Logic Model Rubric MAY 2022 PDF.pdf

Logic Model Rubric

Organization: __________________________ Reviewer 1: __________________________ Reviewer 2: __________________________

Criterion Exemplary – Approved Acceptable – Approved Needs Improvement – Rejected Poor – Rejected Rating Comments

Overall Quality

• Includes Goals, Inputs, Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes with a significant number of items listed for each component making Logic Model comprehensive

• Model is coherent. There are no gaps in the theory or reasoning across Logic Model;

Outputs and Outcomes are linked logically to Activities and Inputs

• Components are clearly written to align with the appropriate columns

• Easily understandable with no jargon or technical language

• Includes Goals, Inputs, Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes with a sufficient number of items listed for each component making Logic Model complete

• Few to no gaps in the theory or reasoning across the Logic Model; Outputs and Outcomes are linked logically to Activities

• Components are all in the correct columns

• Understandable with little jargon or technical language

• Missing at least one of Goals, Inputs, Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes; OR an insufficient number of items in each component making Logic Model unclear

• Some gaps or a couple large gaps in the theory or reasoning across the Logic Model;

Outputs and Outcomes marginally connected to Activities

• Some components are in the incorrect columns

• Some jargon or technical language that inhibits readability

• Missing at least one of Goals, Inputs, Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes; AND an insufficient number of items in each component making Logic Model unclear

• Significant gaps in the theory or reasoning across the Logic Model; Outputs and Outcomes not connected to Activities

• Many or most components are in the incorrect columns

• Difficult to understand due to a significant amount of jargon or technical language

Goals/ Objectives

• Goals of the project are specific, clearly stated, measurable, and align with the grant program’s purpose

• Clear how the Logic Model addresses the Goals

• Goals of the project are clearly stated, measurable, and align with the grant program’s purpose

• Logic Model addresses the Goals

• Goals are unclear, unmeasurable, or unaligned with the grant program’s purpose

• Logic Model does not clearly address the Goals

• Goals are not provided

• Logic Model is unrelated to the Goals

Inputs

• A wide range of Inputs is identified and includes research, financial support, and organizational/human capital

• Inputs are sufficient to support the proposed Activities

• A variety of Inputs are identified and include research, financial support, or human capital

• Inputs are likely able to support the proposed Activities

• A limited range of Inputs is identified

• Not all Activities are clearly supported by identified Inputs

• Inputs are not clearly provided

• Inputs are insufficient to support proposed Activities

Activities

• Major Activities are included; they are clear and feasible

• All Activity statements include an action word (e.g. Provide, Create, Implement)

• All Activities are clearly and logically linked to the Outputs and Outcomes

• At least one Activity is supported by at least a correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias

• Major Activities are included

• Most Activity statements include an action word

• Activities are related to Outputs or Outcomes

• At least one Activity is supported by high-quality research findings or positive evaluation

• Some major Activities are missing

• Few Activity statements include an action word

• Activities are marginally related to Outputs or Outcomes

• No high-quality evidence was provided to support the Activities

• Many or all major Activities are missing

• Activity statements are all missing an action word

• Activities are not linked to Outputs or Outcomes

• Research on at least one Activity indicates negative effects

Outputs

• Numerically based, with only products or services listed and no events or deliverables included

• All are described in terms of treatment and include the target recipients (e.g., 50 students receive mentors; 20 teachers attend professional development)

• Numerically based, with mostly products or services listed and few events or deliverables included

• Most are described in terms of treatment and include the target recipients

• Majority are numerically based, with some products or services listed and some events or deliverables included

• Some are not described in terms of treatment or do not include the target recipients

• Majority or all are not numerically based, with many events or deliverables included

• Many are not described in terms of treatment or are missing the target recipients

Outcomes

• All are written as change statements (e.g., increase or decrease) and clearly describe beneficiaries (e.g., teachers, students, parents) of intended change

• Clear progressive steps from short-term to long-term Outcomes

• Most are achievable within the funding period and are within the scope of the project’s control

• Reasonable yet ambitious targets are provided for each Outcome

• All are written as change statements and clearly describe beneficiaries of intended change

• Most long-term Outcomes clearly lead from short-term Outcomes

• Most are achievable within the funding period and are mostly within the scope of the project’s control

• Reasonable targets are provided for each Outcome

• Some are not written as change statements or do not describe beneficiaries of intended change

• Many long-term Outcomes do not clearly lead from short-term Outcomes

• Many are not achievable within the funding period or are not within the scope of the project’s control

• Targets are provided for only some Outcomes or are unreasonable

• Direction of change is not clear or missing and beneficiaries of change are unclear for most Outcomes

• No clear progression from short-term to long-term Outcomes

• Many or all are not achievable within the funding period and are not within the scope of the project’s control

• Targets are missing or unreasonable for most or all Outcomes

Key Terms

Goals are long-range intentions or purposes of the proposed project. Goals are what will be achieved when a project successfully addresses the problems or challenges that the grant program is meant to help overcome. Goals are likely to align with the federal grant program’s purpose or the absolute priority(ies) the applicant met.

Inputs are the raw materials needed to initiate the project, implement its activities, and attain the desired outputs and outcomes. Sometimes called resources, inputs include both tangible items (such as curricula, instruction materials, facilities, and funding) and intangible items (such as time, community support, and specialized knowledge and skills).

Activities are the processes, actions, and events through which the project resources achieve the intended outcomes; they are the steps in implementing a project. Examples include collaborating with partners, developing training or curriculum materials, conducting training sessions or workshops, and collecting and analyzing student performance data.

Outputs are tangible, often process-oriented results or products typically expressed in numbers, such as number of students tested, number of teachers trained, and number of books read. While outputs provide information derived from the completion of project activities, they cannot indicate whether a change has occurred. For example, an output can tell you how many teachers attended training but not whether the training increased the teachers’ knowledge of the training topic.

Outcomes Short- and mid-term outcomes are the changes in project participants’ knowledge, beliefs, and behavior due to their involvement in the project. Outcomes can also be quick adjustments in organizational practices or system design. Short-term outcomes are observable almost immediately after participation; mid-term outcomes can take months or years to emerge and typically build toward long-term outcomes. Long-term outcomes, sometimes called impacts, are a program’s lasting influences. Examples include higher student achievement scores, increased high school graduation rates, and greater college acceptance rates.

Source:

Kekahio, W., Cicchinelli, L., Lawton, B., & Brandon, P. R. (2014). Logic models: A tool for effective program planning, collaboration, and monitoring. (REL 2014–025). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education

Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Pacific. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs