Comments by the professorWeek 1 Weekly Summary You have done a

Comments by the professor
Week 1 Weekly Summary
You have done a great job in meeting these outcomes,
especially in your discussion of past organizational change
projects as connected to your leadership self-awareness. You
also opened up a new avenue of self-awareness by complete the
Zinger-Folkman Extraordinary Leader Assessment and
constructing your strengths-to-strategy plan in the interactive
exercise. I encourage you to continue collecting new tools for
your leadership toolbox and building leadership capacity
throughout this course and afterward. You will find that you
will test some of the skills you are discovering (or
rediscovering) through this class in your practicum project.
Let's keep the dialogue going to foster an understanding of
leadership from the evidence that supports guiding change for a
compelling practice problem. I enjoyed reading your examples
and seeing the insight you were able to have with regard to
leading a change in your organization and doing some self-
reflection on what you could have done differently.
Understanding and explaining the change process as a self-
aware leader helps you internalize these ideas for future
projects, especially the impending DNP projects. Remember
that you can leverage others’ skills and attributes, which also
facilitates the team process.
As a reminder, the following Course Outcomes (COs) guided
your learning this week
· CO3. Differentiate attributes of effective leaders and
followers in influencing healthcare. (PO 6)
· CO5. Formulate selected strategies for leadership and
influence across healthcare systems. (PO 8
This week, we discovered that each practice scholar plays a role
in transforming healthcare through self-assessment to identify
individual leadership gaps. Evaluating leadership gaps builds
tacit knowledge to move us toward professional maturity. You

now know that insight into improved systems begins with
insight into one's self. Improved systems evolve through the
collaboration of individuals who are first committed to
improving their own practice. Practice scholars are called to
transform the health of our nation. I have no doubt that you'll
answer the call by reflecting on your individual and
professional commitment to gain insight on needed change
within yourself, and your organization. Next week, you'll reflect
on emotional intelligence and mindfulness in the workplace. So,
let's keep going! Your work is needed to improve patient
outcomes!
Week 2
Hello! Last week, we explored how the self-aware practice
scholar is influencing the practice of nursing and the health of
our nation. The call for transformation to improve patient care
delivery requires nurse leaders to reach beyond their intellect to
their emotional intelligence. By increasing emotional
competence, nurse leaders are raising their awareness to make
better choices. Establishing and maintaining relationships are
essential to leadership, and all relationships have an emotional
component. Emotional intelligence helps us to learn from
experience by considering what we know, believe, and value
within the context of a particular event. It helps us to make
sense of events, improve responses, develop mindfulness, and
improve outcomes for patients. Improving outcomes in today’s
fast-paced environment requires the right mind-set, will, and
skill, which you are developing on your DNP journey. This
week, you’ll achieve an important milestone on this journey
through the completion of a curriculum vitae detailing a DNP
scholar. Let's get started!
Weekly Outcomes: Compare and contrast theories of
organizational behavior and leadership. (PO6). Investigate the
role of advanced nursing practice in innovation and
transformation to propose solutions impacting healthcare
systems. (PO 6). Differentiate attributes of effective leaders and
followers in influencing healthcare. (PO 6)

Weekly Objectives: Apply complexity and chaos theories as
agents of change. Apply leadership theories and conceptual
frameworks to guide professional practice. Critique
characteristics of effective leaders.
Main Topics and Concepts: Emotional Intelligence. Leadership
Presence: The Mindful Leader. Leadership as Change Agents.
Understanding Complexity and Chaos Theories as Practice
Scholars
Foundations for Learning: Start your learning this week by
reviewing the following: This week review your current
Curriculum Vitae (CV) or Résumé for accuracy and currency as
you start converting it to a new CV.
Week 3: Conflict Resolution through Emotional Competence
This week’s discussion helped us “peel the onion” of the
lesson’s topics examining interprofessional models, conflict
management, evaluating performance, and leading sustainable
improvements. All of these topics benefit from a strategy of
conflict resolution through emotional competence.
Your discussions were provoking, insightful, and demonstrated
your nursing expertise. I am honored to share your insights and
the amazing look into your world of nursing!
Applied to your leadership toolbox, this week’s discussion, and
lesson will continue your transformational leadership
construction.
We met the following course outcomes through our discussion
this week:
CO2. Investigate the role of advanced nursing practice in
innovation and transformation to propose solutions impacting
healthcare systems. (PO 6)
CO4. Assimilate attributes for intra-/inter-professional
collaboration across healthcare settings (PO 8)
CO5. Formulate selected strategies for leadership and influence
across healthcare systems. (PO 8)
This week’s focus was interprofessional collaboration. As you
reflected on the history of collaboration in healthcare, you
gained insight about the importance that it has in shaping the

healthcare delivery system. The debate continues over the
extent to which DNP credentialing is a driving or restraining
force in an interprofessional practice model that is most likely
to produce high-quality, cost-effective healthcare. As the DNP-
prepared nurse seeks to overcome title constraints, societal
perceptions, medical-community restraints, and related
credentialing issues, the importance of using interprofessional
collaboration to influence patient outcomes is essential. Once
again, the practice scholar can serve as the healthcare leader in
affecting patient care outcomes that make a difference in the
future of healthcare delivery. Are you ready to make a real
difference for patients by leading value-based care? Let's move
on to Week 4 to help make that happen!
Week 4 marks the midpoint of your journey in NR703! You’re
making tremendous progress in learning about organizational
leadership! This leg of the journey continues the exploration of
value-based healthcare. Moving from a volume- to value-based
system of care involves a paradigmatic shift that challenges the
underlying assumptions of stakeholders about how healthcare is
delivered and by whom. Paradigmatic shifts often create
conflict over values and strategy, and I think we all agree that
the U.S. healthcare system presents complex challenges at
multiple levels. Little agreement exists regarding the direction
of healthcare delivery, especially as it relates to the
implementation of the Affordable Care Act, expansion of
Medicaid funding, or selection of targeted spending cuts. There
is simply no way that reforming healthcare can unfold without
conflict. The practice scholar must understand this and acquire
the skills to manage conflict that yields benefits. This week is
an important step in your journey toward becoming an effective
leader capable of building value-based systems of healthcare. I
know you're ready to make that step, so let's get started! Week
4, Discussion SUMMARY – Ethical Decision-Making
The discussion centered around an emotionally-charged scenario
in which the CNO had to balance the Ethic of Care and Ethic of

Justice leadership concepts in disclosing the incident. You all
added your experience, expertise, and professional opinions to
this rich discussion. Open communication and check-ins across
levels of leadership inform decision-making and help avoid
unnecessary conflict. We discussed how the DNP leader can
facilitate open communication and align teams effectively to
accomplish the vision and mission of the organization, even in
crisis situations like this scenario.
this week:
CO3. Differentiate attributes of effective leaders and followers
in influencing healthcare. (PO 6)
Week 4 Objectives: Analyze professional communication
strategies. Prioritize high-value healthcare. Differentiate the
role of a leader in volume-based and value-based healthcare
systems. Integrate ethical decision-making principles that
promote a culture of care. Investigate the role of advanced
nursing practice in innovation and transformation to propose
solutions impacting healthcare systems. Differentiate attributes
of effective leaders and followers in influencing healthcare.
Formulate selected strategies for leadership and influence
across healthcare systems.
Hello! Week 4 certainly offered important information! Let's
take time to go over what you learned this week. This part of
your journey focused on building value-based systems of
healthcare and the ethical dilemmas that are inherent within
healthcare’s highly changing environment. As you explored
ethical theories and principles, you likely discovered that you’re
already familiar with several of these principles. But did you
know about the Ethic of Care and the Ethic of Justice, which
recently emerged in healthcare? It is typically the competing

values, both of which may be morally correct, that result in an
ethical dilemma or conflict. This knowledge is foundational to
mobilizing stakeholders to tackle tough challenges. By using
this knowledge, you’ll be able to provide an integrative
framework for delivering value-based care while helping others
shift from a discipline-specific to systems-level view. With that
understanding, you're ready to move on to Week 5 and explore
the value of innovation to provide creative solutions in
healthcare.
Hello there! Welcome to Week 5! This week on your journey,
we'll explore strategies for leading innovation with creative
solutions. In the current healthcare environment, practice
scholars must develop the ability to integrate leadership and
innovation to facilitate effective change within nursing units,
interprofessional teams, organizations, communities, and health
systems. Today’s DNP graduate must possess the ability to see
differently and envision possibilities. You will be less reliant on
tactics and operations and more reliant on strategies and vision.
Capacity for innovation is no longer optional. Remember,
innovation is more than a process. For true strategic and
visionary thinking, you must unleash your creativity to meet
evolving challenges. That’s why you’ll have the opportunity to
explore purposeful innovation, including technology as an
innovation. How will you use creativity to solve problems as a
practice scholar? Let’s find out!
Week 5 Objectives
Propose innovative solutions to improve healthcare outcomes.
Prioritize high-value healthcare.
Integrate transformational leadership to promote high-value
healthcare.
Appraise principles of interprofessional collaboration in
advanced nursing practice.
Investigate the value of adaptive leadership in promoting a
culture of innovation.
Appraise the role of the practice scholar in promoting a value -
based healthcare system.

