitan area
• College Station-Bryan, Texas Metropolitan Statistical Area
• College Station-Bryan, Texas metropolitan statistical area
• College Station Bryan, TX metropolitan area
• College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area