Getting the Most Out of a Logic Model
Toward the end of last year, our fearless leader, Stephanie Downey, wrote about why you need a logic model. Because we often help clients build logic models for programs and partnerships, I want to expand on the why by discussing more about the how and share some tips for creating a logic model that works for you and your organization.
As a reminder from Stephanie’s post:
“A logic model is a strategy and evaluation tool that articulates how a program is intended to work and what it is envisioned to achieve. Logic models begin by defining the social problem or need that a program is meant to address and its target audience, and culminate with the desired social change or impact. In between, it maps a course for how social change happens for audiences through measurable outcomes and identifies the activities and assumptions that underlie the “logic” of the program.”
And, so you can visualize it better, here is a blank version of a logic model:
And, to give you an idea of where we are headed, here is an example of a complete logic model for The New York Historical’s Tang Academy for American Democracy (TAAD) program.
So, with this definition and these visuals in mind, here are our top tips for creating and using a logic model:
1. Start with the problem you are trying to address.
Logic models pose the question: “What social issue do you aim to address?” And while no program or initiative is meant to solve a societal issue on its own, it’s worth thinking through how your program activities contribute to addressing a particular issue, such as empowering a community to address climate change, providing opportunities for youth who are underrepresented in STEM, or increasing interest in civic literacy and engagement. What qualities and resources does your program or organization have that allows you to effectively address this issue?
2. At the same time, consider your primary audience(s).
When thinking about the problem you are trying to address, there will naturally be one or two audiences (not everyone!) whose lives will be affected the most by your program or initiative. Thinking concretely about who your primary audiences are is important to prioritize and focus your efforts given limited resources. Here is where another post by Stephanie about describing your audiences comes in handy. She describes ways to articulate your audiences beyond demographics to include psychographics like a person’s interests, values, attitudes, and goals. Initially, your description of primary audiences might be based on assumptions but audience research and evaluation can help you explore whether your assumptions are correct.
3. Next, think about your outcomes.
We find it is very tempting for those who are really good at doing, creating, building—museum practitioners—to think about how they want to design a program before articulating what difference the program will make on the lives of the audiences served (outcomes). But it is very important that you don’t skip ahead to the how before discussing the why because you can lose your way and waste valuable resources. To get you started, here is a post I wrote about how to articulate audience outcomes. Just like with audiences, less is more (3-5 outcomes per audience). Describing the ways audiences will be affected by your program serves as a guidepost for evaluation and helps you later reflect on the effectiveness of your program design. That is, which aspects of your program are leading to the outcomes you are hoping for; and which things should you change or stop doing?
4. Now, look to your “problem” statement to write your impact statement.
Some outcomes might happen right after a program (short-term), while others might happen several months later (mid-term). Impact is an accumulation of these short- and mid-term outcomes over time (sort of like, outcome A + B + C = impact). Impact often happens years later as the result of repeated exposure and experiences. So, now that you have articulated your audiences and outcomes, consider what larger story they are starting to tell. What broader impact do your outcomes add up to? Start aspirational and then ground things in reality.
5. Consider how you will get where you want to go.
You didn’t skip ahead to this part, did you?! Ok, good. What specific resources, like funding or staff capacity, will you invest directly in this initiative? Based on your experience, do you think it is realistic to achieve your outcomes with that level of resources? If not, how might you modify your outcomes to reflect reality? Or, if you think you are lacking the information to be able to answer this question, think about what information you need to gather, including through evaluation. What actions or aspects of your program design will lead to the outcomes you have articulated? You might be basing your actions on assumptions at this point; or, you might have knowledge of how similar programs or initiatives have successfully achieved certain outcomes.
6. Finally, remember that a logic model is a living document.
I think the reason some museum practitioners really don’t like logic models is because they think of them as static documents—something that is required for a grant application that then goes on a shelf, never to be seen again. But, in fact, they are dynamic, living documents that are meant to change and evolve as your organization changes or evolves. Logic models are a tool, and tools are meant to be used. So, every few months, get together as a team and reflect on the components of your logic model. Does it still accurately reflect what you want to achieve for your audiences? Does it still reflect your current capacity, in terms of staffing, resources? If not, change it!
I think now more than ever, when funding streams are uncertain and in flux, it can be quite comforting to have a logic model to guide you towards your aspirations while still anchoring you in current realities. And, because it is a living document that you will need to revise and change as the world changes, it can be one of the tools you use to adapt, no matter the circumstances.