outcomes:
CO4. Assimilate attributes for intra-/inter-professional
collaboration across healthcare settings (PO 8)
Week 5 Discussion Summary: Leading Innovation in Nursing
This week, our discussion explored leading innovation in your
nursing environment. Often innovation demands creativity, but
always innovation requires management. Rogers’ (2003)
diffusion of innovations is one model frequently used to manage
the process.
Innovation also implies adaptability to adjust to the sea of
barriers through which innovation must often sail. The DNP
leader musters the skills of intra- and interprofessional
collaboration, strategic planning, and transformational
behaviors to navigate the challenging waters of innovation.
Through the alternative discussion, we also had the opportunity
to hear how the COVID19 pandemic continues to impact our
lives. Many shared that there are still challenges that they are
working through and facing while others shared how they have
used innovation and creativity to find ways to see continue to
do their work and meet the healthcare needs of their community.
this week: Investigate the role of advanced nursing practice in
healthcare systems. (PO 6) Assimilate attributes for intra-/inter-
professional collaboration across healthcare settings (PO 8)
Formulate selected strategies for leadership and influence
Let’s review what you learned in Week 5. You now know that
innovation plays an essential role in your ability to address
problems in healthcare. After many years of chaotic attempts at
progress, nurse at all levels are making a commitment to

learning and active engagement in the process of transforming
healthcare. As conversations occur nationwide regarding
patient-centered outcomes and value-based healthcare, DNP
graduates are emerging prepared to engage in innovative
leadership to drive these outcomes. DNP Essential II,
Organizational and Systems for Leadership for Quality
Improvement and Systems Thinking, aligns closely with the
requisite set of skills needed for leading transformative change.
I believe that strategic thinking is the most important
competency of a leader, and that strategic thinking precedes
strategic planning. Do you agree? I bet you do by the end of the
week! Let’s move onward to explore the scientific
underpinnings of leadership. See you in Week 6!
Welcome to Week 6! This week, as you continue on your
journey, we'll explore the scientific underpinnings of
leadership. Over the weeks, you’ve gained skills to be an
effective and self-aware leader. It’s time for the next step!
Consider these questions: Should a manager also be a leader?
Must a leader utilize management skills? This week, you’ll
learn that a practice scholar both leads and manages, and that
the integration of both are essential to accomplishing
organizational goals. How, then, does the practice scholar
manage leadership characteristics? Let’s find out! It’s ti me to
begin!
Week 6 Objectives: Evaluate the theoretical underpinnings of
leadership. Apply leadership theories and conceptual
frameworks to guide professional practice. Appraise principles
of interprofessional collaboration in advanced nursing practice.
Differentiate leadership versus management. Review
organizational, management, and leadership theories with which
you are familiar, and reflect on which have been most prevalent
in your own leadership style. Explore the theories that are new
to you and entertain incorporating new elements into your
leadership personality. Start reviewing each week's learning
activities to identify American Association of Colleges of

Nursing (2006) Essential sub-competencies for the Week 7
reflection.
Week 6, Discussion SUMMARY: Leading Toward Effective
Management
This week, our discussion explored how you, as a DNP leader,
might manage a team situation effectively. You demonstrated
this by creating a concise email to your supervisor to explain
your leadership approach using the topics of the lesson.
This scenario created a challenging discussion assignment, and
you were creative, innovated, and adapted to it, as we learned to
do in Lesson 5 last week.
this week:
CO1. Compare and contrast theories of organizational behavior
and leadership. (PO6)
in Week 6. Leadership and management are both requisites for
the practice scholar; neither approach is as effective alone as
both are together. Decision-making, being assertive with ideas,
communicating clearly, and clarifying goals and objectives
while inspiring creative commitment to change are all
competencies that have gained importance in the role of the
practice scholar. I bet you realized this as you completed Week
6. You've come a long way already, but there’s still more to
learn before we reach the end of NR703! It's time to move on to
Week 7 and investigate resource allocation.
welcome to Week 7! You've almost made it to the end of the
course, but there's still more to learn. Being a trustworthy
leader implies being responsible for personnel, patients, and the
budget. Since I graduated, I have found out that the practice
scholar must make hard decisions about budgets that may affect
personnel or patients. Fortunately, managing resources is a
learned ability. With practice, you’ll learn to be proficient in
resource allocation, even when managing the resources to
address the burden of disease associated with the nation’s top

causes of morbidity and mortality. Leaders have an obligation
to ensure there is a relationship between the health of the
community and the resources used to obtain and sustain it. Are
you ready to learn more about appropriate resource use to
advance health? Let’s begin!
Week 7 Objectives
Apply leadership theories and conceptual frameworks to guide
professional practice.
Appraise the role of the practice scholar in promoting a value -
based healthcare system.
Investigate strategies for managing resources at the micro,
meso, and macro levels.
Examine the role of the practice scholar in strategic planning.
Analyze leadership strengths, personality characteristics, and
leadership effectiveness.
Assess the role of the DNP practice scholar in evaluating
performance at the micro, meso, and systems levels.
Appraise the influence of the practice scholar in leading
initiatives across healthcare systems.
Learning Success Strategies
Revisit previous discussions from NR-700, NR-701, and NR-
714 about the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) in the United
States and consider how you as a DNP leader in your practice
setting will approach the problem. Week 7. This week was all
about leadership initiatives and resource allocation. You may
have been surprised to learn that balancing costs and improving
quality do not have to be mutually exclusive. I know I was! As
a practice scholar, you’ll make informed decisions to improve
patient outcomes while maintaining financial fidelity. These
skills are essential to thrive in the world of healthcare reform,
complexity, and shifting emphasis on high-value care. That
said, you aren't finished yet! There's still one more step of your
journey in Applied Organizational Leadership Concepts.

Excerpts from Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical
Approach
© 1996 United Way of America
Introduction to Outcome Measurement
If yours is like most human service agencies or youth- and
family-serving organizations, you regularly
monitor and report on how much money you receive, how many
staff and volunteers you have, and what
they do in your programs. You know how many individuals
participate in your programs, how many hours
you spend serving them, and how many brochures or classes or
counseling sessions you produce. In
other words, you document program inputs, activities, and
outputs.
Inputs include resources dedicated to or consumed by the
program. Examples are money, staff and staff
time, volunteers and volunteer time, facilities, equipment, and
supplies. For instance, inputs for a parent
education class include the hours of staff time spent designing
and delivering the program. Inputs also
include constraints on the program, such as laws, regulations,
and requirements for receipt of funding.
Activities are what the program does with the inputs to fulfill
its mission. Activities include the strategies,
techniques, and types of treatment that comprise the program's
service methodology. For instance,
sheltering and feeding homeless families are program activities,
as are training and counseling homeless
adults to help them prepare for and find jobs.

