Logic Model Framework
Visual program theory with inputs/activities/outputs/outcomes
The Prompt
The Prompt
Create a one-page Logic Model Framework for [PROGRAM NAME] at [ORGANIZATION NAME], serving [COMMUNITY/POPULATION] in [GEOGRAPHY] over [TIMEFRAME].
The logic model framework should:
- Begin with 3–5 end outcomes/impact statements, then work backward to intermediate and short-term outcomes, outputs, activities, and inputs using clear if-then logic.
- Present a single-page table with columns: Inputs | Activities | Outputs | Short-term Outcomes (6–12 mo) | Intermediate Outcomes (1–3 yrs) | Long-term Outcomes/Impact (3+ yrs) | Indicators & Targets | Data Sources & Frequency | Responsible Role | Assumptions/External Factors | Equity Considerations. Aim for 8–12 rows total.
- Distinguish outputs (units delivered) from outcomes (changes in knowledge/behavior/status); include 1–3 SMART indicators per level with numeric targets where possible.
- Include a concise 250–350 word narrative summary explaining program rationale, equity approach, key assumptions, and how the logic model will guide implementation and evaluation.
- Add a 2-sentence note clarifying how this logic model differs from a theory of change (visual flow vs. broader causal narrative).
- Right-size the plan for a small team of [TEAM SIZE] with a budget of [BUDGET RANGE]; propose feasible data collection methods aligned to [DATA CAPACITY: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH].
- Name primary beneficiaries, disaggregate indicators by [EQUITY PRIORITY: e.g., age, race, zip] where appropriate, and avoid deficit framing.
- List top 3 assumptions and top 3 risks/external factors; state mitigation steps.
- Include a quarterly review cadence and “update triggers” (e.g., staffing shifts, policy changes, underperforming indicators).
- Provide 3–5 discussion questions to align staff/partners and surface hidden assumptions.
- Add a header: Prepared by [ROLE], for [AUDIENCE: funder/board/internal], Date [DATE].
- Use [TONE: FORMAL (funder-ready, precise)/WARM (community-friendly, plain language)/CASUAL (internal, succinct)].
Quality note: Use concrete, measurable language; avoid vague phrases (“raise awareness”) without a baseline/target. Keep it nonprofit-focused, capacity-aware, and equity-centered. Do not use jargon or buzzwords without definitions. Ensure each if-then link is testable and the model is practical for ongoing management, not just grant compliance.How to Customize
- Replace all [BRACKETED] fields with your specific information
- Adjust tone and length as needed for your audience
- Review and personalize before using
Pro Tips
- Test this prompt with your preferred AI tool before using in production
- Always review AI output for accuracy and appropriateness
- Customize outputs to match your organization’s voice and brand
Related Prompts
(See other prompts in the programs category)
Example Outputs
Compare scenarios: We tested this prompt with 3 different nonprofit contexts. Each scenario shows outputs from GPT-5, Claude, and Gemini. Select a model above each scenario to compare.
Small Community Org
Neighborhood-based food justice nonprofit in Chicago serving families via a mobile market and culturally relevant cooking education; funded by grassroots donors and a local community foundation.
View scenario details
Prepared by Program Manager, for funder, Date 2025-11-02
End outcomes/impact we aim to achieve (starting point for if-then logic) - Households in 60621 and 60637 experience sustained food security and a supportive neighborhood food environment. - Black and Latine caregivers and seniors increase sustained fruit/vegetable intake and home cooking, reducing diet-related risk factors. - Community leadership, skills, and social connection around food strengthen across Woodlawn and Englewood. - Public benefits (SNAP/Link Match) are fully utilized to make healthy, culturally relevant foods affordable.
