# all prgram logic slides including blank one

```Here are all of the different logic
model slides we used, including a
blank one
A USEFUL TOOL IN MAPPING OUT A PROGRAM IS A “PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL (SEE ONLINE
PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL
PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL
OBJECTIVES
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
Indicators*
What specific
results does the
program hope to
achieve.
What are the
anticipated
consequences of
the program. They
must be
behavioral,
specific and
measurable
somehow.
The more
specific it is the
more easily it is
measured
What was done
within the
program. How
were the inputs
used to produce
outcomes?
Program
components,
activities,
services,
interventions
Products of a
programs
activities.
What was
produced by
the program.
(HOW
MANY
PEOPLE
WENT
THROUGH.
HOW MANY
DOES IT
SERVE?)
What was the
condition of the
outputs. To what
degree were the
objectives met. How
was the problem(s)
reduced by the
program? How have
the clients
benefited? What
were the ultimate
effects of the
program?
Achievement of the
program’s
objectives.
DATA!!!
Often these are
measurements of
outcomes that are
indirect. For example
in a prevention
program to reduce teen
pregnancy, there is no
measure the number of
girls who DON”T get
pregnant. However, if
there is a reduction in
Risk factors such as
lower truancy and
might be considered
‘indicators’ of success.
INPUTS
All resources
used and
allocated for
program.
Staff,
money,
housing,
packaged
treatments
etc.
IF YOU CAN SUCCESSFULLY IDENTIFY ALL OF THESE, THEN THE PROGRAM CAN BE EVALUATED.
This should be used to see if there actually is a ‘functional’ program.
Division of S.W. PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL – SEVERELY FLAWED AND BAD EXAMPLE
ERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL USED TO EVALUATE THE M.S.W. PROGRAM. NOTIC
WHAT IS MISSING FROM THE M.S.W. PRGRAM LOGIC MODEL. WE MUST REVISE IT!!!!
Example of Good model men stopping violence. (WHOSE MISSION IS TO STOP MALE
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN) IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT HOW THE INPUTS OBJECTIVES,
ACTIVITIES, OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES CORRESPOND, YOU CAN SEE THE LOGIC OF THE
PROGRAM AND HOW WE THINK CHANGE OCCURS
OBJECTIVES
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
And measures of them
IMPACTS
Aka long term
outcomes
1. To get men to
account for their
own violence and
take responsibility
for it.
24 week Batterers groups with
structured activities
# men
complete
program
•Men will describe in detail all
incidents of violence &amp; be
congruent w/ spouse and
police report.
•Men will be violence
free at 24mths
INPUTS
Staff
Office
Msv
manuals
materials
Staff
Training
Staff
supervision
Connection
w/court
system
Judges
Probation
officers
Woemn’s
shelters
Famous
director
Model of
practice
Budget
Abusive
men
2. To get men to
stop all violent
behavior with
women
Weekly batterer check-in
Challenge use of language and
language education
Weekly Spousal safety checks
# court
diversions
# men referred
to program by
court
#weekly safety
checks
3. To get men to
stop all
controlling
behavior with
partner
Make him move out
Encourage her to leave him if he
is not changing
#court
appearances
by staff
4. To get men who
are stopping their
own violent
behavior to
challenge other
men to stop as
well.
Progress mtgs w/ batterer judge
and p.o.
Court intervention
# court
appearances
by batterers in
program
Sentencing to program with
possible jail time
Annual
expenditures
5. To raise
community
awareness of
domestic viol3nce
Batterer volunteers at other mens
trials
\$ money
raised
#speaking
events &amp;
#press rel.
Small periods of jail
Fund-raising events
Public speaking &amp; Press releases
•Men will continue work
w/ msv
•Men will use their own
descriptions of violence to get
new men to talk
•Increase 3 sentencing
&amp; trials in court system
•Men will not use minimizing
language
•No arrests for violence
•More arrests by police
•More batterers
programs like ours.