Outputs are the direct products of program activities and usually
are measured in terms of the volume of
work accomplished--for example, the numbers of classes taught,
counseling sessions conducted,
educational materials distributed, and participants served.
Outputs have little inherent value in
themselves. They are important because they are intended to
lead to a desired benefit for participants or
target populations.
If given enough resources, managers can control output levels.
In a parent education class, for example,
the number of classes held and the number of parents served are
outputs. With enough staff and
supplies, the program could double its output of classes and
participants.
If yours is like most human service organizations, you do not
consistently track what happens to
participants after they receive your services. You cannot report,
for example, that 55 percent of your
participants used more appropriate approaches to conflict
management after your youth development
program conducted sessions on that skill, or that your public
awareness program was followed by a 20
percent increase in the number of low-income parents getting
their children immunized. In other words,
you do not have much information on your program's outcomes.
Outcomes are benefits or changes for individuals or populations
during or after participating in program
activities. They are influenced by a program's outputs.
Outcomes may relate to behavior, skills,
knowledge, attitudes, values, condition, or other attributes.
They are what participants know, think, or can
do; or how they behave; or what their condition is, that is

different following the program.
For example, in a program to counsel families on financial
management, outputs--what the service
produces--include the number of financial planning sessions and
the number of families seen. The
desired outcomes--the changes sought in participants' behavior
or status--can include their developing
and living within a budget, making monthly additions to a
savings account, and having increased financial
stability.
In another example, outputs of a neighborhood clean-up
campaign can be the number of organizing
meetings held and the number of weekends dedicated to the
clean-up effort. Outcomes--benefits to the
target population--might include reduced exposure to safety
hazards and increased feelings of
neighborhood pride. The program outcome model depicts the
relationship between inputs, activities,
outputs, and outcomes.
Note: Outcomes sometimes are confused with outcome
indicators, specific items of data that are tracked to measure
how well a
program is achieving an outcome, and with outcome targets,
which are objectives for a program's level of achievement.
For example, in a youth development program that creates
internship opportunities for high school youth, an outcome
might be that
participants develop expanded views of their career options. An
indicator of how well the program is succeeding on this
outcome
could be the number and percent of participants who list more
careers of interest to them at the end of the program than they

did at
the beginning of the program. A target might be that 40 percent
of participants list at least two more careers after completing
the
program than they did when they started it.
Program Outcome Model
Resources dedicated
to or consumed by
the program
money
staff and staff time
volunteers and
volunteer time
facilities
equipment and
supplies
Constraints on the
program
laws
regulations
funders' requirements

What the program
does with the inputs
to fulfill its mission
feed and shelter
homeless families
provide job training
educate the public
about signs of child
abuse
counsel pregnant
women
create mentoring
relationships for youth
The direct products of
program activities
number of classes
taught
number of counseling
sessions conducted
number of educational
materials distributed
number of hours of
service delivered
number of participants
served
Benefits for
participants during
and after program
activities
new knowledge
increased skills
changed attitudes or
values

modified behavior
improved condition
altered status
Why Measure Outcomes?
In growing numbers, service providers, governments, other
funders, and the public are calling for clearer
evidence that the resources they expend actually produce
benefits for people. Consumers of services and
volunteers who provide services want to know that programs to
which they devote their time really make a
difference. That is, they want better accountability for the use
of resources. One clear and compelling
answer to the question of "why measure outcomes?" is to see if
programs really make a difference in the
lives of people.
Although improved accountability has been a major force
behind the move to outcome measurement,
there is an even more important reason: to help programs
improve services. Outcome measurement
provides a learning loop that feeds information back into
programs on how well they are doing. It offers
findings they can use to adapt, improve, and become more
effective.
This dividend doesn't take years to occur. It often starts
appearing early in the process of setting up an
outcome measurement system. Just the process of focusing on
outcomes--on why the program is doing
what it's doing and how participants will be better off--gives

program managers and staff a clearer picture
of the purpose of their efforts. That clarification alone
frequently leads to more focused and productive
service delivery.
Down the road, being able to demonstrate that their efforts are
making a difference for people pays
important dividends for programs. It can, for example, help
programs:
• Recruit and retain talented staff
• Enlist and motivate able volunteers
• Attract new participants
• Engage collaborators
• Garner support for innovative efforts
• Win designation as a model or demonstration site
• Retain or increase funding
• Gain favorable public recognition
Results of outcome measurement show not only where services
are being effective for participants, but
also where outcomes are not as expected. Program managers can
use outcome data to:
• Strengthen existing services
• Target effective services for expansion
• Identify staff and volunteer training needs
• Develop and justify budgets
• Prepare long-range plans
• Focus board members' attention on programmatic issues

To increase its internal efficiency, a program needs to track its
inputs and outputs. To assess compliance
with service delivery standards, a program needs to monitor
activities and outputs. But to improve its
effectiveness in helping participants, to assure potential
participants and funders that its programs
produce results, and to show the general public that it produces
benefits that merit support, an agency
needs to measure its outcomes.
These and other benefits of outcome measurement are not just
theoretical. Scores of human service
providers across the country attest to the difference it has made
for their staff, their volunteers, their
decision makers, their financial situation, their reputation, and,
most important, for the public they serve.
Eight Steps to Success
Measuring Program Outcomes provides a step-by-step approach
to developing a system for measuring
program outcomes and using the results. The approach, based on
methods implemented successfully by
agencies across the country, is presented in eight steps, shown
below. Although the illustration suggests
that the steps are sequential, this is actually a dynamic process
with a good deal of interplay among
stages.
Example Outcomes and Outcome Indicators for Various
Programs

These are illustrative examples only. Programs need to identify
their own outcomes and indicators,
matched to and based on their own experiences and missions
and the input of their staff, volunteers,
participants, and others.
Type of Program Outcome Indicator(s)
Smoking cessation
class
Participants stop smoking. • Number and percent of participants
who report that they have quit smoking by
the end of the course
• Number and percent of participants who have not relapsed six
months after
program completion
Information and
referral program
Callers access services to which
they are referred or about which
they are given information.
• Number and percent of community agencies that report an
increase in new
participants who came to their agency as a result of a call to the
information
and referral hotline
• Number and percent of community agencies that indicate these
referrals are
appropriate

Tutorial program
for 6th grade
students
Students' academic performance
improves.
• Number and percent of participants who earn better grades in
the grading
period following completion of the program than in the grading
period
immediately preceding enrollment in the program
English-as-a-
second-language
instruction
Participants become proficient in
English.
• Number and percent of participants who demonstrate increase
in ability to
read, write, and speak English by the end of the course
Counseling for
parents identified
as at risk for child
abuse or neglect
Risk factors decrease. No
confirmed incidents of child
abuse or neglect.
• Number and percent of participating families for whom Child
Protective
Service records report no confirmed child abuse or neglect

during 12 months
following program completion
Employee
assistance
program
Employees with drug and/or
alcohol problems are
rehabilitated and do not lose
their jobs.
• Number and percent of program participants who are gainfully
employed at
same company 6 months after intake
Homemaking
services
The home environment is
healthy, clean, and safe.
Participants stay in their own
home and are not referred to a
nursing home.
• Number and percent of participants whose home environment
is rated clean
and safe by a trained observer
• Number of local nursing homes who report that applications
from younger
and healthier citizens are declining (indicating that persons who
in the past
would have been referred to a nursing home now stay at home
longer)

Prenatal care
program
Pregnant women follow the
advice of the nutritionist.
• Number and percent of women who take recommended vitamin
supplements
and consume recommended amounts of calcium
Shelter and
counseling for
runaway youth
Family is reunified whenever
possible; otherwise, youths are
in stable alternative housing.
• Number and percent of youth who return home
• Number and percent of youth placed in alternative living
arrangements who
are in that arrangement 6 months later unless they have been
reunified or
emancipated
Camping Children expand skills in areas
of interest to them.
• Number and percent of campers that identify two or more
skills they have
learned at camp
Family planning for
teen mothers

Teen mothers have no second
pregnancies until they have
completed high school and have
the personal, family, and
financial resources to support a
second child.
• Number and percent of teen mothers who comply with family
planning visits
• Number and percent of teen mothers using a recommended
form of birth
control
• Number and percent of teen mothers who do not have repeat
pregnancies
prior to graduation
• Number and percent of teen mothers who, at the time of next
pregnancy, are
high school graduates, are married, and do not need public
assistance to
provide for their children
Glossary of Selected Outcome Measurement Terms
Inputs are resources a program uses to achieve program
objectives. Examples are staff, volunteers,
facilities, equipment, curricula, and money. A program uses
inputs to support activities.
Activities are what a program does with its inputs-the services
it provides-to fulfill its mission. Examples

are sheltering homeless families, educating the public about
signs of child abuse, and providing adult
mentors for youth. Program activities result in outputs.
Outputs are products of a program's activities, such as the
number of meals provided, classes taught,
brochures distributed, or participants served. A program's
outputs should produce desired outcomes for
the program's participants.
Outcomes are benefits for participants during or after their
involvement with a program. Outcomes may
relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior,
condition, or status. Examples of outcomes include
greater knowledge of nutritional needs, improved reading skills,
more effective responses to conflict,
getting a job, and having greater financial stability.
For a particular program, there can be various "levels" of
outcomes, with initial outcomes leading to
longer-term ones. For example, a youth in a mentoring program
who receives one-to-one encouragement
to improve academic performance may attend school more
regularly, which can lead to getting better
grades, which can lead to graduating.
Outcome indicators are the specific items of information that
track a program's success on outcomes.
They describe observable, measurable characteristics or changes
that represent achievement of an
outcome. For example, a program whose desired outcome is that
participants pursue a healthy lifestyle
could define "healthy lifestyle" as not smoking; maintaining a
recommended weight, blood pressure, and
cholesterol level; getting at least two hours of exercise each
week; and wearing seat belts consistently.

