Prior to presenting my workshop this year I conducted an email conversation with participates. The technology was crude. I sent out email and asked people to hit “reply all”. Below are the (mostly unedited) comments. My responses to the participates are in CAPS. The workshop slides can be downloaded from my digital scrapbook, aka http://www.jamorell.com/.
My questions primarily echo questions raised by others: What is the appropriate balance between information and readability?
SEE SECTION 7 IN THE SLIDES. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE NEED. I HAVE SOME VERY UGLY LOGIC MODELS THAT WORK JUST FINE BECAUSE THE NECESSARY RELATIONSHIPS ARE IN THERE, AND ITS ONLY THE EVALUATION TEAM THAT USES THEM.
Should the LM change based on the audience/stakeholder (e.g., is it better to have one comprehensive model or to have multiple models that target specific audience’s/stakeholder’s needs?)?
I THINK THAT MULTIPLE MODELS ARE FINE AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT CONVEY ONE MESSAGE TO ONE GROUP AND A CONTRADICTORY MESSAGE TO ANOTHER, OR DELIBERATELY NOT TELL A PARTICULAR GROUP WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, WHICH IS SOMETHING THEY MAY NOT LIKE.
What kind of model is most useful? How does a model’s utility change across contexts? IT IS NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION OF CHANGING ACROSS CONTEXTS AS IT IS CHANGING BECAUSE OF CONTEXT. A MODEL TO EXPLAIN HOW A PROGRAM TO OUTSIDERS WOULD LOOK QUITE DIFFERENT FROM ONE NEEDED BY EVALUATORS TO CROSS REFERENCE MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES. WITHIN EACH CONTEXT A MODEL MAY BE GOOD, NOT SO GOOD, OR BAD.
——————
I almost always include a logic model with grant proposals and find that by getting it made early, my clients can talk to and solicit partner agreements and letters of support more easily using the logic model as a visual. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF USING LOGIC MODELS FOR ADVOCACY RATHER THAN EVALUATION OR PLANNING
I have also used logic models to guide evaluations, and one federally funded project I evaluated had a grantor required logic model format that was particularly long, detailed, and hard to work with.
LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE THIS PROBLEM, JUST ASK THE PEOPLE WHO EVALUATE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND ARE STUCK WITH LOG FRAMES. DO YOU KNOW WHY THEY WANTED THE MODEL USED? TO COMPARE ACROSS PROGRAMS? BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED TO LIKE IT?
——————
I’ve seen logic models on the web that use hyperlinks very effectively.
ONE REASON TO USE HYPERLINKS IS TO TURN THE MODEL INTO SOMETHING LIKE A PORTAL THAT MAPS TO OTHER FILES, MATERIAL, COLLABORATION SITES, AND SO ON. ANOTHER REASON IS TO MOVE IN AND OUT OF LEVELS OF DETAIL.
In our own models, which are usually designed to be printed out, I have a constant struggle to achieve the right balance between detail and clarity.
THINK OF THIS AS AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM IN WHICH YOU HAVE TO JOINTLY OPTIMIZE TWO DESIGN CRITERIA: INFORMATION RICHNESS AND READABILITY. THE BETTER THE GRAPHIC DESIGN, THE HIGHER THE JOINT OPTIMA. SEE PART 7 OF THE SLIDE DECK. THERE ARE LOTS OF JUICY EXAMPLES.
——————
I have been working with a group of people representing various partner organizations to develop a logic model on the public health knowledge management and exchange programs. One of the challenges is to reach consensus on different elements and flows in the model, as we are trying to address the needs and views of different stakeholders and audiences without complicating the design of logic model itself. IS IT NECESSARY TO ASSUME THAT AGREEMENT HAS TO BE REACHED? IF THE LM IS TO REFLECT A PROJECT PLAN, THEN YES. BUT DIFFERENT THEORIES OF ACTION FOR THE SAME PROGRAM, OR WAYS TO DESIGN AN EVALUATION AND COLLECT DATA? THEN MAYBE NOT SO MUCH.