•Men will check-in w/ all
violent &amp; controlling events &amp;
agree w/ spouse safety check
•No violence reports from
spouse or anyone
•No reports of controlling
behavior from spouse
•Lower scores on conflict
tactics scale by men
•No signs of controlling
behaviors in grp.
•Increased volunteer hours by
men
•Increased funding
•Increased com. Aware
•Increased training of hum
service grps.
•More accurate press
coverage of dv
•Less focus in
community on blaming
women
•Increased
understanding of wifebattering as dv in
community
•Increased influence of
shelters and antiviolence group in
legislature
1. In depth example of the logic behind objectives activities and outcomes, can you see the
Theory of change?
OBJECTIVES
ACTIVITIES
1. To get men to
account for their
own violence and
take responsibility
for it.
24 week Batterers groups with
structured activities
INPUTS
Staff
Office
Msv
manuals
materials
Staff
Training
Staff
supervision
Connection
w/court
system
Judges
Probation
officers
Woemn’s
shelters
Famous
director
Model of
practice
Budget
Abusive
men
Weekly batterer check-in
Challenge use of language and
language education
Notice that impacts
Or long-term outcomes
tend to be more global
and far-reaching
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
And measures of them
•Men will describe in detail all
incidents of violence &amp; be
congruent w/ spouse and
police report.
IMPACTS
Aka long term
outcomes
•Men will continue work
w/ msv
•Men will become victim
•Men will use their own
descriptions of violence to get
new men to talk
•Men will not use minimizing
language
•Men will check-in w/ all
violent &amp; controlling events &amp;
agree w/ spouse safety check
•Increase 3 sentencing
&amp; trials in court system
More arrests by police
•More batterers
programs like ours.
•Less focus in
community on blaming
women
5. To raise
community
awareness of
domestic viol3nce
Fund-raising events
Public speaking
Press releases
Training other organizations
(police etc)
•Increased funding
•Increased com. Aware
•Increased training of hum
service grps.
•Increased arrests numbers
•More accurate press
coverage of dv
•Increased
understanding of wifebattering as dv in
community
•Increased influence of
shelters and antiviolence group in
legislature
A bad batterers program. See the flaws. Not enough actibvities to accomplish
objectives, no outcomes. This program is only interested in making money.
OBJECTIVES
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
And measures of them
1. To get men to
account for their
own violence and
take responsibility
for it.
24 week Batterers groups with
structured activities
# men
complete
program
Reduce domestic violence in
the community
2. To get men to
stop all violent
behavior with
women
THIS NARROW RANGE
Amount of
income
generated
TO ACCOMPLISH ALL
OF THE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
SOMETHING IN THE
PROGRAM NEEDS TO CHANGE!
WHAT?
INPUTS
Staff
Office
Msv
manuals
materials
Staff
Training
Staff
supervision
Connection
w/court
system
Judges
Probation
officers
Woemn’s
shelters
Famous
director
Model of
practice
Budget
Abusive
men
3. To get men to
stop all controlling
behavior with
partner
4. To get men who
are stopping their
own violent
behavior to
challenge other
men to stop as well.
5. To raise
community
awareness of
domestic viol3nce
IMPACTS
Aka long term
outcomes
Weekly batterer check-in
# court
referrals
THIS PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL
IS SIMILAR TO MANY “DV” PROGRAMS
I HAVE SEEN. THESE PROGRAMS
GREW WHEN PEOPLE REALIZED THEY
COULD MAKE MONEY OFF OF
BATTERERS. THAT IS WHY THEY
Here is an example of a program logic model completed by a previous
student. The model is for a 16 week parenting skills program
objectives
• increase parenting
skills
•Reduce parental
child’s behavior
•Reduce ‘on site’
use of inappropriate
parental responses
to child in in vivo
situations
•Increase selfesteem of child
•Reduction of
schools based
complaints to dfcs
•Reduce number of
dfcs-observed poor
parental responses
– i.e. yelling, hitting,
excdessive
punishment
observed at in home
visits
inputs
Activities Outputs
Program
outcomes
indicators
• 7 parapro.
