Administration for Community Living

Office of Performance Evaluation

SEPTEMBER 2020

ACL’s Logic 

Model Guidance
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview 1

What is a Logic Model? 2

Why Should You Develop a Logic Model? 3

Logic Model Template 4

Figure 1. ACL Logic Model Template 4

Logic Model Components and Definitions 5

Figure 2. Logic Model Structure 6

How to Use a Logic Model 7

Steps to Building a Logic Model 8

Figure 3. W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Structure 8

Step 1: What is the need or purpose for the program/grant? 9

Including Stakeholders 9

External Factors 10

Step 2: What are inputs? 11

Step 3: What are activities? 12

Step 4: What are outputs? 12

Step 5: What are the desired immediate and intermediate outcomes? 13

Step 6: What are the ultimate outcomes to be achieved? 15

Examples of Program Logic Models 16

Example 1. Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with

Developmental Disabilities (PADD) 17

Example 2. Protection & Advocacy for Voting Accessibility (PAVA) 19

Example 3. AIDD NAS Interdisciplinary Training Implementation 

Logic Model 20

Logic Model Resources 21

ACL Logic Model Template 22
1

Overview

This guide presents a brief primer on the development and use 

of logic models for clarifying program theory, demonstrating 

progress towards objectives, and answering evaluation questions. 

This primer is not intended to be a comprehensive guide to the 

development and use of logic models and should be used in 

conjunction with additional resources, including consultation 

with ACL’s Office of Performance & Evaluation (OPE).

Developing and using logic models is critical for federal agencies 

to influence resource allocation, make data-driven decisions, and 

assist with effective program implementation. Logic models help 

organizations understand (and explain) how a program works as 

well as whether it is progressing towards its stated objectives 

and having an impact on organizational goals and priorities. 

Developing a logic model is an opportunity to clarify programmatic concerns surrounding investments (inputs), actions (activities and outputs), anticipated results (outcomes and impacts), 

and it aids an organization in optimizing actions in alignment 

with its mission.
2

What is a Logic Model?

A logic model is a visual and systematic way to describe the relationships between 

available resources, program activities, and anticipated changes or results. Logic 

models show how a program is intended to “work” and how a series of activities is 

intended to achieve expected outcomes.1

This knowledge of how a program operates serves several functions, particularly

• clarifying program theory (i.e., explaining why a program should be effective),

• demonstrating a program’s progress (i.e., documenting progress towards an 

identified outcome), and 

• informing program evaluation questions and performance indicators

• describing the impact of a grant or program.

The use of a logic model for these purposes clarifies communication concerning 

resource allocation, usage, and impact.

1 W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). W. K. Kellogg Foundation logic model development guide. Retrieved from 

https://www.bttop.org/sites/default/files/public/W.K.%20Kellogg%20LogicModel.pdf

Logic models, due to their visual depictions 

of activities, can be used to communicate with 

diverse audiences—particularly those with 

varying views and backgrounds in program 

development or evaluation.
3

Why Should You Develop 

a Logic Model? 

First and foremost, developing a logic model clarifies thinking and aids an 

organization in identifying outcomes and ways to document and measure progress 

toward defined objectives. Logic models provide a map for what to do, or what is 

occurring, and why it should contribute to successful progress toward a goal. 

During program design and planning, developing a logic model can assist in formalizing program strategy and enhance the ability to explain and illustrate program 

concepts to key stakeholders (e.g., staff, clients/consumers, Congress). It also 

promotes a shared understanding of what is expected to happen and how change 

will be measured for program management and evaluation purposes (see ACL’s 

Performance Strategy). Furthermore, the design and planning stages of building 

logic models require exploring best practice research, practitioner experience, and 

federal guidance to develop and describe the logic behind the activities needed to 

achieve desired outcomes.

Logic models also assist program implementation and monitoring due to their focus 

on identifying the types of data necessary to document results and improve programming. Attention to these aspects of a program can aid in tracking resources, noting 

accomplishments, and making adjustments in practice as necessary. 
4

Logic Model Template

OPE developed a logic model template (see Figure 1) to assist staff with developing 

or updating a logic model. The template has a section to include the title of the 

program or grant. It also contains prelabeled logic model components. At the bottom of the template is a section for adding any key statutes or mandates. Once you 

complete your logic model, please share it with a member of OPE. 