——————
To understand alignment to our system goals for IC, we are reviewing all of our organizations logic models, refining the logic, and elevating programs where there is a break down in logic. From this workshop, I hope to get a better sense of how we can structure our logic models for such a diverse set of programs, relatively uniformly across the board. Also looking for ways to handle/represent things like “pre-activities”…e.g. for example, our preschools, where do we put measurement of teacher professional development, when the outcomes are student level, and we generally treat TPD as an input?
IT MAY BE BEST NOT TO THINK OF THIS AS AN LM PROBLEM BUT AS BOTH A THEORY PROBLEM AND A RESEARCH PROBLEM. AS FOR THEORY, DO WE REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE KNOW WHAT ROLE PD HAS IN ACHIEVEMENT. IF WE DO WE CAN PUT IT IN A MODEL IN AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAY. IF WE DONT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE A MODEL THAT PRETENDS THAT WE WE KNOW MORE THAN WE DO. AS FOR THE RESEARCH ASPECT, SUPPOSE WE BELIEVE THAT PD IS CRITICAL. DOES THAT MEAN WE CAN IMPLEMENT A RESEARCH DESIGN TO TEST THE
RELATIONSHIP. MAYBE NOT.
——————
One of my colleagues and I are working with a local organization that provides after school programming in STEM to girls. We are currently helping them create a logic map for one of their programs.
WHAT DO THEY WANT IT FOR. EVALUATION, PLANNING, ADVOCACY, TO REVEAL THEIR ASSUMPTIONS, ETC.
Some issues that have come up for us: The pictorial representation of the map – examples and purposes of each.
WE WILL SHOW A GAZILLION EXAMPLES.
If we don’t want to struggle with the design elements, recommended computer software?
ILL LOOK INTO THIS. ALSO EVALTALK HAD A LIVELY DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC A WHILE BACK. IT MAY BE WORTH SEARCHING THEIR ARCHIVES. AS FOR DESIGN ELEMENTS, PERSONALLY A RECTANGLE AND AN ARROW ARE ABOUT ALL I EVER USE. I PLAY WITH COLOR A LOT, BUT THAT IS ABOUT IT.
How to best communicate with program developers, especially in figuring out the key components of their program?
THINK OF LMS AS A TOOL FOR HELPING PEOPLE TO REALIZE WHAT THEY THINK THE BELIEVE. COMBINE THAT WITH THE RIGHT GROUP PROCESS AND INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES AND ONE CAN GET QUITE FAR. BUT DON’T ASSUME THAT PROGRAM DEVELOPERS ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE KEY COMPONENTS ARE. I TALK ABOUT THIS MORE IN MY WORKSHOP ON UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAN LMS, BUT WE CAN GET INTO IT HERE ALSO IF PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED.
When does this process really end?
THAT DEPENDS ON THE VALUE OF REVISING MODELS OVER TIME. THERE IS A VERY GREAT DEAL TO SAY ABOUT THIS. WE WILL.
Outcomes, especially long-term — how feasible do they need to be? If they are not feasible, how do program developers explain them to funders?
ONE REASON FOR PUTTING IN LONG TERM OUTCOMES IS TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE PRIZE. ANOTHER IS FOR REASONS OF ADVOCACY. FUND US AND WE WILL SAVE THE WORLD. THE FIRST REASON MAKES SENSE TO SAY TO FUNDERS HERE IS WHERE WE ARE GOING, OF COURSE THIS PROGRAM WILL NOT BRING PEACE ON EARTH, BUT THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE ARE GOING IN. IF FUNDERS INSIST ON DOING THE IMPOSSIBLE, LOGIC MODELS WONT HELP WITH THAT. FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW WE DON’T WANT TO SET UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS.
——————
I have been in my position for one year, so my evaluation toolkit is nascent. However, much of my work has included assisting with the development of theories of change.
THIS IS A WHOLE INTERESTING COMPLICATED MATTER IN ITS OWN RIGHT. LOGIC MODELS ARE RELATED OF COURSE. I TALK A LOT ABOUT THIS IN MY WORKSHOP ON EVALUATING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, BUT WE WONT HAVE MUCH TIME TO DEAL WITH IT AT AEA. IF THERE IS TIME AND INTEREST, WE CAN DIP OUR TOES INTO THIS TOPIC.