Logic Model Framework (Mobile Market & Cooking Circles, 18 months) Columns: Inputs | Activities | Outputs | Short-term Outcomes (6–12 mo) | Intermediate Outcomes (1–3 yrs) | Long-term Outcomes/Impact (3+ yrs) | Indicators & Targets | Data Sources & Frequency | Responsible Role | Assumptions/External Factors | Equity Considerations
1) Mobile Market operations - Inputs: Refrigerated van, tents, permits, Square POS + EBT, staff (PM, Market Coord/Driver), volunteers - Activities: 2 pop-up markets/month/neighborhood; evening/weekend hours - Outputs: 72 market days; 28,800 lbs produce; 600 unduplicated households (75% Black, 20% Latine), by ZIP (≥60% 60621, ≥30% 60637) - ST Outcomes: Increased physical access; 80% report easier access within 10–15 minutes - Intermediate: 60% households shop monthly for ≥6 months - Long-term: Stable, trusted local food access points - Indicators & Targets: Market days=72; lbs sold=28,800; 80% “easy access”; retention 60% - Data/Frequency: POS weekly; sign-in with ZIP/race/language each market; SMS access survey at 6 & 12 mo - Role: Market Coordinator - Assumptions/External: Weather, site permissions - Equity: Rotate sites by transit lines; ADA setup
2) SNAP/Link Match affordability - Inputs: Incentive funds, EBT terminal, outreach materials - Activities: SNAP processing; $1:$1 Link Match up to $20/visit; onsite SNAP referral - Outputs: $30,000 SNAP sales; $15,000 Link Match issued; 120 SNAP applications/referrals - ST Outcomes: 75% SNAP users report lower weekly produce cost - Intermediate: 50% increase in monthly FV purchases among SNAP users - Long-term: Benefits fully leveraged, improved affordability - Indicators & Targets: Avg. SNAP ticket +25%; 75% cost reduction self-report; 120 referrals - Data/Frequency: POS monthly; incentive logs monthly; brief SMS quarterly - Role: Data & Outreach Associate - Assumptions/External: SNAP policies stable - Equity: Prioritize SNAP line; signage English/Spanish
3) Cooking Circles (hands-on, culturally rooted) - Inputs: Licensed kitchen, small wares, chef educator, stipends - Activities: 12 cohorts (10 participants, 4 sessions), bilingual - Outputs: 120 graduates; 48 class sessions; 24 culturally relevant recipes - ST Outcomes: 85% increase knife/meal prep confidence; +1 home-cooked meal/week - Intermediate: 60% maintain +1 serving FV/day at 12–18 mo - Long-term: Sustained healthy eating patterns - Indicators & Targets: Pre/post skill score +20%; 70% add 1+ weekly home-cooked meal - Data/Frequency: 5-item pre/post each cohort; 3-minute phone check-in at 3 and 9 mo - Role: Nutrition Educator/Chef - Assumptions/External: Kitchen access - Equity: Recipes co-created; halal/vegetarian options
4) Caregiver-focused supports - Inputs: Childcare micro-grants, kid kits, family meal kits - Activities: Family-friendly class slots; kids’ tastings at markets - Outputs: 240 kid tasting kits; 300 family meal kits; 80 caregivers complete classes - ST Outcomes: 70% caregivers report kids try 2 new produce items - Intermediate: 50% report 2 family meals/week cooked at home - Long-term: Family food routines strengthened - Indicators & Targets: Kids try-new score +2 items; 50% 2+ weekly family meals - Data/Frequency: Sticker card at market; caregiver SMS at 1, 6, 12 mo - Role: Nutrition Educator + Outreach Associate - Assumptions/External: Child-friendly spaces available - Equity: Schedule around school/work; materials English/Spanish
5) Senior access and connection - Inputs: Senior partner sites, shuttle stipends, delivery coolers - Activities: 2 senior-focused markets/month; 25 home deliveries/month - Outputs: 36 senior markets; 450 deliveries; 150 seniors served - ST Outcomes: 70% seniors report fewer missed produce days - Intermediate: Reduced social isolation proxy: +2 contacts/month via circles/markets - Long-term: Aging with dignity and choice in food - Indicators & Targets: Missed produce days -30%; 50% attend 3+ events - Data/Frequency: Delivery logs monthly; brief phone check-ins quarterly - Role: Market Coordinator + Volunteers - Assumptions/External: Building access, safety - Equity: Prioritize fixed-income buildings; mobility accommodations
6) Community Ambassadors - Inputs: Stipends, training curriculum - Activities: Train 10 ambassadors; peer outreach, demos - Outputs: 10 trained; 40 outreach shifts; 12 peer demos - ST Outcomes: Increased trust and attendance at markets/classes - Intermediate: Ambassadors co-lead 30% of sessions - Long-term: Community-led food culture - Indicators & Targets: 25% of new attendees via ambassador referral; retention +15% - Data/Frequency: Referral codes monthly; attendance source on sign-in - Role: Program Manager - Assumptions/External: Ambassador availability - Equity: Pay stipends; leadership from Black/Latine residents
7) Local sourcing & culturally relevant assortment - Inputs: Farm/vendor MOUs, cold storage - Activities: Source from 6 local farms/vendors; adjust basket to community feedback - Outputs: 60% inventory locally grown/produced; 8 culturally relevant staples carried - ST Outcomes: 85% satisfaction with product relevance - Intermediate: Stable vendor relationships (≥80% on-time fill) - Long-term: Resilient local food economy - Indicators & Targets: Local sourcing ≥60%; satisfaction ≥85% - Data/Frequency: Inventory reports monthly; 2-minute intercept survey quarterly - Role: Market Coordinator - Assumptions/External: Seasonal supply - Equity: Vendor mix includes Black/Latine producers
8) Multilingual outreach and comms - Inputs: Bilingual materials, SMS platform, Canva templates - Activities: Text reminders; flyers; faith/community org partnerships - Outputs: 1,200 SMS subscribers; 24 bilingual flyers; 12 partner blasts - ST Outcomes: 30% increase in event attendance from SMS - Intermediate: Unsubscribe rate <5%; open rate ≥60% - Long-term: Ongoing informed participation - Indicators & Targets: Subscriber growth +50/qtr; attendance uplift +30% - Data/Frequency: SMS analytics monthly; partner logs quarterly - Role: Data & Outreach Associate - Assumptions/External: Cell phone access - Equity: English/Spanish parity; plain language
9) Benefits navigation and referrals - Inputs: Tablets, referral MOUs - Activities: Screen and refer for SNAP, WIC, produce Rx - Outputs: 250 screenings; 150 completed referrals - ST Outcomes: 70% successful benefit uptake - Intermediate: 50% maintain active status at 12 mo - Long-term: Financial access normalized - Indicators & Targets: 70% uptake; 50% retain benefits - Data/Frequency: Referral tracker monthly; follow-up calls at 3/9 mo - Role: Data & Outreach Associate - Assumptions/External: Program capacity at partners - Equity: Prioritize clients in 60621/60637; language support
10) Continuous quality improvement (CQI) - Inputs: Simple dashboards, quarterly huddles - Activities: Quarterly data reviews; PDSA cycles; publish 1 pager to community - Outputs: 6 CQI meetings; 6 small tests of change; 2 community briefs - ST Outcomes: Underperforming indicators corrected within 1 quarter - Intermediate: 80% targets met by year 2 - Long-term: Learning organization culture - Indicators & Targets: ≥2 indicators improved post-PDSA each quarter - Data/Frequency: Dashboard monthly; CQI quarterly - Role: Program Manager - Assumptions/External: Staff continuity - Equity: Disaggregate all dashboards by race, ZIP, language
Narrative summary (program rationale, equity approach, implementation and evaluation) Southside Food & Wellness Collaborative will operate a culturally rooted Mobile Market and Cooking Circles to close the distance between Chicago’s South Side residents and affordable, fresh foods. The neighborhoods of Englewood (60621) and Woodlawn (60637) have strong community assets yet limited healthy retail nearby. Our approach centers Black and Latine households using SNAP, caregivers with children under 12, and seniors by bringing the market to transit-accessible sites, accepting and maximizing SNAP/Link Match, and offering bilingual, hands-on cooking circles that reflect local foodways. If affordable, relevant foods are consistently available and families build practical cooking skills, then purchasing and meal routines shift; if those behaviors persist, households experience sustained food security and better nutrition.
Equity shows up in who leads and who benefits. Community Ambassadors (paid residents) co-design routes, recipes, and outreach. All data are disaggregated by race/ethnicity, ZIP, and primary language, and decisions prioritize groups underrepresented in outcomes. The plan is right-sized for a 4-person team and $180–$240k budget: 72 market days, 12 cooking cohorts, and low-burden data collection (POS exports, short pre/post forms, SMS micro-surveys). Quarterly CQI reviews guide adaptations—adjusting hours, products, and locations; strengthening vendor mix; and tuning messaging.
Key assumptions: steady site access, stable SNAP policy, and reliable local supply. Risks include weather disruptions, staffing turnover, and incentive funding gaps; we mitigate with indoor backup sites, cross-training and volunteer bench, and setting a capped match per visit with diversified funding. The logic model drives management: each activity has outputs, measurable outcomes, and a responsible role, with clear indicators to track progress and trigger course corrections.
Top assumptions (3) and mitigation - Community trust enables participation; mitigation: ambassadors from each ZIP, presence at existing gatherings. - SNAP/Link Match rules remain favorable; mitigation: maintain policy watch, flexible pricing, diversify subsidy funds. - Vendor supply meets demand; mitigation: multiple MOUs, seasonal menus, backup wholesalers.
Top risks/external factors (3) and mitigation - Severe weather/site closures; mitigation: indoor partners, text alerts, pop-up tents. - Staff turnover in a small team; mitigation: cross-train, SOPs, part-time relief pool. - Underperforming indicators; mitigation: monthly dashboards, PDSA within one quarter.
Review cadence and update triggers - Quarterly reviews with ambassadors and partners; share a 1-page dashboard publicly. - Update triggers: staffing changes >25% FTE shift; SNAP/Link policy changes; two consecutive quarters below target on any key indicator; loss of a site/vendor; safety incidents.
Discussion questions for alignment - Which barriers to participation are we assuming our current hours and locations solve—and for whom might they not? - Where can ambassadors exercise more decision-making power without slowing operations? - Which indicators most meaningfully reflect household dignity and choice, not just throughput? - What’s our minimum viable market day (staff/time/inventory) if funding tightens? - How will we respond if disaggregated data show gaps by language or ZIP despite overall success?
Note on logic model vs. theory of change - A logic model is a practical, one-page visual flow linking inputs to activities, outputs, and measurable outcomes with indicators. A theory of change is the broader causal narrative explaining why and under what conditions change should happen, including context and evidence beyond the program’s direct control.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.8/10)
This is an exceptionally strong logic model that demonstrates deep understanding of nonprofit program design, equity-centered practice, and capacity-aware planning. It fulfills nearly all prompt requirements with concrete, measurable language and avoids common pitfalls like vague outputs or deficit framing. The warm tone is appropriate for funder communication while remaining accessible.
- • Outstanding equity integration throughout—disaggregation by race/ZIP/language is woven into every row, not treated as an afterthought; Community Ambassadors model centers resident leadership with paid stipends
- • Exceptionally practical and capacity-aware for a 4-person team with low data capacity—uses POS exports, SMS micro-surveys, sticker cards, and brief phone check-ins rather than demanding complex evaluation infrastructure
- • Clear if-then logic chains from activities through outcomes—e.g., 'If affordable, relevant foods are consistently available and families build practical cooking skills, then purchasing and meal routines shift'
- • SMART indicators with realistic numeric targets throughout (72 market days, 28,800 lbs produce, 80% report easier access, 60% retention, etc.) that are testable and actionable
- • Strong distinction between outputs (units delivered like market days, lbs sold) and outcomes (behavior/status changes like increased access, retention, cooking frequency)
- • Thoughtful mitigation strategies for each assumption and risk—not boilerplate but specific to context (e.g., 'capped match per visit with diversified funding' for incentive gaps)
- • Excellent discussion questions that surface power dynamics and equity tensions ('Which indicators most meaningfully reflect household dignity and choice, not just throughput?')
- • Avoids deficit framing—describes communities by assets and agency, not needs or gaps
- • Right-sized budget alignment—$180-240k clearly maps to staffing (PM, Market Coord, Educator, Outreach Associate), operations (van, permits, POS), and incentives
- • Update triggers are concrete and operationalizable (staffing >25% FTE shift, two consecutive quarters below target, etc.)
- • The 10-row table format slightly deviates from the 8-12 row guidance by organizing around program components rather than strict input-to-impact chains—some rows blend multiple activity types, which may reduce clarity for readers unfamiliar with the program
- • A few indicators lack baseline data context (e.g., '+1 home-cooked meal/week' doesn't specify current baseline, though this is mitigated by pre/post design)
- • The 'Responsible Role' column could be more specific in a few places—'Data & Outreach Associate' appears frequently but some tasks might benefit from shared accountability notation
- • Minor: The narrative summary is 348 words, slightly above the 250-350 target, though the content justifies the length
Mid-size Professional Org
Regional workforce and adult education nonprofit serving rural Appalachian counties with digital skills training; supported by state workforce funds, regional utilities, and family foundations.
View scenario details
Prepared by Director of Programs, for board, Date 2025-11-02
End outcomes/impact we’re aiming for (3+ years): - Adults 25–64 in Pike, Floyd, and Letcher Counties secure stable, digital-involved jobs with sustained wage gains. - Households have reliable internet and devices that support work, health, and learning. - Local employers fill in-demand roles with local talent, improving retention and productivity. - A durable rural digital-skills pathway, embedded in partners, that reduces barriers for SNAP/TANF participants and underemployed jobseekers.
Logic Model Framework (24 months)
Inputs | Activities | Outputs | Short-term Outcomes (6–12 mo) | Intermediate Outcomes (1–3 yrs) | Long-term Outcomes/Impact (3+ yrs) | Indicators & Targets | Data Sources & Frequency | Responsible Role | Assumptions/External Factors | Equity Considerations -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|- Team of 10; outreach budget; partner MOUs (SNAP/TANF offices, libraries) | County-based outreach, info sessions, referral hubs, SMS campaigns | 60 sessions; 600 inquiries; 420 enrollments | Participants understand options and enroll; 80% show for first class | Steady pipeline across 3 counties | Sustained demand for pathway | 420 enrollments: Pike 45%, Floyd 30%, Letcher 25%; 65% SNAP/TANF; 30% ages 45–64 | CRM sign-ins; monthly dashboard; quarterly review | Outreach Coordinator; Navigators | Partner referrals remain active; transportation barriers addressed | Plain-language, culturally familiar outreach; evening/weekend options; materials in print/SMS Assessment tools (Northstar); navigators; intake time | Baseline digital assessment; barrier screener; Individual Employment Plans (IEPs) | 380 assessed; 360 IEPs | Clear goals; support plans in place | Progress monitored; barriers resolved earlier | Coaching culture persists | 90% complete assessment+IEP within 2 weeks; 75% with 2+ coach contacts/month | Northstar; CRM; monthly | Navigators; Data & Evaluation Specialist (0.5 FTE) | Adults can schedule assessments within 10 days | Disaggregate by county, age, education; ADA-accessible labs and remote options Instructors (4); curriculum; labs; learner stipends | 8-week digital literacy bootcamps (basic→intermediate), blended | 24 cohorts; 360 seats; 300 completions | Skill gains; basic digital credential earned | Confidence using email, docs, telehealth, job sites | Community-wide digital inclusion | 80% increase ≥15 pts on Northstar; 70% earn Northstar cert; completion rate ≥75% across all groups | Pre/post tests; attendance; monthly | Lead Instructor; Program Manager | Stable instructor staffing | Cohort times match caregiving/work; track completion gaps and close ≤5% Device fund; refurb partners; 200 hotspots; ISP partners | Laptop distribution, hotspot lending; ACP/ISP enrollment; online safety mini-course | 300 laptops; 200 hotspots; 360 safety completions | Households online and safer | 240 households maintain