The number and percent of program participants who
demonstrate these behaviors then is an indicator of
how well the program is doing with respect to the outcome.
Outcome targets are numerical objectives for a program's level
of achievement on its outcomes. After a
program has had experience with measuring outcomes, it can
use its findings to set targets for the
number and percent of participants expected to achieve desired
outcomes in the next reporting period. It
also can set targets for the amount of change it expects
participants to experience.
Benchmarks are performance data that are used for comparative
purposes. A program can use its own
data as a baseline benchmark against which to compare future
performance. It also can use data from
another program as a benchmark. In the latter case, the other
program often is chosen because it is
exemplary and its data are used as a target to strive for, rather
than as a baseline.
Figure 31.1
Logic Model
Logic Models
Karen A. Randolph
A
logic model is a diagram of the relationship between a need that
a

p rogram is designed to addret>s and the actions to be taken to
address the
need and achieve program outcomes. It provides a concise, one-
page pic-
ture of p rogram operations from beginning to end. The diagram
is made
up of a series of boxes that represent each of the program's com
ponents,
inpu ts or resources, activities, outputs, and outcomes. The
diagram shows how these
components are connected or linked to one another for the
purpose of achieving
program goals. Figure 31.1 provides an example of the frame
work for a basic logic model.
Th e program connections illustrate the logic of how program
operations will result in
client change (McLaughlin & Jordan, 1999). The connections
show the "causal" relati on-
ships between each of the program components and thus are
referred to as a series of"if-
then" sequence of changes leading to th e intended outco mes
for the target client group
(Chinman, hum, & Wandersman, 2004). The if-then statements
represent a program's
theory of change underlying an intervention. As such, logic
models provide a framework
that g uides the evaluation process by laying out important
relationships that need to b e
tested to demonstrate program results (Watso n, 2000).
Logic models come from the field of program evaluation. The
idea emerged in
response to the recognition among program evaluators regardin

g the need to systema tize
the p r ogram evaluation process (McLaughlin & Jordan, 20 04).
Since then , logic models
have become increasingly popular among program managers for
program planning and
to monitor program performance. With a growing emphasis on
accountability and out-
come measurement, logic models make explicit the entire
change process, Lhe assu mp-
tions t hat underlie this process, and the pathways to reach ing
outcomes. Researchers have
begun to use logic models for intervention research planning
(e.g., Brown, Hawkins,
Arthur, Brin ey, & Abbott, 2007).
The followin g sections provide a description of the components
of a basic logic model
and how these compon ents are linked together, its relationship
to a p rogram's theory of
[ : Inputs 1--_.,•1 Ac~vities ,II----.~•{ .Outputs ·11---~·1
Outcomes I
AUTHOR'S NOTE: The author wishes to acknowledge Dr. Tony
Tripodi for his though lful comments
on a drafl of this chapter.
547
548 PART V • CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH
change, and its uses and benefits. The steps for creating a logic
model as well as the chal-
lenges of the logic modeling process will be presented. The
chapter concludes with an

example of how a logic model was u~cd to enhance program
outcomes for a family liter-
acy program.
Components of a Logic Model
Typically, a logic model has four components: inputs or
resources, activities, outputs, and
outcomes. Outcomes can be further classified into short-term
outcomes, intermediate
outcomes, and long-term outcomes based on the length of time
it takes to reach these
outcomes (McLa ughlin & Jordan , 2004) . The components
make up the connection
between the planned work and the intended results (W. K.
Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
The planned work includes the resources (the inp uts) needed to
im plement the program
as well as how the resources will be used (the activities) . The
intended results include the
outputs and outcomes that occur as a consequence of the
planned work. Figure 31.2
expands on the model illuslrated in Figure 3 1.1 by adding
examples of each component.
This particular logic model, adopted from frec htling (2007),
provides an illustration of
the components of an intervention designed to prevent substance
abuse and other prob-
lem behaviors among a population of youth. The intervention is
targeted toward improv-
ing parenting skills, based on the assumption that positive
parenting leads to prosocial
behaviors among yo uth {Bahr, Hoffman, & Yang, 2005). The
following section provides
definitions and examples of each logic model component, using
this illustration.

Resources
Resources, sometimes referred to as inputs, in clude the human,
fin ancial, organizational,
and community asse ts that are available to a program to
achieve its objectives (W. K.
Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Resources are used to support and
facilitate the program
activities. They are usually categorized in terms of funding
resou rces or in -kind contribu-
tion s (Frechtling, 2007) .
Some resources, such as laws, regulations, and funding
requirements, are external to
the agency (United Way of America, 1996). Other resources,
such as staff and money, are
easier lo quantify than others (e.g., community awareness of the
program; Mertinko,
Novotney, Baker, & Lange, 2000). As Fn.:c:htli ng (2007)
notes, it is important to clearly and
tho roughly id ent ify the available resources during the logic
modeling process because this
information defines the scope and parameters of the program.
Also, this inCormation is
critical for others who may be interes ted in replicating the
program. The logic model in
Figure 31.2 includes fu nding as one of its resources.
Activities
Activities represent a program's service methodology, showing
how a program intends on
using the resources described previously to carry out its work.
Activities are also referred
to as ac tion step!; (McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004). They are the
highly specifi c tasks that
p rogram staffs engage in on a daily basis to provide services to

clients (Mertinko
et al., 2000) . They include all aspects of pro gram
implementation, the processes, tools,
events, technology, and program actions. The ac tivities form
the foundation toward facil-
itating intended client changes or reaching oulcornes (W. K.
Kellogg Fo undation, 2004).
Some examples are establishing community councils, providing
professional develop -
ment training, or initiating a media campaign (Frechtling,
2007). Other examples are
CHAPTER 31 • l OCIC MO DELS 549
Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes
Short Term Intermediate Long Term
Feedback Loop j
_J
I
Decreased
K~
Increased
I
Develop and Numbe r of Increased
youth Funds .~ initiate ~edi a st~tions a~opti ng r-- awareness
f- positive 1-----+ of positive substance
-~m~tg~-- -.:::c -campatgn J pa renting parenti ng - abv?~d'

~-'.:-
/
I
Develop and Number of Increased
distribute - 1> fact sheets 1- enrollment
fact sheets distributed in parenting
programs
Fig ure 31.2 Example of l ogic Model With Com ponents, Two
Types of Connections, and a Feedbaclc loop
providing shelter for homeless families, educating the public
about signs of child abuse,
or providing adult mentors for youlh {United Way of Ame rica,
1996) . Two activities,
" Deve lop and initiate media campaign" and "Develop and
distribute fact sheets;' are
included in the logic model in Figure 31.2. Activities lead to or
produce the program o ut-
puts, described in the following section.
Outputs
The planned works (resources and activities) bring about a
program's des ired res ul ts,
including outputs and outcom es (W. K. Kell ogg Foundatio n,
2004) . Outputs, also referred
to as units of service, are the immediate results of program
activities in the form of types,
levels, and targets of services to be delivered by the program
(McLaughl in & Jordan ,
1999). They are tangible products, events, o r serv ices. They
provide the documentation
that activities have been implemented and, as such, indicate if a

program was delivered to
the intended audience at the intended dose (W. K. Kellogg
FounJation, 2004). Outputs
arc typical ly desc ribed in terms of th e size and/or scope of the
services an d products pro-
duced by the program and thus are expressed numerically
(Frechtling, 2007). Examples of
program ou tpu ts include the number of classes ta ught,
meetings held, o r materials p ro-
duced and distributed; program par ticipation rates and
demography; or hours of each
type of serv ice provided (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004) .
Other examples are the
number of meals provided, classes taught, brochures distributed
, or participants ser ved
(Frecht1ing, 2007) . W hile outputs have little inherent value in
themselves, they provide
the link between a program's activ ities and a program's
outcomes (United Way of
America, 1996). The logic model in Figure 31.2 includes Lhc
number of stations adopting
the media campaign and the number of fact sheets distributed as
two outputs for the pre-
vention program.
550 PART V • CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH
Outcomes
Outcomes arc Lhe specific changes experienced by the
program's clients or target group as
a consequence of participating in the program. Outcomes occur
as a result of the program
activities and outputs. These changes may be in behaviors,
attitudes, skill level, status, or