In general I hope to learn about crafting logic models that are accessible and functional for the planning and operations of the client, in particular models that can be easily translated to work plans. SEE MY PREVIOUS EMAIL. LMS FOR WORK PLANS AND FOR EVALUAITON ARE NOT THE SAME. OTHER USES FOR LMS INCLUDE ADVOCACY AND PLANNING. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS AS WELL.
——————
What I hope to get out of this workshop is more ideas around usage and ‘display’/communication ideas for Logic Models.
I DONT WANT TO GIVE THE STORE AWAY, BUT THE SECRET IS SIMPLE. GOOD LOGIC MODELS CAN BE EASILY READ AND CONTAIN A LOT OF INFORMATION SO PEOPLE CAN SEE RELATIONSHIPS. THE BETTER THE GRAPHIC DESIGN, THE MORE THESE DESIGN CRITERIA CAN BE OPTIMIZED. SEE THE MIDDLE SECTION OF THE SLIDES ON MY WEBSITE. LOTS OF
GOOD EXAMPLES THERE
——————
We conduct evaluations as required by state and federal statute, grant terms, and commissioner mandates. Because of the high work demands of our unit, it is difficult to dedicate time and resources to the development of detailed logic models prior to implementation of a evaluation plan.
DON’T ASSUME DETAIL IS ALWAYS NEEDED. THINK OF A MAP. WHAT SCALE IS NEEDED. DO I NEED TO KNOW MAIN ROADS FROM THE TRAIN STATION TO THE AIRPORT, OR EVERY BACK ALLEY IN HELSINKI. OR TURN THIS AROUND. IF ALL I HAVE IS THE LARGER SCALE MAP, WHAT IS THE BEST JOB OF NAVIGATION I CAN DO. WHAT CAN I EXPECT TO GET DONE WITH THAT MAP.
By my participation in the workshop, I hope to gather a better understanding of how to develop logic models for government program applications. I also hope to learn about translating these logic models into measurable research questions
ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS IS HOW TO DEVELOP A LOGIC MODEL TO ADDRESS THE RESEARCH QUESTION.
and defined work plans.
A LM CAN BE USED FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. DRIVING EVALUAITON AND DRIVING PROJECT EXECUTION ARE DIFFERENT. REMIND ME AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THIS. I HAVE A NICE SLIDE ON IT, IF YOU REMIND ME TO SHOW IT.
I am excited to meet all of you. BACK AT YOU.
——————
I have been working with different organizations in the last three years, helping them in building their logic models. I hope this workshop will help me in learning new techniques and understandings of what a logic model is.
TECHNIQUES YES BUT ALSO I HOPE, SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT A LOGIC MODEL IS. SEE PREVIOUS MESSAGES FOR MORE ON THIS. ALSO IT SOUNDS AS IF SOME OF THE WORK YOU DO IS TO USE LMS NOT FOR EVALUATION BUT TO HELP WITH PROGRAM DESIGN.
ONE THING THAT IS WORTH CONSIDERING IS A TRAP THAT I OFTEN FALL INTO MYSELF. WE THINK OF LMS AS EVALUATION TOOLS BUT THEY DO MORE THAN THAT. THEY CAN BE USED FOR PLANNING, EXPLANATION, AND ADVOCACY. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME WITH RESPECT TO WHAT A GOOD MODEL LOOKS LIKE. ILL SPEAK FOR MYSELF HERE. I OFTEN FIND MYSELF SLIPPING FROM ONE USE TO ANOTHER WITHOUT REALIZING IT, AND THEREBY GETTING MYSELF INTO NO END OF TROUBLE. I HOPE I CAN HELP ALL OF YOU FALL INTO THIS TRAP LESS OFTEN THAN I FIND MYSELF IN IT.
——————
I am interested in learning how to make logic models more useful throughout the entire evaluation process.
I MAKE A BIG DEAL OF THIS IN THE WORKSHOP. BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH MATERIAL THOUGH, I MAY END UP GIVING THIS LESS ATTENTION THAN YOU WOULD LIKE. IF SO REMIND ME AND I WILL MEND MY WAYS.