Staff/teachers
•2 msw’s
• gentle parents,
great kids curric
•Workbooks
•2 outreach
workers
•Clear mission
statement
•Measurable
program
objectives
•Pine hall
•Parent library
•One way mirror
with ‘bug in the
ear’ electronics
facility
•\$500k annual
budget
•16 week parent
ed. Classes
•Individual
counseling for
parents and
children
•Family
counseling
•Behavioral
coaching of
parenting with
one way mirror
and bug in the
ear.
visits
ceremonies
•Liaison w/ dfcs
•Recoomedation
s filed with dfcs
•Significant increase on
posttest ‘parent skills
inventory” over pre-test
• 50% reduction in
docuimented parental
complaints during 16
week program.
•100% reduction in
inappropriate parental
responses, using bug in
the ear method. – as
observed by trainers.
•Increase in child selfesteem as evidenced by
increase on Zung child
self-esteem scale at
post-test, over pre-test.
• no complaints filed by
school or reports to
dfcs for one year after
completion.
•No evidence of
inappropriate parenting,
based on followup
home visit observation
•significant
improvement in
•Reduced truancy
•No dropouts
•No police reports
•No e.r. visits
•200 parents
2006
• 25 parents
seen ind.
Coun. 2006
•18 children
seen ind.
Coun. 2006
•34 families
seen fam. Tx.
2006
INPUTS
Albany &amp;
gainesvile
OBJECTIVES
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
And measures of them
IMPACTS
Aka long term
outcomes
Mhc staff
1st step
staff
Dhr funds
Dhr
planners
Housing
authority
funds
Housing
auth
planners,
Training
Housing
vouchers
Landlords,
Apartments
Screening
tools,
Clients,
Evaluator,
Program
supervisors
Hospital
authorities.
E.R.
managers.
1. reduce the
Training, planning,
supervision,
Hospitalization, case
magemnt.
Crisis int. e.r. services. Med.
and referral, housing
peer support grp., med. Educ.
Family work/intervention,
partial hospitalization (day
prgram), job training, job asst.,
, transportation asst.,
Job coaching, alternate
hosuing, crisis resolution
services,
Landlord managament,
landlord education, dual dx
services, substance abuse tx,
financial mgmt., financial
assistance, counseling, living
skill training, supportive visits,
clinical case mgmt., respite
care services
# clients going
through
program
#housing
vouchers
# new
landlords &amp;
housing
1 scores on the use of
crisis intervention services
2 the number of e.r.
visditsor unplanned MHC
visits
1. Stable alternative
housing for people
with sever psych. Dx,.
In the state of
Georgia
2. Establishment of a
working model
between housing
authority and DHR
3. Reduce stigma of
mental illness in
community
4. Increase
independent, stable
and respectful living
for those with chronic
and severe dx within
GA.
5. Reduce housing
discrminitaion within
the state.
number of
unplanned
disruptions to
independent
living.
2. reduce
‘breaks’ in
indept. living.
3. reduce need
for unplanned
and/or emrgcy.
services.
4. reduce need
for changes to
or interven. in
housing sit.
5. reduce the
number of
critical incidents
in people’s
lives.
6 have clients
live stably and
in one place
7. provide
services that
would be
effective in
helping clients
live
independently.
#3. Number of days in
hospital, number of
hospitalization, alternative
housing or respite care
#4 number of landlord or
neigbor complaints
#5. number of housing
interventions or housing
changes
#6 number of domestic
interventions with
roomates, family,
neighbors
#7 number of total critical
incidents .
#8 identify services used
most frequently or
intensively that correlate
most strongly with
reductions in 1 thru 7
above.
Example of a PLM that I did for an evaluation of a
Program designed to keep mentally ill in the community
INPUTS
OBJECTIVES
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
And measures of them
IMPACTS
Aka long term
outcomes
```