service 12+ months | Household digital resilience | 85% device recipients online at 3 mo; 240 sustain at 12 mo | Device logs; ISP confirmations; 3, 6, 12-mo checks | Tech Coordinator; Navigators | ACP/discounts available; cellular coverage adequate | Prioritize no-home-internet households; plain-fee plans; multilingual safety tips as needed Exam vouchers; instructors; labs | Industry-cert prep (e.g., Google IT Support, CompTIA ITF+/A+, Microsoft, customer service tech, OSHA-10 digital) | 200 start pathways; 160 sit exams | Pass industry exams | Stackable credentials aligned to local roles | Higher wages in digital-involved jobs | 120 earn ≥1 industry cert; pass rates: Google ≥70%, ITF+ ≥65% | LMS, exam vendor reports; monthly | Credential Lead; Instructors | Vendor exam sites accessible | Offer multiple tracks; tutoring; women and 45–64 adults welcomed into IT tracks Employer engagement lead; stipends | Employer mapping; mock interviews; internships/apprenticeships; hiring events | 20 employers engaged; 80 WBL slots; 200 interviews | Interview readiness and work experience | 120 job placements; 75% 6-mo retention | Local hiring and productivity gains | Median entry wage $16/hr; median wage +$3 within 12 mo; placement by county: Pike 50, Floyd 40, Letcher 30 | Employer MOUs; placement forms; 6/12-mo follow-up; quarterly | Employer Engagement Lead; Navigators | Employer demand remains; background checks clear | Track and address bias; accessible worksites; second-chance-friendly employers Wraparound fund; partners (childcare, transit, mental health) | Stipends, gas cards, childcare vouchers, benefits navigation | 200 stipends; 150 transport/childcare supports | Attendance and persistence improve | Completion rates rise, fewer stop-outs | Reduced disparities in outcomes | Avg attendance ≥85%; completion gap ≤5% by county/age/education | Attendance; CRM; monthly | Navigators; Program Manager | Supports meet real costs; vendors available | Sliding support based on need; prioritize those balancing work/caregiving PD budget; QA tools; time | Quarterly PD, peer observations, curriculum refresh, trauma-informed practice | 200 PD hours; 24 observations | Higher instructional quality; 90% satisfaction | Year 2 pass rates +10% vs Year 1 | Strong instructional bench | 4 PD cycles/year; satisfaction ≥90% “good+” | Post-class surveys; QA rubrics; quarterly | Program Manager; Lead Instructor | Staff retention stable | Coaching for new staff; adjust for learning styles CRM; secure data sharing; dashboards | Build dashboards; monthly data checks; 6/12-mo follow-ups; wage match requests | 24 monthly dashboards; 8 data audits | Timely corrections (attendance, supports) | Continuous improvement embedded | Evidence guides future funding | 80% 6-mo and 12-mo follow-up response; 100% quarterly audits completed | CRM; SMS/phone surveys; UI wage match 2x/yr | Data & Evaluation Specialist | UI data accessible; participants reachable | Consent at intake; multiple contact methods; small incentives for follow-up MOUs with WIOA, KCTCS, libraries, social services | Credit articulation; shared referrals; joint events; policy voice on affordability | 8 MOUs; 2 articulations; 6 joint events | Seamless referrals; credit for prior learning | Braided funding and seat-sharing | Pathway embedded in regional systems | 25% of grads earn college credit/PLA; 3 co-funded cohorts | MOUs; meeting notes; semiannual | Director of Programs | Partner leadership stable | Ensure rural campuses host cohorts; align schedules across counties
Narrative summary (why this, why now, how we’ll use it) Eastern Kentucky employers are digitizing front-line and middle-skill work, while many adults 25–64 want better jobs that now require confident use of devices, software, and online tools. This pathway meets that moment: county-based outreach; clear assessments; short, stackable bootcamps; devices and connectivity; credentials mapped to local roles; and work-based learning that leads to real offers. Our equity approach centers convenience and dignity—evening/weekend cohorts, childcare and gas supports, trauma-informed instruction, and disaggregated tracking by county, age, and education so we spot and close gaps fast. We prioritize SNAP/TANF participants and underemployed jobseekers, without deficit framing; we build on their experience and time constraints.
Assumptions include steady employer demand for digital-involved roles, reachable participants for follow-up, and available internet options. Risks include subsidy changes (e.g., ACP), staff turnover, and transportation/childcare shortages. Mitigation: negotiate ISP discounts and maintain hotspot lending; cross-train staff and maintain an instructor bench; pre-budget wraparound supports and partner with local providers. The logic model guides daily operations (who does what, by when), management (monthly dashboards; quarterly reviews), and evaluation (pre/post assessments, credential and wage tracking via UI wage records and employer verification). With a 10-person team and a $900k–$1.1M budget, data collection is “medium”: we use existing systems (CRM, Northstar), short SMS surveys, and twice-yearly wage matches—not burdensome studies. Quarterly reviews drive course corrections; update triggers include staffing shifts, policy changes, and underperforming indicators.
Top assumptions (and mitigation) - Employer demand stays strong for entry/middle digital roles (maintain quarterly employer roundtables; adjust credential mix). - Participants can commit 6–10 hrs/week (offer multiple schedules; hybrid options). - Partners honor MOUs (set quarterly check-ins; shared dashboards).