Too often, and I’m guilty of this, too, I don’t see logic models used for more than an “exercise to do periodically with the evaluator.” I’d really like to learn how to help our clients (and stakeholders) use them and see their usefulness in their own work of project implementation. BTW, your slides from last year look like it’s going to be a fun and useful workshop!
THANKS BUT KEEP THIS IN MIND. I OFTEN GET BEAT UP FOR CRAMMING TOO MUCH MATERIAL INTO THE DAY. I WANT TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT WILL BE MOST INTERESTING AND USEFUL FOR PEOPLE. HOPEFULLY I WILL BE ABLE TO SATISFY EVERYONE. BUT IF YOU WANT TO LOBBY FOR ONE OR ANOTHER TOPIC, FEEL FREE.
I am fine sharing some of our logic models as examples. Right now, I’m thinking of bringing logic models related to 1) a state-level evaluation of tobacco prevention and control, and 2) a RWJF project to enhance the quality of nurse care, statewide.
EITHER OR BOTH SOUND GREAT TO ME. FROM THE CLASS POINT OF VIEW THE BEST ONE WOULD BE THE ONE WHERE YOU HAVE THE MOST QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THE MODEL AGAINST REAL WORLD BEHAVIOR.
——————
I am a big fan of logic models, and the use of program theory in general, and take every opportunity I can to learn more about them.
THE WHOLE QUESTION OF THEORY, PROGRAM THEORY, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM, AND WHAT ALL THAT MEANS FOR LMS IS AN EXCEEDINGLY INTERESTING SUBJECT. I TALK A LOT ABOUT THIS IN MY WORKSHOP ON UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, BUT IF YOU REMIND ME ILL BRING SOME OF THIS INTO THE LM WORKSHOP AS WELL.
——————
I’m interested in nested or cascading logic models,
NO PROBLEM. THINK OF A LOGIC MODEL AS A MAP WHICH CAN HAVE DIFFERENT SCALES AND DIFFERENT PROJECTIONS, DEPENDING ON THE USE. I WILL PROVIDE EXAMPLES.
as well as software to build the models.
I WILL DISCUSS THIS A BIT BUT I HAVE TO ADMIT IM NOT A BIG FAN OF SPECIALIZED LM SW. I KNOW MANY OF MY GOOD FRIENDS DISAGREE WITH ME BUT I AM OF THE OPINIONATED SORT. MOSTLY I HAVE THIS OPINION FOR 2 REASONS. FIRST, I AM PERSONALLY SO GOOD AT USING
VISIO THAT IT IS HARD FOR ME TO RELATE TO THE IDEA THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT. BUT MORE THAN THAT I DON’T LIKE THE IDEA OF THE FUNCTIONALITY OF TOOLS DICTATING CHOICES. THE MORE FLEXIBILITY, THE BETTER. I WILL TALK A LOT ABOUT THE FORMS LMS CAN TAKE AND THE VARIOUS USES THEY CAN BE PUT TO. THIS MAY GIVE YOU AN INKLING OF WHY IM IN FAVOR OF GENERIC TOOLS.
——————
I love logic models because they make sense to me. Putting them into practice, however, seems to be more challenging. I find it difficult to get buy-in, much less, enthusiasm, about logic models when working with clients. I am hoping to learn to construct logic models that makes them more accessible, interesting and useful to clients – I suspect my samples will be in the category of “b-o-r-i-n-g” but hope to jazz them up a bit.
BRING THEM ALONG. WE WILL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.
Moreover, I would like to learn to construct a dynamic logic model, e.g., one that can handle the natural fluidity of community-based programming.
IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO CHANGE A MODEL. THE QUESTION IS WHEN AND HOW FOR MAXIMUM EFFECT. BE SURE TO BRING THIS QUESTION UP AND I WILL DEAL WITH IT.
Finally, most of the logic models that I have seen/used are based on an assumption of quantitative methodologies for evaluation. I would like to see if and how logic models can be constructed that implicitly and explicitly incorporate the use qualitative methods, since that is what generally turns out to be most relevant in community-based programs.
IN ONE SENSE I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS AN ISSUE. THE LOGIC OF A PROGRAM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE METHODOLOGY CHOSEN TO DO THE EVALUATION. IF I FORGET TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS SO, BE SURE TO REMIND ME.
