The use of logic models and theories of change has been much discussed and debated in the field of philanthropy.
Some advocates for their use suggest that foundation staff members need to articulate the logic of how the foundation’s work will lead to the achievement of its goals if they are to have a chance of achieving them – and if they are ever to understand the impact of their efforts. One sector leader who holds this position is Paul Brest, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. As Brest and Hal Harvey, a former Environment Program director at Hewlett, wrote in Money Well Spent, “An intuitively plausible theory of change is better than none at all. [But] the more tested the theory of change, the sounder its use as the basis for a strategy.”
Others argue that the complexity of social problems, and the likely result of getting a logic model or theory of change wrong, means funders should not attempt to lay out the path to their desired goals. Bill Schambra of the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal Director, argues funders should not “worry about solving a problem in the abstract [or] thinking it through in advance with a bunch of flow charts and variables [because] it isn’t going to turn out the way you thought it was going to.”
So what is the state of practice among large foundations? Last year, CEP collected data on this issue through surveys of CEOs of foundations with $5 million or more in annual grantmaking and published a report that highlights trends in the field regarding the assessment of foundation performance.
The data show that:
- 29 percent of CEOs report using a logic model or theory of change to guide all of their work.
- 40 percent of CEOs report using a logic model or theory of change to guide some of their work.
- 31 percent of CEOs report not using logic models or theories of change in any of their work.
CEOs who use these tools generally place assessing their foundation’s effectiveness as a higher priority than CEOs who do not. Specifically, 80 percent of CEOs who use logic models or theories of change rated the priority of assessing the foundation’s effectiveness a 6 or 7 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 representing the highest priority). About 60 percent of the CEOs who do not use logic models or theories of change gave that high of a rating to this priority.
CEOs who report using logic models or theories of change also use different types of data when assessing their foundation’s programmatic work than those CEOs who do not. CEOs who use these tools are more likely to use surveys of the foundation’s grantees, conduct focus groups and convenings of their grantees, or carry out evaluations of the foundation’s program or issue areas to understand the effectiveness of their programmatic work.
To see an example of how Wilburforce Foundation has used a logic model to drive their strategic thinking, check out this recent guest post from Paul Beaudet.
What is your take on funders’ use of logic models?
Andrea Brock is Research Manager at CEP.
