Overview
This resource gives an overview of how we approach co-creating Logic Models and Theories of Change (ToC) at CCFSC, in case our shared language and best practices are helpful to others. This will be treated as a living resource that can evolve as the CCFSC evaluation team continues to expand our evaluation practice.
Throughout, we refer to Logic Models and ToCs as supporting descriptions of programs; but these tools are equally great for explaining other interventions, services, or projects, and they may also be used to capture descriptions of organizational impact as part of strategic planning. Both tools ideally serve as as living/dynamic tools that can evolve over time.
Logic Models & Theories of Change
- Logic Model – a structured, simplified list of program elements, typically in a table showing the linear sequence of inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes. It summarizes what the program does and its expected results.
- Theory of Change (ToC) – a visual description and (ideally) an accompanying written narrative that explains how and why a program is expected to achieve its intended outcomes. This helps visualize or describe the “causal chain,” and is supported by capturing other nuances, including underlying rationale/evidence, assumptions, and external factors.
Both tools are great for:
- Informing program design, planning, learning, evaluation, and accountability
- Helping teams collaborate towards defining a shared vision and aligning around objectives
- Establishing measurable outcomes to be used within an evaluation plan
These tools are extremely complimentary, and any program could benefit from either or both. See Table 1 for a comparison.
Table 1. Comparing When to Use Logic Models vs. Theories of Change
Logic Model
Best for linear depictions of program flow where a single, straightforward sequence is sufficient. Causal logic is implied rather than fully theorized. Often considered a good starting point; helpful for simple and straight-forward initiatives.
Theory of Change (ToC)
Typically more fluid and dynamic. Suited to complex, multilevel, or nonlinear change, especially when supporting strategic thinking.
Elements of Logic Models and Theories of Change
Both tools often have many overlapping elements, described in Table 2.
Table 2. Core Elements for Logic Models and ToCs.
| Element* | Description | Whether/ how included in a… | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Logic Model | Theory of Change | ||
| Inputs | Resources required to implement the work (funding, staff, partnerships, material, spaces). | Yes | Sometimes / May be implied |
| Activities / Strategies | What is implemented to influence change. | Yes | Yes |
| Outputs | Tangible products, goods, services, relationships or other immediate results of the activities (e.g., sessions delivered, materials created). | Yes | Sometimes |
| Outcomes | The changes in knowledge, behavior, conditions, or systems expected to result from the activities and outputs. Often categorized by timeline (i.e., short-, medium-, or long-term; or in proximity to activities: immediate, intermediate, ultimate); or may also be categorized by group (i.e., residents, service workers, police, etc.). | Yes | Yes |
| Ultimate Impact / Goal | The broad, long-term change / mission within the project / intervention’s sphere of influence. | Typically | Yes |
| Causal chain | The sequence showing how various components are logically and reasonably connected. | No; implied as linear | Yes; this might be expressed using arrows or other cues in a visual, and described in the narrative. |
| Rationale and Core Assumptions | Evidence-based[1] explanations or assumptions that describe why or how the model was designed or implemented in a certain way, ideally referencing relevant literature about similar models, populations, or contexts. | Sometimes; may note high-level bulleted list but not related to causal change | Yes, typically detailed throughout narrative. Used to explain causal chain. |
| Confounders / External Factors / Enablers and Risks | Contextual variables outside the initiative’s control that may influence outcomes or interfere with causal links. Consider policy, economic, social, and environmental conditions as applicable. | Sometimes; light touch list | Yes, typically embedded within narrative |
* Note: Naming conventions for these elements may differ across projects; what matters most is capturing the underlying meaning and intent, rather than adhering to particular labels.
[1] CCFSC’s definition of “evidence-informed” includes evidence from academic and community-based research, historical/contextual evidence, and lived experience and knowledge derived from practice.
