Using a Logic Model
Approach to Developing
Fundraising Performance
Measures
Presented by: Matt H. Evans
June 15, 2006
Easy Way to Print these Slides: Turn Background Printing Off as follows: From the Main Tool Bar, Select Tools → Options → Print Tab → Uncheck Background Printing. Print the slides in Gray Scale.
Agenda
 Logic
Model Concepts
 Logic Model Examples
 Measuring Performance
 Advanced Concepts
 Useful Resources
2
Logic Model Concepts
3
Logic Model Defined
“A program logic model … provides a
roadmap of your program, highlighting
how it is expected to work, what
activities need to come before others,
and how desired outcomes are
achieved.”
Source: WK Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Handbook (1998)
4
The Basic Flow
Inputs
This is what we need – staff, facilities, funds,
board members, conditions, etc.
Activities
This is what we will do – actions taken to
deliver the products and services
Outputs
This is what we will deliver – tangible work
products or services
Outcomes
These are the results we expect – derived
from the delivery of outputs to customers
Impacts
This is the ultimate goal behind the outcomes –
Sustain or grow the organization
5
Logic Model Example
Donor Program
Program Plan
Program Results
Inputs
Activities
Outputs
Conditions:
Strong Economy
Research conditions
- Public Giving, etc.
Confirmation Memo
to Board on Public
Giving, etc.
People are willing to
give to nonprofits
Timing:
After Labor Day
Back Plan from
9/10/07 and issue
Timeline
Program Timeline
and Work Schedule
All milestones were
met per the work
schedule
Budget
Resources:
• Staff
Outcomes
Final Desired Outcome
• Supplies
Staff Activities and
Assignments
See Supplies List
• Facilities
See Budget
Mailing Packets
New Donor Listing
Financial Report
Funding targets
were met
Expanded donor
base
6
Why use the Logic Model?
Clean process for capturing cause-effect
relationships, covering the life cycle of the
fundraising program
 Easy to follow and understand – Left to Right
 Drills down to the Activity Level where
execution takes place
 Forces pro-active planning and adjustments
before you reach the end of the fundraising
campaign

7
Working Right to Left –
Three Simple Steps
1. Set performance targets at the highest level
– final outcomes
2. Define the outputs needed to create the
targeted outcomes
3. Develop a plan of activities and resources
required for generating the outputs.
Donor Plan +
Grant
Application
Process
Meetings with
Key Donors
and Startup
Grant
Need to raise
$ 100,000 for
new clinic
8
Important Concepts


Inputs = Variables: Include those inputs that you have
the ability to influence and control (similar to the Six
Sigma approach)
Activities = Collection of tasks that can be
summarized in terms of a milestone after a few weeks
Tasks
< 2 weeks


Activities
2 to 6 weeks
Process
> 6 weeks
Outputs = Tangible products or services that are
delivered to someone. Add recipients to the model
when your outputs have clearly defined customers
Measurements = Control: Used for feedback to
correct the fundraising process from start to finish
9
Outcomes over Time
Immediate




Response
Feedback
Comments
Receipts
# of
donations
received with
first mailing
Intermediate




Mid Term Results
Targets
Short Term Goals
Funding Status
% of targeted
funds reached
at end of
program
Long Term