Figure 1. ACL Logic Model Template

NEED/PURPOSE INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS IMMEDIATE 

OUTCOMES

INTERMEDIATE 

OUTCOMES

ULTIMATE 

OUTCOME

Insert Name of Program/Grant

Authorizing Statute[s]/Mandates: 

Use ACL’s Logic Model 

template to develop a 

logic model and share 

your model with OPE.
5

Logic Model Components 

and Definitions 

Logic models have five main components that describe planned actions and 

intended results: 

• need/purpose,

• inputs (i.e., resources), 

• activities, 

• outputs, and

• outcomes (immediate, intermediate, and ultimate [impact]). 

Synonyms for these terms are used by many logic model developers throughout 

key resources. This guide will utilize these particular terms due to their adoption 

by ACL.

Figure 2 introduces the structure of a logic model and defines the components. The 

use of the arrow in the logic model reinforces the directionality of the figure and 

reflects the influence one component has on the next.
6

Figure 2. Logic Model Structure2

2 Adapted from W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). W. K. Kellogg Foundation logic model development guide.

Retrieved from https://www.bttop.org/sites/default/files/public/W.K.%20Kellogg%20LogicModel.pdf

Your PLANNED WORK describes what 

resources you think you need to implement 

your program and what you intend to do.

Your INTENDED RESULTS include all of the program’s 

desired results (outputs, outcomes, and 

ultimate outcome).

Inputs (i.e., resources) 

include human, financial, 

organizational, and 

community resources 

available to direct 

toward doing the activity. 

Activities are what 

the program does with 

the resources. 

Examples are 

processes, tools, 

events, technology, 

and actions that are a 

part of implementing a 

program/grant. 

Outputs are the 

direct products of 

program activities and 

may include types, 

levels, and targets of 

services to be delivered by the program.

Examples are number 

of people served, 

number of events held, 

and number of units of 

service provided.

Outcomes are specific 

changes in behavior, 

knowledge, skills, 

status, or level of 

functioning. 

Short-term outcomes 

(i.e., immediate 

outcomes) should be 

attainable within 1 to 

3 years. 

Long-term outcomes 

(i.e., intermediate 

outcomes) should be 

achievable within a 

4- to 6-year timeframe. 

Ultimate Outcome

(i.e., impact) is the 

fundamental intended 

or unintended change 

occurring in organizations, communities, or 

systems as a result of 

program activities over 

an extended period, 

within 7 to 10 years. 
7

How to Use a Logic Model 

Logic models “read” from left to right, describing programs from the planning 

phase through the desired results. They illustrate a chain of “If...then...” statements 

that connect program components.3 Logic models assist in answering many 

questions, including:

• Why is the program/grant important?

• What is the fundamental purpose of the program/grant?

• How can research and demonstration projects be incorporated into program

planning and implementation?

• How can the theory and structure of the program/grant be effectively

communicated to staff, stakeholders, constituents, and leadership?

• What are the outputs and immediate, intermediate, and ultimate outcomes?

• How should outcomes be measured?

• When are midcourse adjustments and improvements needed?

Each of these questions is critical during the development and review of a 

logic model. 

3 Adapted from W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). W. K. Kellogg Foundation logic model development guide.

Retrieved from https://www.bttop.org/sites/default/files/public/W.K.%20Kellogg%20LogicModel.pdf
8

Steps to Building a Logic Model

The W.K. Kellogg Foundation recommends thinking of the impact desired before 

considering the actions needed to reach the desired goals. This approach promotes 

thoroughness and leads a logic model developer to consider the ultimate goal and 

then the necessary steps and components required to achieve it.