UNLESS…
LOGIC MODELS BY THEIR NATURE ARE AN ABSTRACTION OF REALITY FOR THE SAKE OF SEEING RELATIONSHIPS. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE NATURE OF THE WORLD IS SUCH THAT ABSTRACTION IS NOT POSSIBLE, THEN THE WHOLE IDEA OF HAVING A MODEL BECOMES USELESS. IF YOU ARE OF THAT SCHOOL OF QUALITATIVE METHODS THAT ASSUMES THE WORLD DOES NOT ALLOW ABSTRACTION, THEN NEITHER MODELS NOR QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS WILL DO ANY GOOD. THIS ALL MAKES FOR VERY
INTERESTING CONVERSATION, ESPECIALLY AFTER A FEW DRINKS. BUT I AM GOING TO ASSUME THAT ABSTRACTION IS USEFUL.
——————
Some of my current projects involve complex change initiatives that involve large systems.
THEY PROBABLY ARE COMPLEX. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE SHOULD DO EVALUATION OF THE SYSTEM AS IF IT WERE COMPLEX, OR IF WE SHOULD JUST APPRECIATE THE COMPLEXITY BUT EVALUATE IN TRADITIONAL WAYS.
THERE IS ALSO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO EVALUATE A PROGRAM AS A COMPLEX SYSTEM. THE ANSWER IS “YES” ON AN INTUITIVE HEURISTIC BASIS, BUT “NO” IN A FORMAL SENSE OUTSIDE OF DOING SOME KIND OF COMPUTER SIMULATION. (I HAVE A NEAT DEMO OF THIS, BUT IT IS WAY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS WORKSHOP.) I’M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THIS TOPIC BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART. BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO FIND ME IN THE HALL OR AT THE BAR. IF YOU ARE REALLY MOTIVATED TO KNOW MORE, ATTEND “Think Tank Session 722 to be held in 102 D on Saturday, Oct 27, 8:00 AM to 9:30 AM”. BUT LOOK AT THE TIME. YOU REALLY HAVE TO BE MOTIVATED. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN AN AGENTS-BASED APPROACH TO COMPLEXITY AND EVALUATION, GO TO THE JMDE ARTICLE JUST BELOW THE WORKSHOP SLIDES IN MY DIGITAL SCRAPBOOK.
PS – DON’T ASSUME THAT A SYSTEM HAS TO BE LARGE TO BE COMPLEX. BIG SYSTEMS MAY NOT BE COMPLEX AND SEEMINGLY SMALL ONES CAN BE. I HAVE A DEMO OF THIS TOO, BUT IT’S ALSO OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE WORKSHOP.
And, as I am a visual person, I would find it helpful to be able to create a dynamic model that could help me and my clients visualize these projects while tracking their development over time
WE WILL TALK ABOUT MODELS IN DIFFERENT FORMS AND REVISION OVER TIME. I WON’T GET MUCH INTO HOW THIS CAN BE INSTANTIATED IN SOME KIND OF DISTRIBUTED COLLABORATION TOOL, BUT I WILL GIVE YOU SOME POINTERS TO THE POSSIBILITIES.
As I mentioned earlier, I do teach program evaluation to nonprofit agencies, many that do not understand how to use logic models for program planning or evaluation.
AS WE WILL TALK ABOUT, USE FOR “PLANNING” AND FOR “EVALUATION” ONLY PARTIALLY OVERLAP. AS A SMALL FOR INSTANCE, A PLANNING MODEL MAY SHOW A SEQUENCE OF STEPS THAT HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED IN ORDER TO GET A PROGRAM UP AND RUNNING. BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO COLLECT DATA AND DO ANALYSIS AS TO HOW WELL THAT SEQUENCE WORKED. OR, “PLANNING” MAY REALLY MEAN “ADVOCACY”. IN THAT CASE ALL KINDS OF DETAIL NEEDED FOR EVALUATION, AND ID OF NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES, WILL END UP ON THE CUTTING ROOM FLOOR.