Growth
Trends
New Levels
Final Results
% increase in
overall donor
base
Strategic Impact: Nonprofit
is able to expand the scope
of its services
10
Logic Model Examples
11
Source: Research Utilization Support and Help (RUSH) project, National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Grant #H133A031402
12
13
14
15
Strategic Logic Model
16
Measuring Performance
17
Three Simple Rules
for Good Metrics
1. Relevant
Does the measurement fit with the
performance objective?
Objective: Need to have five volunteers in place by October 1st
Measure: Number of volunteers in place
2. Measurable
Can you collect the data and report a
measurement that makes sense?
3. Actionable
Can you act on the measurement in a
timely way to correct and improve what
is happening?
18
Expressing Performance
Numeric
Percentages
Ratios
Easy to Measure and
Report
Relatively easy to
Measure and Report
Relatively easy to
Measure and Report
May not be very
insightful in
understanding
performance
More insightful in
understanding
performance
Very meaningful and
useful for comparative
benchmarking
Used for inputs, outputs,
and outcomes
Used for inputs, outputs,
and outcomes
EXAMPLES:
% of participants who
made pledges
% of budget used for
outside help
% of association
members renewing
EXAMPLES:
Total Funds Raised to
Total Costs
Average Donation per
Donor
Volunteer to Donor Ratio
Total Funds Raised to
Total Days Required
Commonly used for
inputs and outputs
EXAMPLES:
# of volunteers available
# of workshops
conducted
# of donors solicited
# of grant applications
submitted
19
Benchmarking Performance
across Fundraising Programs
Inputs
Volunteer to Donor Ratio
Man Hours Required per Event
Total Inside Resources to Total Resources
Measure
Resource
Utilization
Outputs
Telephone Solicitation Success Rate
Number of Grant Revisions per Board Review
Excessive Fund Raising Materials not used
Measure
Efficiency,
Effectiveness,
Waste
Outcomes
In Kind Contributions to Total Contributions
Donor Retention Rate
Actual Funds Raised / Targeted Funds
Measure Long
Term Patterns
and Trends
20
Metric Examples
Cause Effect
Relationship
Lead
Inputs
Lag
Lead
Outputs
Lag
Outcomes
% of Staff Positions filled for
Fundraising Program
% of fundraising packets issued
# of new donations received
# of Board Members
assigned to Program
% of fundraising events
moderated by board
% of fundraising target
reached
% of Funds Needed
Available to Program
% of key outputs completed
# of packets delivered to
major donor groups
% of Supply List Filled
# of grant submissions
% of grants submitted that
were approved
% of Computers & Printers
Installed
# of mailings created
% of mailings issued that
were returned completed
% of raffle items received for
auction
% of raffle items sold off
% of funds raised through the
auction portion of program
# of facility items delivered
# of fundraising events
Total $ raised by event
21
Weighting the Metrics
Warning: You may have to convert
some metrics so they are
equivalent to the other metrics
before applying the weights
Easy to Measure
and Execute
(Important)
Inputs
Easy to Measure
and More Difficult
(Very Important)
Outputs
Difficult to Measure
and Execute (Most
Important)
Quantitative
Qualitative
Specific, Quantifiable
Numbers (Hard)
Descriptive,
Revealing (Soft)
5%
9%
Least Significant
14 %
19 %
Most Significant
Outcomes
24 %
29 %
22
Reporting Performance: Inputs
Phase I: Resourcing and Planning the Event (August
thru October 2006)
As of 9/15/06
Performance Objective
Measurement
Description
Current
Performance
Comments
100% Fully Staffed for Event by
October 1, 2006
% Staffing that is
complete
70%
May need to pull
from other staff
1,000 + donors identified and
compiled by 10/20/06
% of donor listing
that is complete
50%
Need more
research
Develop complete program and
donor packet
% of packet
complete
30%
Waiting on artist
layout to proof
Full Inventory of all prizes and
gifts for fund raising event
% of inventory
items cataloged
40%
2 orders forth
coming in 2 weeks
Phase I Metrics = Inputs. Final Report assigns 5% to Quantitative and 9% to Qualitative Metrics.
23
Reporting Performance: Outputs