Top risks/external factors (and mitigation) - Broadband subsidy changes/ACP sunset (negotiate ISP discounts; expand hotspot pool; advocate via coalition). - Staff turnover or leave (cross-train; contractor bench; onboarding playbooks). - Transportation/childcare disruptions (reserve flexible funds; multiple cohort sites per county).
Review cadence and update triggers - Quarterly learning reviews with partners; monthly internal huddles on dashboard trends. - Update triggers: staff changes >15% FTE; policy/funding shifts affecting tuition/devices/connectivity; any indicator falling below 80% of target for 2 consecutive months; employer hiring freeze in a priority sector.
Discussion questions - Do our credential choices match the real jobs and tools used by employers in each county? - Where are we seeing completion gaps by age or education level, and what’s our near-term fix? - What wraparound supports had the biggest ROI on attendance—should we rebalance funds? - Are our follow-up methods reaching alumni evenly across counties? - Which partnerships should become formal (MOUs/articulation) versus informal referrals?
Note: A logic model is a concise, testable flow from inputs to outcomes with indicators for each step. A theory of change adds the broader causal narrative, context, and evidence base explaining why these links should hold in the real world.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.8/10)
This is an exceptionally strong logic model that demonstrates deep understanding of both the template requirements and nonprofit program design. It successfully balances casual tone with board-appropriate rigor, provides concrete metrics throughout, and shows genuine capacity-awareness for a mid-size organization. The equity integration is particularly strong—disaggregation is woven throughout rather than siloed.
- • Outstanding specificity and realism: numeric targets are appropriate for the budget/team size (420 enrollments, 300 completions, 120 certifications), credential choices match regional workforce needs (Google IT Support, CompTIA for Appalachia), and data methods are genuinely feasible for medium capacity (Northstar assessments, CRM tracking, UI wage matches)
- • Excellent equity integration without deficit framing: disaggregates by county/age/education throughout, includes concrete accommodations (evening/weekend, ADA-accessible labs, plain-language materials), tracks completion gaps with ≤5% target, and names 'second-chance-friendly employers' and trauma-informed practice
- • Strong if-then logic and outcome progression: clear distinction between outputs (360 seats, 300 laptops) and outcomes (skill gains, job placements, wage increases), testable indicators at each level, and realistic intermediate steps (e.g., 'Interview readiness' → 'Job placements' → 'Wage gains')
- • Highly practical management tools: monthly dashboards, quarterly reviews, specific update triggers (>15% FTE change, indicators <80% for 2 months), mitigation steps for each assumption/risk, and discussion questions that surface real operational tensions
- • Appropriate casual tone for board audience: conversational headers ('why this, why now'), plain language ('spot and close gaps fast'), avoids jargon while remaining professional, and uses realistic nonprofit voice ('not burdensome studies')
- • Comprehensive coverage of all template elements: all 11 table columns populated across 10 rows, 250-350 word narrative (actual ~340), theory of change distinction, assumptions/risks with mitigation, review cadence, discussion questions, and proper header
- • Minor authenticity concern: while generally excellent, a few phrases feel slightly templated ('durable rural digital-skills pathway,' 'braided funding') though they're sector-appropriate and not egregious
- • Table formatting challenge: the 11-column table, while complete, would be difficult to read on a single printed page—a real board might need landscape orientation or a simplified visual summary alongside the detailed version
- • Baseline data assumption: several indicators reference percentage increases or gaps without stating current baseline (e.g., 'Year 2 pass rates +10% vs Year 1' assumes Year 1 data exists), though this is reasonable for a 24-month program
Large Established Org
Large, established resilience and housing nonprofit coordinating multi-county climate adaptation projects in Houston; backed by federal grants, major philanthropy, and insurance partners.
View scenario details
Prepared by Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Director, for funder, Date 2025-11-02
End outcomes/impact (3–5 statements, used to work backward) - Reduced disaster-related displacement and injury for low- and moderate-income (LMI) households in flood-prone Harris County ZIP codes. - Lower expected annual flood loss (EAL) and faster housing recovery for program homes and rentals. - Improved affordability and stability through resilient homes and accessible insurance options. - Equitable access to resilient retrofits for older adults, people with disabilities, and racially/ethnically diverse communities. - Stronger local, diverse workforce and policy environment to sustain resilience beyond the grant period.
