|
Program Planning and Evaluation Using the Logic Model
 For funded organizations
to more deeply engage their
patrons, the challenge was
clear: Develop programs that would both reach
more people and would enable them to experience
a more profound connection to the arts.
But transforming good intentions into solid
programs is not always easy. To facilitate clear
thinking about program goals and the correlating
action steps, many of the organizations in
the Participation Learning Network were asked
to adopt the logic model for program development
and evaluation.
The logic model was first formulated in
the department of public administration at the
University of Southern California in the 1970s
to enhance performance and accountability of
public and nonprofit organizations. The Kellogg
Foundation promoted wider use of the logic
model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, reasoning,
"Clear ideas about what you plan to do
and why—as well as an organized approach to
capturing, documenting and disseminating program
results—enhance the case for investment
in your program."
A detailed Logic Model Development Guide is available on the Kellogg
Foundation’s web site. "The process of developing the model is an opportunity to chart
the course," write the Kellogg program staff. "It is a conscious
process that creates an explicit understanding of the challenges
ahead, the resources available and the timetable in which to hit
the target."
At the Massachusetts
Cultural Council (MCC), applications to the
YouthReach funding program are built on the
logic model approach. "It leads to intentional
programming," says H. Mark Smith, the MCC
YouthReach Program Manager and one of the
main facilitators of the Participation Learning
Network. "Groups start by identifying the change
that they want to have happen and then determine
the steps that it will require."
Using the model as the basis of a grant application
also emphasizes function over rhetoric.
Says Smith, "The logic model helps groups focus
on program plans and goals rather than on wording
and narrative."
As a first step, participants were asked to articulate a "theory
of change" that summarizes how the organization will change as the
result of the proposed program. The logic model itself is built
on a table and flow-chart format. Columns delineate inputs (available
resources), activities (actions needed for implementation), outputs
(products, materials, and knowledge gained from the activities)
and outcomes (the specific changes that have been achieved). Once
an organization has completed the flow chart, its goals have been
distilled into a graphic depiction of what the Kellogg Foundation
describes as a "clear map of the road ahead." (See
sample logic model worksheet.)
That clarity enables staff members to conduct
ongoing assessments as they implement
their plans. Midway through the funding process,
organizations were asked to evaluate their
projected outputs and outcomes against their
actual progress so they could make any necessary
mid-course corrections.
"We asked organizations to focus on what
they had learned, not on whether they had failed
or succeeded," Smith explains. This non-judgmental
approach encouraged organizations to
depart from the tried-and-true and to take risks
in exploring new directions. "We encouraged
organizations to be candid about their experiences
and gave them a high degree of flexibility
to learn from their mistakes and adjust their
plans accordingly."
Smith acknowledges, however, that participating
organizations approached the logic
model with skepticism. "It's very disciplined," he
says. "At first it felt like yet another grant-seeking
exercise as opposed to a program-planning tool."
Elizabeth Taylor-Mead, Associate Director
of the Coolidge Corner Theatre Foundation,
admits that it took her some time to warm up
to the logic model approach to planning. "But I
could see that if you could get into it, it would
be helpful," she says. "Once we completed it, I
thought, 'Of course! Once you do one thing, it
will make another thing happen.'"
John Beck, Director of Operations at Arts-
Boston, also approached the task of creating the
logic model with reluctance. "The first time we
did it because we had to," he says. "The second
time we did it because it worked."
 Kit Jenkins, Executive Director of Raw Art
Works, notes, "Almost all the work on the grant
was done in training sessions." As part of the
learning process, organizations met in small
groups to discuss and critique each others' preliminary
logic models. As a result, each final
plan was rooted in a broader perspective and
informed by the experiences and expertise of
peer organizations.
As a program-planning tool, the logic
model promotes what the Kellogg Foundation
calls "group process and shared understanding."
In addition, "other groups feel invested in
our work because they can see that we followed
their advice," says ArtsBoston Executive Director
Catherine Peterson.
ArtsBoston, in fact, internalized the process. "Before we launched
the ArtsBoston.org web site (see
their profile), we developed a logic model for all our constituencies
and identified outcomes for up to three years out," says Beck.
Peterson describes an all-inclusive process.
"It was a total team effort and everybody has
ownership," she says. "Staff worked in teams to
develop the logic model and we shared it with
the board. Our entire organization wrapped its
arms around moving forward in a systematic
way. It's a living document. I look at it weekly.
John sleeps with it under his pillow."
NEXT:
Targeted Audience Outreach Efforts
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| © Massachusetts Cultural Council 2012 |
| |
|
|