level of functioning (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
Examples include increased knowl-
edge of nut r itional needs, improved reading skills, more
effective responses to conflict,
and finding employment (United Way of America, 1996) .
Outcomes are indicalors of a
program's level of success.
McLa ughlin and Jordan (2004) make the point that some
programs have multiple,
sequential outcome structures in the form of short-term
outcomes, intermediate out-
comes, and long-term outcomes. In these cases, each type of
outcome is linked tempo-
rally. Short-term outcomes arc client changes or benefits th at
are mos t immediately
associated with the program's outputs. They are usually realized
by clients wi thin 1 to
3 years of program completion. Short-term outcomes are linked
to accomplishing inter-
mediate outcomes. Intermediate ou tcomes are generally attain
able in 4 to 6 years. Long-
term outcomes are also referred to as program impacts or
program goals. They occur as a
result of the intermediate outcomes, usually within 7 to 10
years. In this format, long-
term outcomes or goals are directed at macro-level change and
target organizations, co m-
munities, or systems (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
As an example, a sequen tial outcome structure with short-
term, intermediate, and
long-term outcomes for the prevention program is displayed in
Figure 31.2. As a result of
hearing the public service announ cemen ts about positive
parenting (th e activity), parents

enroll in parenting programs to learn new parenting skills (the
short-term outcome).
Then they apply these newly learned skills with their children
(the intermediate out-
come), which leads to a reducti on in substance abuse among
youth (the long-term impact
or goal the parenting program was designed to achieve).
Outcomes ar e often confused with outputs in logic models
because their correct clas-
sification depends on the context within which they are being
included. A good exa mple
of this potential confusion, provided in the United Way of
America manual ( 1996, p. 19),
is as follows. The number of clients served is an output when it
is meant to describe the
volume of work accomplished. In this case, it does not relate
directly to cl ient changes or
benefits. H owever, the number of clients served is considered
to be an outcome when the
program's intention is to encourage clients to seek services,
such as alcohol treatment.
What is important to remember is that outcomes describe
intended client changes or
benefits as a result of participatin g in the program while
outputs document products or
services produced as a result of activities.
Links or Connections Between Components
A critical part of a logic model is the connections or links
between the components. The
connections illustrate the relationships between the components
and the process by
which change is hypothesized to occur among program
participants. This is referred to as

the program theory (Frechtling, 2007). It is the con nections
illustrating the program's
theory of change that make the logic model complicated.
Specifying the connections is
one of the more difficult aspects of developing a logic model
because the process requires
predicting the process by which client change is expected to
occur as a result of program
participation (Frech tling, 2007).
CHIII'TER 31 • lOGIC M ODtLS 551
Frechtling (2007) describes nvo types of connections in a logic
model: connections
that link items within each compo nent and connections that
illustrate the program's
theory of change. The first type, items within a component, is
connected by a straight line.
This line shows that the items make up a
particularcomponent.As an example, in Figure 31.2,
nvo activities, "Develop and initiate media campaign" and "
Develop and distribute fact
sheets," are linked together with a straight line beca use they
represent the items within the
activities component. Similarly, two outputs, "Number of
stations adop ting the cam-
paign" and "Number of fact sheets distributed;' arc connected as
two items within the
outputs component.
The second type of connection sh<.>ws how the components
interact with or relate to
each other to reach expected outcomes (Frechtling, 2007) . In
essence, this is the program's

theory of change. Thus, instead of straight lines, arrows are
used to show the direction of
influence. Frechtling (2007) clarifies that "these directional
connections are not just a
kind of glue ancho ring the otherwise floating boxes. Rather
they portray the changes thaL
arc expected to occur after a previous ac Livity has taken place,
and as a result of it" (p. 33).
She points out that the primary purpose of the evaluation is to
determine the nature of
the relationships between components (i.e., whether the
predictions are correct). A logic
mod el that illustrates a fully developed theory of change
includes links between every
item in each co mponent. In other words, every item in every
component must be co n-
nected to at least one item in a subsequent component. This is
illustrated in Figure 3 1.2,
which shows that each of the two items within th e activities co
mpon en t is linked to an
item within the output co mponent.
Figure 31.2 provides an example of the predicted relationships
between the compo-
nents. This is the program theory about how the target group is
expected to change. The
input or resource, funding, is co nnected to the tv,ro activities,
"Develop and initiate media
campaign" and "Develop and distribute fac t sheets." Simply
put, this part of Figure 31 .2
shows that funding will be used to support the development and
initiati on of PSA cam-
paigns and the distribution of fact sheets.
The sequencing of the connections between components also
shows th at these steps

occur over a period of time. While this may seem obvious and
relatively inconsequential,
specifying an accurate sequence has time-based implications, pa
rticularly when short-
term, intermediate, and long-term outco mes are proposed as a
part of the theory of
change (Frechtling, 2007). Rcca11 that the short-term outcomes
lead to achieving the
intermediate outcomes, and the intermediate outcomes lead to
ach ieving long-term out-
comes. Thus, the belief or underl}ing ass umption is that short-
term outco mes mediate
(or come between) relationships benv-een activities and
intermediate o utcomes, and
intermediate outcomes mediate relations between sho rt-te rm
and long-term outcomes.
Related, sometimes logic models display feedback loops.
Feedback loops show how the
information gained from implementing one item can be used to
refine and improve other
items (Frechlling, 2007). f or instance, in Figure 31.2, the
feedback loop from the short-
term outcome, " Increased awareness of positive parenting;'
back to the activity, "Develop
and initiate media campaign;' indicates that the findings for "
Increased awareness of pos-
itive parenting" arc used to im prove the PSA campaigns in the
next program cycle.
Contextual Factors
Logic models describe programs that exist and are affected by
contextual factors in the
larger environment. Contextual factors are those important
features of the environment

552 PART V • CONCEPTUAL R ESEARCH
in which the project or inter vention takes place. They include
the social, cultural, and
political aspects of the environment (Frechtling, 2007). They
are typically not under the
program's control yet are likely to influe nce the program either
positively or negatively
(McLa ughlin & Jordan, 2004 ). T hu s, it is critical to identify
relevant contextual factors
and to consider their potential impact on the program.
McLaughlin and Jordan (1999)
point out that understanding and articulating contex tual factors
co ntr ibu tes to an under-
standing of the fo undat io n u pon whi ch performance
expectatio ns a re established.
Mo reover, this knowledge h elps to establish the parameters for
explaining program
results and developing program improvement strategies that are
li kely to be more m ean-
ingful and thus more successful because the information is more
complete. finally, con-
textual factors clarify situations under which the program
results might be expected to
generalize and the issues that might affect replication
(Frechtling, 2007) .
Harrell, Burt, Hatry, Rossm an, a nd Roth ( 1996) identify two
types of contextual fac-
tors, antecedent and media6ng, as o utside facto rs that could
influence th e program's
design, implementa tio n, and results. Anteceden t factors are
thos e that exist prior to

program implemen tatio n, such as cha racteristics of the client
target population o r com-
munity characteristics such as geographical and economic
conditions. Mediating factors
are the environmental influences that emerge as the program
unfolds, such as new laws
and policies, a change in economic con ditions, or the startup of
other new programs pro-
viding similar services (McLaughlin & jordan, 2004).
Logic Models and a Program's Theory of Change
Definition
Log ic models p rovide an illustration of the compo nents of a
program's theo t-y and how
those components are linked togeth er. Program theory is
defined as "a plausible and sen-
sible model of how a program is supposed to wo rk" (Bickman,
1987, p. 5). Program
theory in corporates "program resources, program activities, and
intended program out-
comes, and specifies a chain of causal assumptions linking
resources, activities, interme-
di ate outcomes, and ulti mate goals" (Wholey, 1987, p. 78).
Program theory e.>..-plicates the
assumptions abou t how the program components link together
from program star t to
goal attainmen t to realize the program's intended outcomes
(Frechtling, 2007). Thus, it is
often referred to as a p rogram's theory of change. Frechtling
(2007) suggests that both
previous research and knowledge gained from practice
experience arc useful in develop-
ing a theory of change.
Relationship to logic Models

A logic model provides an illustration of a program's theory of
change. It is a useful tool
for describing program theory because it shows the connections
or if-then relationships
between program components. In other words, moving from left
to right from one com-
po nent to the next, logic models provide a diagram of the
rationale or reasoning underly-
ing the theory of change. If-th en statements connect the
program's co m po nents to form
the theory of change (W. K. Kellogg Founda tion, 2004). For
example, certain resources or
inputs are needed to carr y out a program's activities. The first
if-then statement links
reso urces to acti vities and is stated, " If you have access to
these resources, then yo u can use
them to accomplish yo ur planned activities" (W. K. Kellogg Fo
undation, 2004, p. 3). Each
CHAPTER 31 • LOCIC MODELS SS3
component in a logic model is linked to the other components
using if-then statemen ts to
show a program's chain of reasoning about how client change is
predicted to occur. The
idea is that "if the right resources are transformed into the right
activities for the right
people, then these will lead to the results the program was
designed to achieve"
(McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004, p. 11). It is important to define
the components of an inter-
vention and make the connections between them explicit
(Frechtling, 2007).

