EvalCompassEvalCompass
Design & theoryProgram designTheory-based evaluationOutcomesPlanning

Logic Model

Logic Model
Also known as: Program logic model、Results chain

A diagram that links a program’s resources, activities, direct outputs and changes for participants, setting out the assumptions about how outcomes will occur and what needs to be checked. Completing the diagram does not, by itself, demonstrate a causal effect. [1]

Logic model worksheet — openRead the practical guideReferences and checked sections
Difficulty
Introductory
Cost
Low
Duration
Illustrative estimate (adjust for scale and staffing): several hours to 2 days (a stakeholder workshop is recommended)
Content updated: 2026-09-13Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examples

How it works at a glance

A logic model connects activities with short- and long-term outcomes and their assumptions. [1]

In practice, it maps the outcomes a program needs to examine to indicators and provides material for revisiting assumptions with stakeholders. [1]

InputsFunding, people, time
ActivitiesTraining / support
OutputsSessions / participants
Short- and medium-term outcomesChanges in knowledge / behavior
Long-term outcomesChanges in conditions / society
Assumptions and external factors
Arrows do not prove causation.

When to use it and when it is unsuitable

When to use it

  • Clarifying the links between activities and outcomes with stakeholders when planning a new program
  • Deciding what to measure at each stage when preparing an evaluation plan
  • Explaining program intentions on a single page in a grant application or program report
  • Identifying which break in the chain explains a lack of effects when reviewing an existing program

When it is unsuitable

  • If the main purpose is to estimate a program’s causal effect numerically, a separate evaluation design is needed to examine effects.
  • Treating the model as the sole agreed causal pathway when stakeholders hold different views.

Participants, roles, and deliverables

Participants and roles

Program officers, frontline staff, managers and participant representatives, among others. Determine numbers based on ease of discussion and the perspectives needed.

Main deliverables

  • Logic model diagram (one page)
  • List of assumptions and external factors
  • List of candidate indicators

Implementation steps

  1. Confirm purpose and scope
    Decide who the model is for and what it is for. Agree with stakeholders on its level of detail and whether it covers the whole program or a particular component.
  2. Work backward from the final outcome
    Start with “Whose situation should this program ultimately change, and how?” Filling the model backward from the right (impact) to the left (inputs) helps maintain logical consistency.
  3. List each element
    Identify inputs, activities, outputs and immediate/intermediate/long-term outcomes using sticky notes or similar tools. Clearly distinguish outputs (direct products of activities) from outcomes (changes for participants).
  4. Check the causal chain
    Read each arrow aloud as an “if–then” statement and check for gaps in reasoning. Add intermediate outcomes where needed.
  5. Record assumptions and external factors
    Record in the margins the assumptions needed for the chain to hold and factors outside the program that influence it. These provide starting points for later evaluation questions.
  6. Assign indicators and update rules
    Assign indicators to elements that need measuring and incorporate them into an evaluation design matrix. Set a review date that reflects program progress.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

  • Accessible without specialist knowledge and provides a common language for stakeholders
  • Directly supports the development of evaluation indicators and questions
  • Explains the whole program on one page and communicates well to funders
  • Identifies weak assumptions and gaps in program reasoning early

Limitations

  • A simple one-way diagram may miss branching or cyclical change. Add the necessary relationships while maintaining readability.
  • Can become a document that is completed and then forgotten; without updates, it loses practical value
  • The model’s logic is not guaranteed to work in reality; it remains a hypothesis

Common pitfalls

  • Confusing outputs with outcomes: “10 training sessions delivered” is an output; changes in participants’ behavior are outcomes
  • Expecting too many outcomes: long-term outcomes that are too ambitious for the program’s scale become impossible to evaluate
  • Developing the model within the secretariat alone and omitting frontline and beneficiary perspectives

Conditions of use and evidence

  • The diagram need not be linear. Branches and interactions can also be shown for complex programs. [1]
Fictional example; not actual results

Connecting evaluation training to improvements in practice

The following program is fictional and provided for illustration. 12 NPO staff attend evaluation planning training, aiming to use their plans in their organizations 3 months later.

ElementCompleted example
Activities and outputs2 exercises; 12 participants prepare draft plans
Short-term outcomeCan explain the correspondence between questions, indicators and information sources
Intermediate outcomeUse draft plans in workplace meetings to determine what information to collect

Common errors in judgment

Common mistake

Describing the 12 participants simply as an outcome

How to revise

Record participant numbers as an output separately from the actions participants can now perform

ReasonThis avoids confusing the number of people reached with the nature of their changes.

Common mistake

Drawing an arrow directly from training delivery to organization-wide improvement

How to revise

Insert draft plan preparation, workplace agreement and actual use as intermediate stages

ReasonThis makes it possible to examine conditions the program alone cannot control.

Organize your thinking by writing

Logic model worksheet

A practical template is available to fill in and print on A4 paper.

Open worksheet

Related practical guides

What is a logic model?Theory of changeEvaluation methods for EBPMEvaluating nonprofit and grant-funded programs

Related methods

Theory of ChangeLogical Framework (Logframe / LFA)Indicator DesignEvaluation Design Matrix

References and checked sections

  1. Logic Model Development Guide
    W.K. Kellogg Foundation · 2004
    Section consulted
    Chapter 1, pp. 1–4; Chapter 3, pp. 27–34
    How it relates to the text
    Basic structure linking activities, outcomes and assumptions
    Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checkingCite this pageReport a correction

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Logic Model”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-09-13. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/methods/logic-model/
Add the date you accessed the page. Text created by this site is available under CC BY 4.0. Quotations, external materials, and bundled fonts have their own terms of use. When reusing content, credit the source, link to the license, and indicate any changes.

Suggest a correction or improvement to this page

Change history
  • — Added source links, completed examples and examples of evaluation judgments.