——————
I’ve been introducing logic models and conceptual models to our clients as a way for them to clearly show to funders how their investments lead to more ecosystem services for people. We have found that these diagrams help our clients focus on communicating the basics of their theory of change and inspire sustained investment in the program.
SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE OF USING LOGIC MODELS PRIMARILY FOR COMMUNICATION AND EXPLANATION RATHER THAN EVALUATION. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT AS LONG AS PEOPLE DON’T THINK THEY ARE DOING ONE WHEN THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING THE OTHER. WE WILL GET INTO WHY APPRECIATING THE DISTINCTION MATTERS.
I’m interested in broadening my understanding of logic modeling tools that are available and thinking together about how to apply them in the environmental sector. I would also like to exchange stories that demonstrate the tangible benefits that are gained by good program design and clear performance
metrics.
A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION WITH NOT SUCH AN OBVIOUS OR STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER. HOWEVER THIS DOES GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE WORKSHOP. STILL, MUCH OF THE WORKSHOP BRUSHES UP AGAINST THIS SUBJECT, SO IT WON’T BE BEGIN.
——————
My questions primarily echo questions raised by others: What is the appropriate balance between information and readability?
SEE SECTION 7 IN THE SLIDES. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE NEED. I HAVE SOME VERY UGLY LOGIC MODELS THAT WORK JUST FINE BECAUSE THE NECESSARY RELATIONSHIPS ARE IN THERE, AND ITS ONLY THE EVALUATION TEAM THAT USES THEM.
Should the LM change based on the audience/stakeholder (e.g., is it better to have one comprehensive model or to have multiple models that target specific audience’s/stakeholder’s needs?)?
I THINK THAT MULTIPLE MODELS ARE FINE AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT CONVEY ONE MESSAGE TO ONE GROUP AND A CONTRADICTORY MESSAGE TO ANOTHER, OR DELIBERATELY NOT TELL A PARTICULAR GROUP WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, WHICH IS SOMETHING THEY MAY NOT LIKE.
What kind of model is most useful? How does a model’s utility change across contexts?
IT IS NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION OF CHANGING ACROSS CONTEXTS AS IT IS CHANGING BECAUSE OF CONTEXT. A MODEL TO EXPLAIN HOW A PROGRAM TO OUTSIDERS WOULD LOOK QUITE DIFFERENT FROM ONE NEEDED BY EVALUATORS TO CROSS REFERENCE MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES. WITHIN EACH CONTEXT A MODEL MAY BE GOOD, NOT SO GOOD, OR BAD.
What are some of the differences between LMs for program development and planning, evaluation, and advocacy/funding?
SEE SLIDES 13 – 15. THEY MAY HELP.
How and when should we revise models to reflect development and the dynamic nature of community based programming?
WE WILL DISCUSS, I PROMISE. IN THE MEANTIME TAKE A LOOK AT SLIDES 33 – 35.
Are there times when LMs just aren’t appropriate?
YES. SEE SLIDES 22 – 24. A LOGIC MODEL IS LIKE A 3 INCH CRESCENT WRENCH. VERY USEFUL AND VERSATILE, BUT NOT ALWAYS NEEDED, AND SOMETIMES THE WRONG TOOL.
I think all of these questions are addressed in your slides and I am really looking forward to the workshop! THEY ARE BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF SLIDES AND WE WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO GET AT ALL THE TOPICS. I’M COUNTING ON ALL OF YOU TO KEEP ME RELEVANT TO YOUR NEEDS.
——————
I almost always include a logic model with grant proposals and find that by getting it made early, my clients can talk to and solicit partner agreements and letters of support more easily using the logic model as a visual.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF USING LOGIC MODELS FOR ADVOCACY RATHER THAN EVALUATION OR PLANNING
I have also used logic models to guide evaluations, and one federally funded project I evaluated had a grantor required logic model format that was particularly long, detailed, and hard to work with.
LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE THIS PROBLEM, JUST ASK THE PEOPLE WHO EVALUATE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND ARE STUCK WITH LOG FRAMES. DO YOU KNOW WHY THEY WANTED THE MODEL USED? TO COMPARE ACROSS PROGRAMS? BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED TO LIKE IT?
Evaluation Uncertainty 