Figure 3. W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Structure4

4 Adapted from University of Wisconsin-Division of Extension. (2003). Enhancing Program Performance with 

Logic Models. Retrieved from https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/programdevelopment/files/2016/03/lmcourseall.pdf

EVALUATION

Identification Design Implementation Completion/Followup

OUTPUTS

Participants Activities Direct Products

WHO WE 

REACH

Who We Reach

Existing 

Contributors

New 

Contributors

Clients

Educators

GLAMs

Decisionmakers

Consumers

WHAT WE DO

Develop 

products, 

curriculum, 

resources

Deliver 

content and 

services

Conduct 

workshops and 

meetings

Train

Counsel/Advise

Facilitate

Partner

Disseminate/

Work with media

WHAT WE 

CREATE

Plans

Event 

Documents

Topic Areas

Pages

Articles

Templates

Satisfaction

Fun

Community 

Networks

OUTCOMES — IMPACT

Short Term Intermediate Long Term

RESULTS: 

LEARNING

Awareness

Knowledge

Attitudes

Skills

Interest

Opinions

Aspirations

Intentions

Motivations

RESULTS: 

CHANGING 

ACTION

Behavior (i.e., 

participation, 

retention)

Practice/

Contributions 

i.e., articles, 

pictures, bytes, 

edits, etc.)

Decisionmaking 

(i.e., program 

planning, gap 

analysis, next 

steps)

Policies

Social Action

RESULTS: 

CHANGE TO THE 

CONDITIONS

Social (i.e., 

reach, participation, diversity)

Economic (i.e., 

more funding for 

programs, more 

cost effective 

programs)

Civic (i.e., reach, 

community 

engagement)

Environmental 

(i.e., article and 

photo quality, 

expanse of 

content)

INPUTS

WHAT WE 

INVEST

Staff Time

Volunteer Hours

Planning Time

Money

Knowledge Base

Expertise

Materials

Equipment

Space

Technology

Partners

SITUATION

Needs and Assets

Problems

Stakeholders

PRIORITIES

Mission

Vision

Values

Mandates

Resources

Local 

Dynamics

Collaborators

Assumptions External Factors
9

The W.K. Kellogg Logic Model Structure shown above (Figure 3) uses a slightly 

different format to that recommended by OPE. Still, the examples it provides for 

what can be an input, an output, and an outcome are useful to reference when

developing a logic model.

In alignment with OPE’s recommendations, the following is a step-by-step guide 

to developing a logic model.

STEP 1: WHAT IS THE NEED OR PURPOSE FOR 

 THE PROGRAM/GRANT? 

If the program/grant is required via a statute or mandate, the legislation will specify the aim of the program/grants (the need or purpose.). How does the goal of the 

program/grant relate to ACL’s mission, vision, values, goals, or objectives? Giving 

careful consideration to this question is critical because the next option is to involve 

stakeholders, who often share a common goal but do not always have the same perspective. Framing the logic model using ACL’s perspective will save time by guiding 

stakeholders in the same direction and distinguishing ACL’s priorities. 

Including Stakeholders

Developing a logic model that describes how a federal program operates in 

community context, is a challenging task. Federal agencies, by necessity, often 

possess a macro-level view of programs. Logic models require an understanding of 

“community” level (micro-level) contexts, resources, capacities to provide program 

activities, and abilities to measure and document outputs and outcomes. 
10

For this reason, federal staff partner with practitioners and researchers when 

developing logic models. Such partnerships enhance the quality of program theory, 

clarify the contexts in which a program will operate, and identify program activities, 

outputs, and outcomes that are realistic. The inclusion of a range of stakeholders 

helps bridge the gap between how a program should ideally function and how it 

may actually function.

External Factors

Not all logic models explicitly describe external or contextual factors. Some describe 

the context or a problem to overcome in an associated narrative. Many logic models 

include them in the graphic model, as seen in Figure 3. 

The inclusion of external factors—including the “situation” (i.e., assumptions, needs 

and assets, problems, stakeholders) and the “priorities” (i.e., mission, vision, values, 

mandates, resources, local dynamics)—assists the developer in framing the problem 

to be addressed or goal to be achieved, the action to be taken (i.e., resources and 

activities), and the intended results of these actions (i.e., outputs, outcomes). 

While developing or describing the situation as an external factor, the logic model 

developer drafts statements that describe the current condition or problem to overcome, with consideration of the impacted stakeholders. 

