Logic Model Template (3).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Ukraine Women Peace and Security Program
- Opportunity number
- SFOP0009872
About this file
This document contains a logic model template and information on a related federal grant opportunity from the Department of State Bureau of Conflict Stabilization Operations. The logic model template provides a framework for applicants to map their program goals, objectives, outputs, outcomes, and theories of change. It includes instructions for applicants to list qualitative and quantitative indicators to measure outcomes at the objective and activity levels.
The federal grant opportunity is solicitation number SFOP0009872 for the Ukraine Women Peace and Security Program. It falls under the federal grant program for Conflict and Stabilization Operations. The solicitation seeks applicants to advance women's meaningful participation in peace and security processes in Ukraine. Applicants should describe their proposed activities, outputs, and outcomes using the logic model template to link program design with the goals of strengthening inclusion, representation, and leadership of Ukrainian women in conflict prevention and resolution.
Logic model
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Program Title: | |||
| Program Logic Model | |||
| Level | Outcome/Output Indicators | Data Collection Tools | Risks and Assumptions |
| Goal: (overarching envisioned end-state) | |||
| Overall Theory of Change: IF we do x/y/z, THEN we will achieve a/b/c BECAUSE (project assumptions) | |||
| Theory of Change 1: (relates to Objective 1 logic frame) | |||
| Objective 1: (envisioned end-state contributing to goal) | OutCOME 1.1: |
Bruce Hemmer: Bruce Hemmer:
include both qualitative and quantitative indicators OutCOME 1.2:
Bruce Hemmer: Bruce Hemmer:
this section might include important intermediate outcomes that are short of objective but bridge several activities
| Activity 1.1: | OutPUT 1.1.1: |
| OutCOME 1.1.2: |
Bruce Hemmer: Bruce Hemmer:
add additonal outcome indicators as appropriate
| Activity 1.2: | OutPUT 1.2.1: |
| OutCOME 1.2.2: | |
| Theory of Change 2: (relates to Objective 2 logic frame) | |
| Objective 2: (envisioned end-state contributing to goal) | OutCOME 2.1: |
| OutCOME 2.2: | |
| Activity 2.1: | OutPUT 2.1.1: |
| OutCOME 2.1.2: | |
| Activity 2.2: | OutPUT 2.2.1: |
| OutCOME 2.2.2: | |
| Theory of Change 3: (relates to Objective 3 logic frame) | |
| Objective 3: (envisioned end-state contributing to goal) | Outcome 3.1: |
| Outcome 3.2: | |
| Activity 3.1: | OutPUT 3.1.1: |
| OutCOME 3.1.2: | |
| Activity 3.2: | OutPUT 3.2.1: |
| OutCOME 3.2.2: | |
| Notes: Adjust number of objectives and activities as needed. Objectives and goal must be worded as end-states to be achieved, not restatements of activities. There should be a minimum of one output and one outcome per activity, as well as at least one outcome at the objective level. Add more levels of outcomes if appropriate for monitoring needs or tracing causal processes, but keep number of indicators managable. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .