About Using a Logic Model

McKenzie, Neiger, and Thackery (2017) discuss the logic model as a systematic and visual way for program planners to connect the relationship of the program’s activities and the intended effects of the program being evaluated. There are four basic components to the logic model that include: inputs (resources), activities (interventions or strategies), outputs (evidence of the activities) and outcomes (results) (McKenzie, Neiger, & Thackery, 2017). The purpose of the logic model is to allow individuals to think and understand the process of the program when it comes to inputs, outputs and outcomes.

The logic model can be used as a road map for program planners and evaluators in being able to connect the different components together in a sequential order.

Components of Logic Model

According to McKenzie, Neigher and Thackery (2017) the first component of the logic model is inputs which are the resources that are used to plan, implement and evaluate a health program. Resources include time, funding, partners, supplies and many other resources that are needed for the program evaluation process. The second components are activities that are the interventions or strategies that are used in the program evaluation process. The third component is outputs which is the direct results that have been generated by the activities of the program. Lastly, the outcomes are the intended results that are measured by short-term, medium, and long-term (McKenzie, Neiger, & Thackery, 2017).

Logic Model Strengths

The logic model provides many strengths for program evaluations. According to Sundra, Scherer and Anderson (2003) the logic model ensures that all stakeholders involved understand the purpose of the program, recourses needed for the evaluation and the activities the program will conduct. The logic model is also beneficial in that it severs as a reference point for all staff, stakeholders, funding agencies and all other individuals that may be involved as well as monitors process and allows for adjustments to be made as needed throughout the evaluation process. The logic model allows individuals involved to track what is and is not working so mistakes are not repeated, identify any external factors that may affect the program, identify questions to ask in an evaluation and allowing program planning and evaluation to be integrated (Sundra, Scherer & Anderson, 2003).

Logic Model Weakness

Even though there are many strengths to the logic model there are still some limitations that individuals may run into when using the logic model in program evaluation. According to Sundra, Scherer and Anderson (2003) the logic model only represents reality and is not actually reality. The logic model represents information in a sequential order that often times rarely happens in reality. The logic model diagrams expected outcomes and only focuses on expected results. The logic model does not look at results that were unintended or unexpected throughout the process which is important that staff monitor to be able to improve in future programs. Lastly, the logic model does not address specific questions such as “is the right thing being done?” (Hulton, 2007).

Logic Model Example

Hulton (2007) describes evaluating a school-based teenage pregnancy prevention program using the logic model. Research was conducted in a rural community that included 62 high school students who received 10-sessions on abstaining from sex. Researches received a grant for a program aimed at teen pregnancy prevention in schools. The ultimate goal of the program “Vision of You” is to decrease teen pregnancy rates among participants by improving decision making skills that leads to an increase of teens abstaining from sex (Hulton, 2007).

The logic model was used to evaluate the “Vision of You” program in decreasing teenage pregnancy rates in schools. The input component had resource contribution from superintendent approval, student, parent and/or guardian consent, administrative and financial partners, federal and state grants, program personnel, incentives and parent and community involvement. Activities included meetings with school staff, data collection through pre, post and annual surveys and attendance, implementation of education interventions, and maintaining an abstinence webpage. Outputs included number of participants who completed the program, number of adolescents who understand abstinence, number of youth who commit to abstain from any sexual activity until marriage, number of participants who intend to avoid risky behaviors that allow them to become vulnerable to sexual urges and activities. Lastly, the outcomes focused on immediate, intermediate and long-term effects. Immediate outcomes looked at abstinence when it comes to participants increased awareness of negative consequences of premarital sex, increased self-efficacy skills, and increased decision-making skills. Intermediate outcomes focused on participants increase of delaying sexual activities, increase in number of participants that remain abstinent, increase in number of participants no longer engaging in sexual activity and overall increase of parents involved. Long-term outcomes look at decrease in number of teenage pregnancies, decrease in number of abortion, and decrease in rates of STDS (Hulton, 2007).

Overall, the logic model was successful in being a “road map” of the program goals, activities and outcomes in preventing teenage pregnancy in schools (Hulton, 2007). The data from the research presented allowed nurses to gather data for further teen pregnancy prevention programs in schools using the logic model. Nurses recommended that an integration of evaluation and program planning would be beneficial at the beginning in order to make data collection manageable as the program begins to develop (Hulton, 2007).

References

1. Hulton, L. J. (2007). An Evaluation of a School-Based Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Program
2. Using a Logic Model Framework. The Journal of School Nursing, 23(2), 104–110.
3. https://doi.org/10.1177/10598405070230020801
4. McKenzie, J. F., Neiger, B. L., & Thackeray, R. (2016). Planning, implementing, and
5. evaluating health promotion programs: A primer (7th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
6. Pearson Education, Inc.
7. Sundra, D. L., Scherer, J., & Anderson, L.A. (2003). A Guide on Logic Model Development for
8. CDC’s Prevention Research Centers. Retrieved from
9. https://research.utep.edu/Portals/99/REASDocs/Forms/cdc-logic-model-development.pdf

Did you like this example?

1170

49