Program Theory and Evaluation Planning
Chen and Rossi (1983) were among th e first to suggest a
program theory-driven
approach to evaluation. A program's theory of change has
significant utility in develop-
ing and implementing a program evaluation because the theory
provides a framework
for determining the evalu ation questions (Rossi, Lipsey, &
Freeman, 2004) . As such, a
logic model that ill ustrates a program's theory of change
provides a map to inform the
developmen t of relevant eval uation questions at each phase of
t he evaluation. Rossi
et al. (2004) explain how a program theory-based logic mode l
enha nces the devel op-
ment of evaluation questions. First, the process of articulating
the logic of the
program's change process through the development of the logic
model prompts discus-
sion of relevant and meaningful evaluation questions. Second,
these questions then lead
to articulating expect ations fo r p rogram performance and
inform the identification o f
criteria to measure that performance. Third, obtaining input
from key stakeholders
about the theory of change as it is displayed in the logic model
increases the likelihood
of a more comprehensive set of questions and that critical issues
have not been over-
looked. To clarify, most agree that this is a team effort that
should include the program
development and program evaluation staff at a minimum, as
well as other stakeholders
both internal and external to the program as they are available
(Dwyer & Makin, 1997;
Frech tling, 2007; Mclaughlin & Jordan, 2004). The diversity of

perspective and skill sets
among the team members (e.g., program developers vs. program
evaluators) enhances
the depth of understanding of how the program will work, as
diagramed by the logic
model (Frechtling, 2007). As D"vyer and Makin (1997) state,
the team approach to
develop ing a theory-based logic model promotes "greater
stakeholde r invo lvement, the
opportunity for open negotiation of program objectives, greater
commitment to the
final co nceptualization of the program, a shared vis ion, and
increased likeliho od to
accept and utilize th e evaluation results" (p. 423) .
Uses of Logic Models
Logic models have many uses. They help Lo integrate the entire
program's planning and
implementation process from beginning to end, including the
evaluation process (D wyer
& Makin, 1997). They can be used at all of a program's stages
to enhance its success
(Frechlling, 2007; W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). For
instance, at the program design
and planning stage, going through the process of developing
logic models helps to clarify
the purpose of the program, the development of program
strategies, resources that are
necessary to attaining outcomes, and th e identification of
possible barriers to
the program's success. Also, identifying program components
such as activities and
outcomes prior to program implementation provides an
opportunity to ensure that
program outcomes inform program activities, rather than the

other way aroun d (Dwyer
& Makin, 1997) .
554 PART V • CoNcEPTUAl R ESEA RC H
During the p rogmm implementation phase, a logic model p
rovides the basis fo r th e
development of a management plan to guide program
monitoring ac tiv ities and to
improve program processes as issues arise. In other words, it
helps in identifying and
highlighting the key program processes to be tracked to ensure a
program's effectiveness
(United Way of America, 1996).
Most important, a logic model facilitates evaluatio n planning
by providing the evalua-
tion framework fo r shapin g the evalua tion across all stages of
a project. Intended out-
comes and the process for measuring these outcomes are
displayed in a logic model
(Watson, 2000), as well as key points at which evaluation
activities should take place
across the life of the program (McLaughlin & Jordan) 2004).
Logic models suppo rt both
formative and summative evaluations (Frechtli ng, 2007). They
can be used in conducting
summativc evaluations to determine what has been
accomplished and, importantly, the
process by which these accomplishments have been achieved
(Frechtling, 2007) . Logic
models can also support formative evaluations by organizing
evaluatio n activities, incl ud-
ing the meas urement of key variables or performance indicators

(McLaughlin & Jordan,
2004) . From this info rmation, evaluation questions, relevant
indicators, and data collec-
tion strategies can be developed. The following section expands
on using the logic model
to develop evaluation questions.
The logic m odel provides a framework for developing eval uat
ion q uestions about
prog r am co n text, program efforts, and p rogram effec
tiveness ( Frech t ling, 2007;
Mer ti nko et al., 2000). Together, these three sets of quest ions
help to explicate the
progr am's theory of change by describing the assumptions
about the r elationship s
between a program's operations and its predicted outcomes
(Ross i et al. , 2004) .
Context questio ns explore program capacity and relationships
external to the program
and help to identify and understand the impac t of confo unding
factors or externa l
infl uences. Pr ogram effort and effectiveness quest ions
correspond to particular co m -
ponents in the logic model and thus exp lore program processes
t oward ach ieving
program outcomes. Questions a bout effor t address the planned
work of the program
and come from the input and activities sections of the eva luatio
n mo d el. They address
program implementation issues such as the services that were
provided and to who m.
These questio ns focus on what happene d and why.
Effectiveness or outco m e questions
address program results as described in the output and outcomes
section of the logic
m odel. From the questions, indicators and da ta collection

strategies can the n be d evel-
oped. Guidelines for using logic mo d els to develop evaluation
questi ons, ind icators,
and data collection strategies are provided in the Logic Model
Development Guide
( W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 200 4 ).
In addition to supporting program effo rts, a logic model is a
useful comm unication
tool (McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004 ). For instance, developing a
logic model provides the
opportunity fo r key stakeholders to discuss and reach a
common understanding, includ-
ing underlying assumptions, about how the program opera tes an
d the resources needed
to achieve program p rocesses and outcomes. ln fact, some
suggest t hat the logic model
development process is actually a form of strategic planning
because it requ ires partici-
pants to articulate a program's vision, the rationale for the
program, and the program
processes and procedures ('Watson, 2000) . T his also promotes
stakeholder involvem ent in
program planning and consensus building on the program's
design and operations.
Moreover, a logic model can be used to explain program
procedures and sha re a compre-
hensive yet concise picture of th e p rogram to comm unity
partners, funders, and others
outside of the agency (McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004) .
CHAPTER 3 1 • LOGIC M ODF I S 555
Steps for Creating Logic Models

McLaughlin and Jordan (2004) descri be a five-stage process for
developing logic models.
The first stage is to gather extensive baseline information from
multiple sources abo ut the
nature of the problem or need and about alternative solutions.
The W. K. Kellogg
Foundation (2004) also suggests collecting information about
community needs and
assets. This information can then be used to both define the
problem (the second stage of
developing a logic model ) and identify the program clements in
the form of logic model
componen ts (the third stage of logic model development).
Possible information sources
include existing program documentation, interviews with key
stakeholders internal and
exte rn al to the program, strategic plans, annual performance
plans, previous program
evaluations, an d relevant legislation and regulations. It is also
important to review the lit-
erature about factors related to the problem and to determ ine
the strategies others have
used in attemp ting to address it. This type of information
provides supportive evidence
that informs the approach to addressing the problem.
The information collected in the first stage is th en used to
define the problem, the
con textual factors that relate to the problem, and Lhus the need
for the program. The
program sho uld be conceptualized based on what is uncovered
abo ut the nature and
extent of the problem, as well as the factors that are correlated
with or cause the prob-
lem. It is also impor tan t at this stage to develop a clear idea of

the impact of the prob-
lem across micro, mezzo, and macro domains. The focus of the
program is then to
address the "causal" factors to solve t he problem. In addition,
McLaughlin and Jordan
(2004, p. 17) recommend identifyi n g the environmental factors
that are likely to affect
the program, as well as ho·w these conditions might affect progr
am outcomes.
Understanding the relationship between the program and relevan
t environmental fac-
tors contributes to framing its parameters.
During the third stage, the elemen ts or components of the logic
model are identified,
based on the findings that emerged in the second stage.
McLaughlin and Jorda n (2004)
recommend starting out by categorizing each piece of
information as a resource or input,
activity, o utput, short-term outcome, intermediate outcome,
long-term outcome, or con-
textual factor. While some suggest that the order in which the
components arc identified
is in consequen tial to developing an effective logic mod el,
most recommend beginning
this process by identifying long-term outcomes and working
backward (United Way of
America, 1996; W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004) .
The lo gic model is drawn in the fourth stage. Figure 31 .2
provi.des an example of a typ -
ical logic model. This diagram includes columns of boxes
representing the items for each
component (i.e., inputs, activities, outputs, and shor t-term,
intermediate, and long- ter m
outcomes). Text is provided in each box to describe the item.

