Logic model worksheet

Working backward from long-term outcomes on the right helps prevent gaps in reasoning. After completing the model, read it aloud as if–then statements to check it.

When to use this worksheet and what completion involves Fictional completed example

EvalCompass Worksheet

Logic model worksheet

Method: Logic Model

Working backward from long-term outcomes on the right helps prevent gaps in reasoning. After completing the model, read it aloud as if–then statements to check it.

Basic information

Enter an overview of the program

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Program name: Evaluation planning workshop
Participants (whose change is sought): 12 NPO program officers
Implementation period: April–July 2026 (fictional)
Date prepared and contributors: April 1, 2026 / training officer and participant representative (fictional)

Reason for this entry: Define whose changes will be examined and over what period.

Program name

Participants (whose change is sought)

Implementation period

Date prepared and contributors

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Enter an overview of the program

Define whose changes will be examined and over what period.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Follow each field’s heading to record the program name, focus, period, and other details. Leave undecided matters clearly marked as unresolved.

Read the full fictional example

Main model

Enter elements in each column (one chain per row)

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Inputs	Activities	Outputs	Immediate outcomes	Intermediate outcomes	Long-term outcomes
1 trainer, materials and staff practice time	2 exercises and feedback on draft plans	Draft plans from 12 participants	Can explain the correspondence between questions and indicators	Use a plan in their organization within 3 months	Use evaluation findings to revise the program

Reason for this entry: A single chain distinguishing activity implementation from changes for participants and organizations.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Inputs	Activities	Outputs	Immediate outcomes	Intermediate outcomes	Long-term outcomes

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Enter elements in each column (one chain per row)

A single chain distinguishing activity implementation from changes for participants and organizations.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Assumptions (conditions needed for this chain to hold)

List conditions expressed as “if…”

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

The workplace can allocate time to discuss plans, and managers support data collection.

Reason for this entry: Record conditions training alone cannot fulfill.

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

List conditions expressed as “if…”

Record conditions training alone cannot fulfill.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Use the example as a reference and record what you have established about your own program. Distinguish assumptions and unchecked matters from confirmed facts.

Read the full fictional example

External factors (influences on results from outside the program)

Policy changes, economic conditions, other organizations’ activities, etc.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Staff transfers, changes to funder reporting requirements and participation in other training.

Reason for this entry: This avoids attributing observed changes solely to the training.

External changesEffects on the programWhat to check

Start a new line for each factor. Distinguish what is known from what has not been checked.

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Policy changes, economic conditions, other organizations’ activities, etc.

This avoids attributing observed changes solely to the training.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Use the example as a reference and record what you have established about your own program. Distinguish assumptions and unchecked matters from confirmed facts.

Read the full fictional example

Completion checklist

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

☑ Checked: Each arrow makes sense as an “if–then” statement without gaps in reasoning
☑ Checked: Outputs and outcomes are not mixed together
☑ Checked: Outcomes are expressed as changes for participants
☐ Not checked: Frontline and beneficiary perspectives are reflected
☑ Checked: The next review date is set

Reason for this entry: In this fictional plan, consultation with the participant representative is incomplete. Confirm and revise it at the next meeting.

Each arrow makes sense as an “if–then” statement without gaps in reasoning
Outputs and outcomes are not mixed together
Outcomes are expressed as changes for participants
Frontline and beneficiary perspectives are reflected
The next review date is set

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

In this fictional plan, consultation with the participant representative is incomplete. Confirm and revise it at the next meeting.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Read each item and check those you have confirmed. Do not use the fictional example’s checkbox states as findings about your own program.

Read the full fictional example

Before writing, check when to use the worksheet and what completion involves

Logic model worksheet is a worksheet for applying Logic Model in meetings or individual work. For the overall duration of the method, use “Illustrative estimate (adjust for scale and staffing): several hours to 2 days (a stakeholder workshop is recommended)” as a reference, adjusting for scale and resources. Fill in what you know provisionally and leave unresolved matters as questions to check next.

When this worksheet is useful

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

Participants and preparation

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

Bring the materials used for decisions, existing data, and differing stakeholder views to help complete the worksheet.

Suggested order

1. Basic informationEnter an overview of the program
2. Main modelEnter elements in each column (one chain per row)
3. Assumptions (conditions needed for this chain to hold)List conditions expressed as “if…”
4. External factors (influences on results from outside the program)Policy changes, economic conditions, other organizations’ activities, etc.
5. Completion checklist

Signs the worksheet is ready for review

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

Cautions for review

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

Guides to read before starting

Read a completed fictional example (your entries will not change)

Fictional example; not actual results

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.

Basic information

Program name: Evaluation planning workshop
Participants (whose change is sought): 12 NPO program officers
Implementation period: April–July 2026 (fictional)
Date prepared and contributors: April 1, 2026 / training officer and participant representative (fictional)

Reason for this entry: Define whose changes will be examined and over what period.

Main model

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Inputs	Activities	Outputs	Immediate outcomes	Intermediate outcomes	Long-term outcomes
1 trainer, materials and staff practice time	2 exercises and feedback on draft plans	Draft plans from 12 participants	Can explain the correspondence between questions and indicators	Use a plan in their organization within 3 months	Use evaluation findings to revise the program

Reason for this entry: A single chain distinguishing activity implementation from changes for participants and organizations.

Assumptions (conditions needed for this chain to hold)

The workplace can allocate time to discuss plans, and managers support data collection.

Reason for this entry: Record conditions training alone cannot fulfill.

External factors (influences on results from outside the program)

Staff transfers, changes to funder reporting requirements and participation in other training.

Reason for this entry: This avoids attributing observed changes solely to the training.

Completion checklist

☑ Checked: Each arrow makes sense as an “if–then” statement without gaps in reasoning
☑ Checked: Outputs and outcomes are not mixed together
☑ Checked: Outcomes are expressed as changes for participants
☐ Not checked: Frontline and beneficiary perspectives are reflected
☑ Checked: The next review date is set

Reason for this entry: In this fictional plan, consultation with the participant representative is incomplete. Confirm and revise it at the next meeting.

Common errors in judgment

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

Reason: This avoids confusing the number of people reached with the nature of their changes.

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

Reason: This makes it possible to examine conditions the program alone cannot control.

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: 2026-09-13Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checking Cite this page Report a correction

References and checked sections

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: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Logic model worksheet”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-09-13. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/worksheets/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

2026-09-13 — Added source links, completed examples and examples of evaluation judgments.