Logic Model Framework (all indicators disaggregated by race/ethnicity, ZIP code, and disability status; primary beneficiaries: LMI homeowners and renters, especially older adults and people with disabilities)
| Inputs | Activities | Outputs | Short-term Outcomes (6–12 mo) | Intermediate Outcomes (1–3 yrs) | Long-term Outcomes/Impact (3+ yrs) | Indicators & Targets | Data Sources & Frequency | Responsible Role | Assumptions/External Factors | Equity Considerations | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | $0.9M MEL budget; 4 MEL staff; CRM/GIS tools | Build case management, geocoded MEL system; staff training; dashboards | MEL system live; 35 staff trained | ≥95% client records complete; quarterly dashboards used | Data-driven adjustments documented each quarter | Learning culture sustains performance | 4 quarterly reviews/year; ≥2 course corrections/year | CRM logs, QA audits (quarterly) | MEL Director | Staff retention; privacy compliance | Disaggregate all metrics; community data governance group | | $1.2M; 8 assessors; tools | Conduct home risk assessments and retrofit designs | 1,000 assessments; 900 written plans | 80% households demonstrate plan comprehension | 70% obtain permits/consent to proceed | Households make risk-reducing investments | 1,000 assessments; 80% knowledge score ≥80%; 70% proceed | Assessment forms (monthly); pre/post quizzes | Construction Manager | Owner access; permit pathways | Prioritize LMI floodplain ZIPs; language access (EN/ES/VI) | | $5.0M construction; 12 crews | Owner-occupied retrofits (elevations, vents, backflow, roof tie-downs, critical systems) | 500 homes retrofitted | 95% pass QA on first re-inspection | Mean EAL reduced 25% per home | 30% fewer displacement days post-storm vs matched controls | 500 homes; QA ≥95%; EAL −25% | QA checklists (monthly); HAZUS/GIS (semi-annual); post-event surveys | Construction Manager | Materials and labor availability; weather | Zero-cost to LMI owners; accessible scheduling | | $1.6M rental fund; legal support | Grants to small landlords with tenant protections (5-year affordability, right-to-return) | 200 rental units retrofitted; 200 recorded MOUs | 100% properties record protections; 80% landlord participation | 90% tenants remain housed post-event | Preserved resilient affordable rentals | 200 units; 100% protections recorded; 90% retention | Grant records (monthly); tenant follow-up (annual) | Housing Partnerships Lead | Landlord buy-in; enforceability | Target BIPOC-owned small landlords; tenant choice and consent | | $0.6M; 6 counselors | Financial counseling and insurance navigation (NFIP, ICC credits) | 800 households counseled | 70% obtain/retain suitable flood insurance | Avg premium −20% via mitigation credits | Improved financial resilience | 800 sessions; 70% insured; −20% premiums | Document review (6-mo); client survey (annual) | Client Services Manager | Availability of discounts; NFIP rules | Materials in plain language and ASL/large print | | $0.8M; training partners | Workforce development (resilient retrofits; certify M/WBE firms) | 120 workers trained; 50 firms certified | 75% pass credentialing | 60% trainees obtain contracts; median wages +15% | Diverse local capacity lowers costs, raises quality | #trained 120; pass 75%; ≥40% contracts to M/WBE firms | Training records; procurement data (quarterly) | Workforce Lead | Sufficient demand; partner capacity | Reserved seats and stipends for BIPOC/veteran/disability-owned firms | | $0.7M; outreach team; stipends | Community outreach and preparedness (CHWs, accessible materials) | 60 events; 6,000 residents reached | 70% increase in preparedness knowledge | 50% of engaged households complete go-kits, register for alerts | Faster recoveries community-wide | 6,000 reached; +70% knowledge; 50% go-kits | Pre/post event surveys (event-level); 6-mo follow-up | Outreach Director | Attendance; trust | Stipends, childcare, evening/weekend hours | | $0.9M; 6 case managers; accessibility fund | Case management and accommodations for older adults/people with disabilities | 350 households receive accommodations | 90% report safe access post-modification | 30% reduction in flood-related EMS calls among participants | Increased ability to age/live in place safely | 350 served; 90% safety; EMS −30% | Client surveys (post/6-mo); EMS data (annual) | Access & Inclusion Coordinator | Data-sharing agreements | Disability-led advisory panel; ADA-compliant retrofits | | $0.3M; policy manager; legal | Permitting, code and incentive advocacy | 3 policies adopted; SOPs signed | Interagency working group formed | Avg permit time −30%; resilient code updates adopted | Systemic enablers for scale | 3 policy wins; permit days −30% | Jurisdictional reports (semi-annual) | Policy Manager | Political will; election cycles | Community representation in working group | | $0.5M emergency fund; MOUs | Preposition supplies; rapid repair teams; VOAD coordination | 250 rapid repair kits; 150 homes stabilized ≤14 days post-event | Median time to muck-and-gut ≤7 days | 60% repairs completed ≤60 days for damaged program homes | Reduced long-term displacement | ≤7-day median response; 150 stabilized; 60% ≤60-day repair | Dispatch logs; after-action reviews (per event) | Operations Chief | Event access; debris rules | Priority triage: medically fragile, older adults |
Narrative summary (approx. 300 words) The Resilient Homes Retrofit Initiative addresses concentrated flood risk among LMI homeowners and renters in Harris County through integrated assessments, construction, tenant-protective rental upgrades, financing supports, and rapid post-event repairs. Grounded in local data, the program prioritizes older adults and people with disabilities living in repeatedly flooded ZIP codes, ensuring language access and accessibility. A dedicated workforce pathway grows diverse local contractor capacity to deliver high-quality, code-compliant retrofits, while policy engagement streamlines permits and aligns incentives. The Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) system enables timely decisions with geocoded, disaggregated data and quarterly reviews.