The connections between
the items within a component are shown with straight lines. The
links or connections
between components are shown with one-way directional
arrows. Prog ram components
may or may not have one-on-one rela tionships with o ne
another. In fact, it is likely that
components in one group (e.g., inputs) will have multiple
connections to components in
another group (e.g., activities). For example, in Figure 31.2, we
show that the funding
resource leads to two activities, "Develop and initiate media
campaign" and "Develop and
distribute fact sheets." Finally, because activities can be
described at many levels of detail,
McLaughlin and Jordan (2004) suggest simplifying the model
by group ing activities that
lead to the same outcome. They also recommend including no
more than five to seven
activity groupings in one logic model.
556 PART V • CO NCEPTUAl RESEARCii
Stage 5 focuses on verifying the logic model by getting input
from all key stakeholders.
McLaughlin and Jordan (2004) recommend applying the if-then
statements presented by
United Way of America ( 1996) in developing hypotheses to
check the logic model in the
following manner:
given observations of key contextual factors, if resources, then
program activities; if
program activities, then out puts for targeted customer groups;

if outputs change
behavior, first short term, then intermediate outcomes occur. If
intermediate out-
comes occur, then longer-term outcomes lead to the problem
being solved. (p. 24)
They also recommend answering the following questions as a
part of the verification
process (pp. 24-25):
1. Is the level of detail sufficient to create understanding of the
elements and their
interrela ti onsh ips?
2. Is the program logic complete? That is, arc all the key
elements accounted for?
3. Is the program logic theoretically sound? Do all the elements
fit together logically?
Are there other plausible pathways to achieving the program
outcomes?
4. Have all the relevant external contextual factors been
identified and their potential
influences described?
Challenges in Developing Logic Models
Frechtling (2007 ) describes three sets of challenges in
developing and using logic models,
including (a) accurately portraying the basic features of the
logic model, (b) determining
the appropriate level of detail in the model, and (c) having
realistic expectations about
what logic models ca n and canno t contribute to program
processes. These challenges are

reviewed in more detail in the following section.
Portraying the Logic Model's Basic Features Accurately
The basic features of a logic model must be clearly understood
in order for the logic
model to be useful. In particular, logic model developers often
enco unter difficulty in four
areas: confusing terms, substituting specific measures for more
gene ral outcomes, assum-
ing unidirectionality, and failing to specify a timefrarne for
program processes (Frechtling,
2007; McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004).
One issue in developing the logic model is accurately
differentiating between an activity
or outp ut and an outcome. Frequently, activities and outputs
are confused witl1 outcomes
(Frechtling, 2007). They can be distinguished by remembering
that activities are steps or
actions taken in pursuit of producing the output and thus
achieving the outcome. Outputs
are products that come as a result of completing activities. They
are typically expressed
numerically (e.g., the number of training sessions held).
Outputs provide the documenta-
tion that activities have occurred. They also link activities to ou
tcomes. Outcomes are
statements about participant cha nge as a result of experiencing
the intervention.
Outcomes describe how participants will be different after they
finish the program.
Another issue in portraying the basic features of logic models
accurately is not confus-
ing outcomes with the instruments used to measure whether the
outcomes were achieved.

C HAP t ER 31 • l OGIC M ODHS 557
For example, the outcome may be decreased depression, as
measured by an instrument
assessing a participant's level of depression (Center for
Epidemiological Studies-
Depression Scale; Radloff, 1977). Some may confuse the
outcome (i.e., decreased depres-
sion) with the instrument (i.e., Center for Ep idem iological
Studies- Depression Scale) that
was used to determine whether the outcome was met. To
minimize the potential for this
confusion, Frechtling (2007) recommends developing the
outcome lirsl and then identify-
ing the appropriate instrument for determ ini ng that the
outcome has been reached.
A thiru issue in logic model development is avoiding the
assumption that the logic
model and, by implication, the theo ry of change that the logic
model portrays move in a
unidirectional progression from left to right {Frechtling, 2007;
McLaughlin & Jordan,
2004) . While the visual display may compel users to think
about logjc mod els in this way,
logic models and the programs they represent are much more
dynamic, with feedback
loops and interactions among components. The feedback loop is
illustrated in Figure 31.2,
showing that the experi ences and information generated from
reachin g short-term out-
comes are used to refine and, it is hoped, improve the activities
in the next program cycle

that are expected to lead to these outcomes. Also, assuming
uniform directionality can
enforce the belief that the inp uts dTi ve the project, rather than
attaining the outcomes.
This underscores the importance of starting with the
development of outcomes when
putting together a logic modeL
The final issue is including a timeframe for carrying out the
processes depicted in the
logic model. The lack of a tirneframe results in an incomplete
theory of chan ge as well as
problematic expectations about when outcomes will be reached
(Frechtling, 2007).
Whether outcomes are expected too soon or not soon enough,
key stakeholders may
assume that the theory of change was not accurate. Developing
accurate predictions of
when outcomes will be reached is often d ifficu lt, especially
with n ew projects in which
very li ttle is known abou t program processes and so forth. In
this case, as more clarity
emerges abo ut the amount of time it will take to complete
activities, tirneframes should
be revisited and modified to reflect the new information.
Determining the Appropriate Level of Detail
A second set of challenges is to determine how much detail to
include in the logic model.
T he underlying dilemma is the level of complexity. Models that
are too complex, with too
much detail, are lime-consuming to develop and difficult to
interpret. Thus, they are
likely to be cumbersome to use. Models that lack enough
information may depict an
incomplete theory of change by leaving out impor tant

information. For instance, if activ-
ities are combined into par ticular groups, it is possible that
important links between spe-
cific activiti es, outp uts, and outcomes wiJJ not be represente d.
This increases Lhe
possibility of making faulty assumptions about program opera
lions and how these oper-
ations lead to positive participant outcomes.
Realistic Expectations
The fmal set of challenges in using logic models is no t
expecting more from logic models
than what th ey are intended to provide. Frechtling (2007, p. 92)
notes that some may
inaccurately view the logic model as a "cure-ali" a nd that, just
by its mere existence, the
logic model wi ll ensure the success of the program and the
evaluation. Of course, the effi-
cacy of a logic model depends on the quality of its design and
components. A log ic model
cannot overcome these types of problems. Frcchtling identifies
four commo n issues
here. First, sometimes new programs are such that applying the
theory of change and a
558 P11RT V • CoN ctPI'UAl R ESEARCH
representative logic model is premature. This is the case for
programs in which a priori
expectations about relationships between activities and
outcomes do not exist.
A second risk in this area is fai ling to consider alternative
theories of change.

Alternative explanations and competing hypotheses sho ul d be
explored. Focusing on only
one theory of change may result in not recognizing and
including important factors that
fall o utside of the theorys domain. Ignoring these competing
fac to rs may result in the
fail ure of the logic model and the program.
Third and related, it is critical to acknowledge the influence of
contextual factors that
arc likely to affect the program. Interventions always exist and
function wiLhi n a larger
environment. Contextual factors influence the success or failure
of these interventions.
For instance, one contextual factor that might affect outcomes
of the program diagrammed
in Figure 31 .2 is the diversity of the target group. As
Frechtling (2007) observes, this d iver-
sity may include language differences among subgroups, which
need to be accounted for
in developing program m aterials.
fin ally, logic models cannot fully co mp ensate for the rigor of
expe rimental design
when testing the impact of interventions o n outco m es (Frech
tling, 2007) . T he logic
model explicates the critical components of a program and the
processes that lead to
desired outcomes (the program theory of cha nge). The
implementation of the model
provides a test of th e accuracy of the theory. However,
validatio n of the logic model is not
as rigorous a proof as what is established through study designs
employing experimental
or quasi-experimental methodologies. Causality cannot be
determined through logic

models. Alhen possible, an evaluation can be strengthened by
combining the advantages
of logic modeling with experimental design.
Logic Modeling in Practice: Building
Blocks Family Literacy Program
The following provides an example of logic modeling in
practice. The example describes the
use of a program logic model in developing, implementing, and
evaluating the Building
Blocks family literacy program and how client exit data were
then used to revise the model in
a way that more explicitly illustrated the program's path•.vays
to achieving intended outcomes
(i.e., feedback loop; Unrau, 2001, p. 355). The original program
outcomes were to increase
(a ) children's literacy skills and (b) parents' abilities to assist
their children in developing lit-
eracy skills. The sam ple included 89 families who participated
in the 4-week program du ring
its initial year of operation. The following describes the process
by which the logic model was
developed and how the client outcome data were used to fme-
tune the logic model.
The family literacy program's logic model was created at a one-
day workshop facili-
tated by the evalua tor. Twenty key stakeholders representing
various constituenc ies,
including program staff (i.e., steering committee members,
administration, and literacy
workers), representatives from other programs (i.e., public
school teachers, child welfare,
and workers and clients from other literacy programs), and oth
er interested citizens, par-