Processes for Building Logic Models and Theories of Change
At CCFSC, Logic Models and ToCs are often developed through a participatory, co-created process, but the format and level of detail can flex depending on the project, partners, and timelines. The overall goal is to bring people together to build shared clarity about what the work aims to achieve and how change is expected to happen. This can be done through facilitated discussion, small-group work, white-boarding, sticky-note mapping, or any other collaborative method that suits the group. Throughout the process, facilitators encourage inclusive dialogue and multiple perspectives.
A typical starting point is inviting partners to agree on the long-term outcome(s); by defining the broad change the program or project hopes to contribute to. From there, groups can “work backward” to surface short- and medium-term outcomes and then explore how activities and outputs align with the outcomes and where gaps or new opportunities may exist. A secondary part of the conversation (when relevant) typically probes additional elements such as core assumptions, rationale, justifications, confounders, and external factors.
For Theories of Change specifically, groups will also explore the causal chain, describing how activities, outputs, and outcomes connect. The emphasis during development is on surfacing shared understanding and exploring relationships between components, not on achieving perfect precision.
After the participatory work, insights can be synthesized into draft tables, visuals or narratives, then iterated and refined with partners. Both Logic Models and ToCs are ideally treated as living resources that evolve as programs/ projects grow, contexts shift, and new learning emerges.
Logic Model Template
Table 3. Sample Logic Model Template
| Inputs | Activities / Strategies | Outputs | Outcomes | Impact | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-term | Medium-term | Long-term | ||||
| Assumptions: | ||||||
| External factors/ confounders: | ||||||
Guidance for Theories of Change
Unlike Logic Models that are generally standardized in format, ToCs can take many different forms. Typically core elements are summarized succinctly in a visual and further described in a narrative.
Key considerations for visuals:
- Clear is kind. Prioritize plain language, clean visual elements, and conciseness.
- Whenever possible, without diminishing important context/details, streamline the text as concisely as possible.
- A traditional ToC visual aims to fit on one page with sufficient negative space (i.e., the empty space) to maximize readability.
- Ensure each visual element has a purpose
- Consider different styles: A few examples to consider:
- Infographic style – might look like a standard diagram with text boxes, arrows, and some icons
- Artistic style – might integrate a broader visual theme that aligns with the overall message/mission. Some examples applicable to the CSWB context might include:
- A park/forest
- A community garden
- A city square
- Keep accessibility in mind. A great reference is AODA’s WCAG 2.0 Level AA Key recommendations include providing text alternatives for images, ensuring high colour contrast, avoiding the use of colour as the only method to convey information, and using clear fonts.
Narrative ToC Elements:
In addition to the items described as applicable for narratives in Table 2, the following additional context may be helpful to include in a ToC narrative.
- Brief introduction/overview – describe how ToC visual and narrative relate, as well as the purpose of both. Ideally acknowledge that the ToC is a living document and can evolve.
- Overview of ToC creation process – key ways the ToC elements were informed/co-created (e.g., project documents, launch meetings, shared language definitions, ToC workshops, lit review, etc.)
- Project or program background/context – high level description about the project/programs, relevant stakeholders/ funders, core mission and design elements etc.
- Descriptions of all components from the ToC visual – Any relevant narrative around connections between activities, outputs, goals or impact; and explainers for the causal chain
- If the ToC is fairly complex, consider aligning clear labels with the visual (e.g., O1, O2) when describing the narrative
Building Nested or Layered ToCs
Nested or Layered ToCs may be helpful if developing a program or service within a broader multi-sectoral initiative. For instance:
- A Program-Level ToC
- What the program/service does
- Individual and system outcomes it aims to influence
- A Project-Level ToC
- The collaborative’s activities
- What capacity, partnerships, and governance contribute
- How these enable the program/service to exist and function
- How this contributes to a broader/systemic strengthening within the ecosystem
A combined version that captures both layers of the ToC above may help with thinking about outcomes at different levels, and how to contribute to systems-level change.
Building Non-linear ToCs
Outside of traditional ToCs, alternative non-linear ToC formats also may be of interest, especially for interventions/projects that prioritize Indigenous or other non-western ways of knowing; or that are more systemic/complex. These may have different components than those listed above.