Phase II: Event Outputs (early November 2006)
As of 10/15/06
Performance Objective
Measurement
Description
Current
Performance
Comments
Program and Donation Packets
for Event Ready to go
% Programs
Delivered
100%
No errors or
mistakes
Prizes and Gifts delivered and
tagged for event
% of items
cataloged
50%
Will be done in two
weeks
All facilities and logistics
finalized
% of vendor
contracts executed
75%
Waiting on release
Event staff and helpers signed
up to work tables
% of tables with
assigned help
70%
Need 4 more girl
helpers
Phase II Metrics = Outputs. Final Report assigns 14% to Quantitative and 19% to Qualitative Metrics.
24
Reporting Performance: Outcomes
Phase III: Event Results (late November 2006)
As of 11/30/06
Performance Objective
Measurement
Description
50% of donations received from % of returning
existing donor base
donors to event
Total targeted donations
needed $ 100,000
Total amount
donated
10% of donations received from % of donations
new members
from new
Target Donation to Cost Ratio
of 2.5
Total Donations /
Total Costs
Current
Performance
Comments
55%
Same as last year
$ 105,000
On target
12%
On target
2.2
Meal Cost went up
20%
Phase III Metrics = Outcomes. Final Report assigns 24% to Quantitative and 29% to Qualitative Metrics.
25
Different Levels of Users
Inputs
% Staffing, % prize inventory, % of
contracts in place, Donor Listing
Supervisors,
Coordinators, Staff, etc.
Outputs
# of mailings issued, # meetings
with key contributors, etc.
Event Manager, Senior
Staff, Committee Chair
% target reached, % membership
renewed, % increase in donor base
Senior Leadership,
Directors, Board, etc.
Outcomes
26
Advanced Concepts
27
Some Pitfalls to
Look out for . .
 Cause
Effect Relationships are not
always valid – Test early-on and adjust
 All outcomes are not usually captured or
quantified, distorting the ROI (Return on
Investment) of the Program – Where
possible, recognize the peripheral
benefits (new volunteers, ideas, etc.)
28
Z Logic Model
Organizing your activities into a sequential flow allows you to
put your entire program into a single baseline plan
Volunteer
Staffing
Activity
Plan
Catalog
Order
Merchant
Visits
Event
Program
Sell
Tickets
Advertise
Event
Process
Prizes
Prize
Buckets
Print
Programs
Sell
Tickets
Sell Tables
Event
Staffing
Event
Setup
Fundraising
Event
Arrange
Facilities
Banquet
Contract
29
Program Baseline derived
from Z Logic Model
Use Project Management Software such as Microsoft Project
to automate your Logic Model into a Program Baseline
30
Thinking Outside the
Logic Model Box
Logic Model
Situation / Priorities
OUTPUT: Case Statement
– Common Theme for
driving Fund Raising
Inputs
Outputs
Outcomes
Assumptions / External Forces
OUTPUT: Business Rules to Follow, such as 80 /
20 Rule (80% of our funds come from 20% of our
contributors), Personal Face to Face is ten times
more effective than mailings, Formal Events are
ten times more costly than mailings, etc.
31
Overlap between Logic Models
and Balanced Scorecard
Logic Model
Balanced Scorecard
Impacts
Mission
Outcomes
Customers and Constituents
Activities / Outputs
Internal Processes
Learning and Growth
Inputs / Resources
Resources / Org Capabilities
Operating Plans (Short Term)
Strategic Plan (Long Term)
32
Useful Resources
33
Internet Resources
Kellogg Logic Model Development Guide:
http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/Tools/Evaluation/Pub3669.pdf
Logic Model Workbook:
http://www.innonet.org/?section_id=62&content_id=143
United Way - Outcome Measurement Resources:
http://national.unitedway.org/outcomes/library/pgmomre
s.cfm
Logic Model Course:
www.uwex.edu/ces/lmcourse
Logic Model Templates:
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicm
odelworksheets.html
34
Program Evaluation Books
touch on Logic Models
35
Flow Charting Tools for
drawing Logic Models
http://www.rff.com/
http://www.igrafx.com/Products/flowcharter/
http://www.smartdraw.com/exp/dia/home/
http://www.patton-patton.com/
http://www.polarsoftware.com/index.asp
36
Questions and Comments
Matt H. Evans
6903 29th St N
Arlington, VA 22213
Phone: 1-877-807-8756
Web Site: www.exinfm.com
37