ticipated in the workshop (Unrau, 2001, p. 354). A consensus
decision- making process
was used to reach an agreement on all aspects of the process,
including the program pur-
pose, the prog ram objectives, and the pro gram activities.
During the workshop, stakeholders created five products that
defined the program
parameters and info rmed the focus of the evaluation. These
products included an organi-
zational chart, the beliefs and assumptions of stakeholders about
client service delivery,
the questions for the eval uation, the program's goals and
objectives, and the program
CHAPTER 31 • l OGIC MoDElS 559
activities. The program goals, objectives, and activities were
then used to develop the orig-
inallogic model.
One of the evaluation methods used to assess client ou tcomes
was to conduct semi-
st ructured phone interviews with the parents after families
completed the program.
Random select ion procedu res were used to identify a su bset (n
= 35 or 40o/o) from the
list of all parents to participate in the interviews. Random
selection procedures were used
to ensure that the ex-periences of the interviewees represented
those of all clients served
during the evaluation time period. Relative to the two program
outcomes, respondents
were asked to provide examples of any observed changes in

both their children's literacy
skills (Outcome 1) and their ability to assist their children in
developing literacy skills
(Outcome 2; Unrau, 2001, p. 357). The co nstant comparison
method was used to analyze
the data (Pa tton, 2002 ). In this method, meani ngful units of
texi: are assigned to similar
categories to identify common themes.
What emerged from the parent interviews was more detailed
information about how
the two inten ded outcomes were achieved. Parent experiences
in the program suggested
four additional processes that li nk to reaching the two final
outcomes. Thi s infor mation
was added to the original logic model to more fully develop the
pathways to improving
children's literacy skills through the family literacy program.
These additional outcomes
were actually steps toward meeting the two originally intended
outcomes and thus iden-
tified as intermediate outcomes and ne-cessary steps toward ach
ieving the or iginally stated
long-term outcomes. Figure 31.3 provides a diagram of the
revised logic model. The
shaded boxes represent the components of the original logic
model. The other compo-
nents were added as a result of the parent exit interview data.
Input j I Activities I Short-Term Outcomes I [ Intermediate
Outcomes J I Long-Term :Outcomes j
Improve child's
behavior
Increase parent's

own literacy skills
Figure 31.3 Example of a Revised Program Logic Model for a
Family Literacy Program
SOURCE: Unrau (200 1}. Copyright November 21 , 2007 by
Elsevier limited. Reprinted with permission.
NOTE: The shaded boxes represent the logic model's original
components. The other boxes were added as a result of feedback
from clients
after program compl etion.
560 PART V • CONCEPTUAL R ESEARCH
While the parent in terview data were useful in revising the
program logic about client
change, it is important to interpret this process withi n the app
ropriate context. This part
of the evaluation does not provide evidence that the program
caused client change (Rossi
et al., 2004). This can only be determined through the use of
experimental methods with
random ass ignmen t. Nonetheless, these paren t data contr ibute
to developing a mo re fully
developed model fo r unde rstanding how fam ily literacy
programs wo rk to improve out-
comes for children. Experimental methods can then be used to
test the revised model for
the purpose of es tablishing the causal pathways to the intended
outcomes.
Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was to introduce the rea der to logic
models and to the logic
modeling process. Logic models present an illustration of th e
components of a program
(inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes) and how these
components connect with one
another to facilitate participant change (pro gram theory). They
are tools to assist key
stakeholders in program plann ing, program implementation and
monitoring, and espe-
cially program eva lu ation. They can also be used as
communication tools in expla ining
program processes to key stakeholders external to the program.
Creating a logic model is
a time-consuming process with a number of potential
challenges. Nonetheless, a well-
developed and thoughtful logic mo del is likely to ensure a
program's success in reaching
its intended outcomes.
References
Bahr, S., Hoffman, J., & Yang, X. (2005) . Parental and peer
influence on the risks of adolescent drug
use. journal ofPrirnary Prevention, 26, 529- 551.
Bickman, L. (1987) . The function of program theory. In L.
Bickman (Ed .), New directions in evalu-
ation: Vol. 33. Using program theory in evaluation (pp. 1- 16).
San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Brown, E. C., Hawkins, J. D., Arthur, M. W., Briney, J. S., &
Abbot t, R. D. (2007) . Effects of
Comm un ities that Care on prevention services systems:
Findings from the Community Youth
Devcloprnenl sLudy at 1.5 years. Prevention Science, 8, 180-

191.
Chen, H.-I., & Ross i, P. H. (1983) . Evaluating with sense: The
theory-driven approach. Evaluation
Review, 7, 283- 302.
Chinrnan, M., Imrn, P., & Wandersman, A. (2004). Geuing to
outcomes 2004. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.
Dvvyer, J. J. M., & Makin, S. (1997) . Usi ng a program logic
model that focuses on perfo rmance mea-
surement to develop a program. Canadian journal of Public
Health, 88, 421-425.
Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program
evaluat.ion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harrell, A., Burt, M ., Hatry, H ., Rossman, S., & I"l.oth, J. (
1996). Evaluation strategies for human
services programs: A guide for policy make1·s and providers.
Wash ington , DC: The Urban
Institute.
McLaughlin, J. A. , & Jordan, G. B. (1999) . Logic models: A
tool fo r tell ing you r program's pe rfor-
mance stor y. Evaluation and Program Plar~ning, 22, 65- 72.
McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (2004). Using logic models.
In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E.
Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of program evaluatiOn (pp. 7- 32).
San Francisco: )ossey- Bass.
Mertinko, E., Novotney, L. C., Baker, T. K., & Lange, J.
(2000). Evalual'ing your program: A beginner's
self-evaluation workbook for mentoring programs. Potomac,

MD: Information Technology
International.
CHAPTER 3 I • l OviC Moons 561
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report
depression scale for research in the general
popuJation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 385-401.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, I I. E. (2004) .
Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
United Way of America. (1996). Measuring program outcomes:
A practical approach. Retr ieved
N ovem ber I I, 2007, from ww·w.unitedway.o rg/Outcom
es/Resources/MPO/iudcx.cfm
Unrau, Y. A. (2001). Using client exit interviews to ill uminate
outcomes in program logic models: A
case example. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 353-361.
Watson, S. (2000). Using results to improve the lives of
children and families: A guide for public-private
child care partnerships. Retrieved ~ovember 11, 2007, from
www.nccic.acf.hhs.gov/ccpart:nerships/
resource.htm
Wholey,) . S. (1987) . Evalu ability assessment: Developing
program theory. In L. Bickman ( Ed.),
New directions in evaluation: Vol. 33. Using program theory in

evalua.tio11 (pp. 77 92) . Sa n
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation . (2001) . Logic model development
guide. Retrieved November Jl , 2007,
fr om h ttp://www. wkkf.org/d efau lt.aspx?tabid= l 01 &Cm
=28l&Catl0=28 l &ltemTD- 28 13669&
N ID= 20&La nguageiD=O
http:/ /www.wkkf.org
Web site from theW. K. Kellogg Foundation conta ining useful
templates and exercises in developing
a logic model for a resea rch proj ect.
http:/
/www.unitedway.org/Outcomes/Resources/MPO/index.cfm
Web site from the United Way's Outcome Mea su rement
Resource Network, demonstra ting th e use of
logic models in cla rifying and com municating outcomes.
http:/ /www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm#logic%20modcl
Web site from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
Evaluatio1 Working Group, containing
logic model resources.
1. Define the term logic model.
2. Describe th e difference between program activities, program
outputs, and program outcomes.
3. Discuss the purpose of including lines with arrows in logic
models.
4. Discuss the relationship between a program's theory of
change and its logic model.

5. Describe the uses of logic models.

Comments by the professorWeek 1 Weekly Summary You have done a

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Comments by the professorWeek 1 Weekly Summary You have done a

Ähnlich wie Comments by the professorWeek 1 Weekly Summary You have done a (17)

Mehr von LynellBull52

Mehr von LynellBull52 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Comments by the professorWeek 1 Weekly Summary You have done a