The program’s equity approach centers choice, affordability, and non-displacement. Owner retrofits are cost-free to LMI households; rental grants require right-to-return and 5-year affordability. Case management funds accessibility modifications and temporary accommodations. All indicators are disaggregated by race/ethnicity, ZIP code, and disability status and co-governed with a community advisory group. Data collection methods follow high-quality, inclusive, harmonized (HIGH) standards: CRM-based case tracking, mobile QA checklists, HAZUS/GIS modeling, structured surveys with accessible formats, insurance document verification, and event-triggered after-action reviews. A 35-person team and an $8–12M budget focus on feasible volume—1,000 assessments, 700 retrofits (500 owner, 200 rental)—with strong QA and partnerships to manage risk and scale.
Key assumptions include sustained permitting pathways, availability of skilled labor and materials, and stable NFIP/ICC incentives. Risks include major policy or market shifts, severe event access constraints, and landlord participation variability. Mitigation includes MOUs with jurisdictions and VOADs, diversified contracting pools, contingency procurement, and binding tenant protections. The logic model guides implementation by linking resources to measurable changes, aligning roles and timelines, and setting SMART targets for continuous improvement and credible impact evaluation.
How this logic model differs from a theory of change - A logic model is a visual, testable flow from inputs to outcomes with specific outputs and indicators; it guides day-to-day management and measurement. - A theory of change narrates broader causal pathways and context, including why strategies should work, often with preconditions and feedback loops beyond the project scope.
Top assumptions (with mitigation) - Permits/codes allow target retrofits: Mitigate via early policy engagement and pre-approved detail sheets. - Sufficient contractor capacity: Mitigate via workforce pipeline and multi-year task-order contracts. - NFIP credits remain available: Mitigate via diversified counseling on private/fair plans and documentation for mitigation discounts.
Top risks/external factors (with mitigation) - Extreme storms disrupt access: Preposition supplies; post-event MOUs for debris/access; flexible scheduling. - Supply chain price spikes: Bulk purchase agreements; escalation clauses; alternate approved materials. - Landlord opt-out risk: Incentive design with higher grants for deeper affordability; enforceable covenants; tenant choice.
Review cadence and update triggers - Quarterly performance and equity reviews; annual external data audit. - Triggers: Underperforming indicators for two consecutive quarters; staff turnover >15%; major policy/code change; significant cost variance (>10%); declared disaster or supply chain disruption.
Discussion questions for alignment - Which ZIP codes and populations should be prioritized first, and why? - Where are we most likely to face permitting or landlord barriers, and what pre-work is required? - What is our minimum quality standard per retrofit type, and how will we enforce it equitably? - Which indicators best signal displacement risk early, and how will we respond? - How will community advisors shape mid-course corrections?
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 9.1/10)
This is an exceptionally strong logic model that demonstrates sophisticated understanding of both nonprofit program design and evaluation frameworks. It successfully balances technical rigor with practical implementation considerations, appropriately scaled for a large organization with high data capacity. The equity integration is substantive rather than performative, and the formal tone is precise without being inaccessible.
- • Exemplary equity integration throughout—disaggregation is specified, community governance is built in, and equity considerations are concrete and actionable (e.g., 'stipends, childcare, evening/weekend hours') rather than vague commitments
- • SMART indicators with realistic, measurable targets appropriate for the scale and capacity (e.g., '95% pass QA on first re-inspection,' 'EAL reduced 25%,' '60% trainees obtain contracts')
- • Excellent capacity-awareness: the 10-row table is appropriately detailed for a $8-12M program with 35 staff and HIGH data capacity, including sophisticated methods like HAZUS/GIS modeling and geocoded CRM tracking
- • Strong if-then logic chains that are testable—each output clearly leads to outcomes (e.g., assessments → comprehension → permits → investments)
- • Practical risk mitigation that shows real-world nonprofit experience (e.g., 'bulk purchase agreements,' 'enforceable covenants,' 'pre-approved detail sheets')
- • The narrative summary is concise, jargon-free, and explains the 'why' effectively while staying within word count
- • Discussion questions are genuinely useful for surfacing assumptions and would generate productive strategic conversations
- • Formal tone is maintained consistently—precise, funder-ready language without being stilted or overly academic
- • Update triggers are specific and actionable ('>15% staff turnover,' '>10% cost variance'), not generic
- • Avoids deficit framing while being honest about vulnerability (e.g., 'older adults and people with disabilities in flood-prone areas' rather than 'at-risk populations')
- • The table is extremely dense and may be challenging to read as a true 'one-page' document in standard formatting—some cells contain multiple data points that might benefit from visual hierarchy or footnotes
- • A few indicators could be more specific about baseline data (e.g., 'median wages +15%' assumes a known baseline that isn't stated)
- • The 'Assumptions/External Factors' column in the table is somewhat compressed; given the complexity, a few entries feel abbreviated compared to the detailed treatment in the standalone assumptions/risks section
Test Summary: Generated Nov 2, 2025 • 3 scenarios • 9 total outputs • Average quality score: 8.77/10 • Total validation cost: $0.3711