For example, in a logic model describing the Adult Protection System, one 

contextual statement could be “Older adults and adults with disabilities are 

subject to maltreatment—abuse, neglect and exploitation (ANE)—by others 

or through self-neglect.” 
11

As modeled in Figure 3, it is essential to consider the larger priorities of ACL’s 

mission, vision, values, etc., when considering external factors. For example, ACL’s 

mission is to “maximize the independence, well-being, and health of older adults, 

people with disabilities across the lifespan, and their families and caregivers.” 

Maltreatment-abuse, neglect and exploitation by others, and self-neglect are challenges to the independence, well-being, and health of older adults and adults with 

disabilities. As such, there is significant alignment between ACL’s mission and the 

interest in addressing the abuse of older adults. 

One way to think about the external factors of “situation” and “priorities” is to think 

of them as “where you are.” Statements made should clarify the current condition 

or problem to overcome, including who the impacted stakeholders are and how the 

proposed effort aligns with ACL’s mission, vision, and values. Then you can begin to 

consider outcomes or impact (where you want to be).

STEP 2: WHAT ARE INPUTS?

It is important to describe inputs (i.e., resources) needed to support the activities 

proposed. Inputs include needed funding, staff, facilities, training materials, etc. 

Inputs include needed funding, staff, facilities, training materials, etc. It is also 

important to describe the inputs (i.e., resources) needed to support the activities 

proposed. 
12

STEP 3: WHAT ARE ACTIVITIES?

Activities are the “interventions” or actions that produce the direct products. Activity 

statements describe what is occurring or planned to occur. Identifying activities, or 

planning them for a new program, should be done in collaboration with program implementers so they are accurate descriptions of what is occurring or realistic expectations 

of what can be done with the proper inputs. Activities should be based on best practice, and there should be demonstrated evidence that they support the outcomes and 

impact described in the logic model. Examples of program activities include conducting 

trainings on specified topics, providing a service (e.g., peer counseling, information 

and referral, congregate meals), or providing technical assistance. There should be a 

direct product for every program activity to verify completion of the activity.

STEP 4: WHAT ARE OUTPUTS?

Outputs are measurable, but they should be viewed through the lens of “dosage” 

or “ingredients” needed to reach an outcome and achieve impact. The W.K. Kellogg 

Foundation presents participants as outputs, and direct products. Figure 3 provides 

additional examples.

Participants are individuals targeted by the activity. They may be the recipients of 

an activity but are not necessarily the recipients of the program.

For example, for an activity of training staff in a new skill, those staff are the 

participants as they are the target of the activity, even if they are not the 

recipients of the program itself.
13

Direct products contribute to an outcome. Examples are documents, templates, 

community networks, number of people reached, number of units of service provided, etc. Every program/grant should have a direct product, or an activity leading to 

the development of the outcome.

The following examples of output statements, adapted from the CDC Division of 

Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Program Evaluation Guide (n.d.), illustrate 

how logic model output statements can be written:5

Example 1: Number of state-level partnerships created

Example 2: Number of health care professionals trained in clinical guidelines

Example 3: Number of community health communication campaigns developed

STEP 5: WHAT ARE THE DESIRED IMMEDIATE AND 

 INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES?

Immediate and intermediate outcomes are the steps needed to progress toward the 

long-term outcome. Immediate outcomes (short-term outcomes) examine changes 

in attitudes, behaviors, knowledge, skills, status, or levels of functioning that 

contribute to intermediate outcomes. These are the first changes expected as a 

result of a program activity. 

Intermediate outcomes are specific, measurable changes in things like behavior, 

decision-making practices, and policies expected to result from program activities. 

5 For more information, see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Heart Disease and Stroke 

Prevention. (n.d.). Evaluation guide: Developing and using a logic model. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/

dhdsp/docs/logic_model.pdf
14

In other words, when you are informed, you can take meaningful action. The following example is from CDC Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention:6

An example of short-term outcome or impact would be “changes in knowledge, skills, or beliefs.” The intermediate outcomes or impacts are “an 

increased proportion of partners treated; increased condom use; changes

in policies or behaviors.” 

Viewed together, these examples align with the University of Wisconsin’s Division of 

Extension (2003) recommendation to focus on anticipated changes in learning, which 

lead to changes in action and, finally, changes in conditions, when determining an 

appropriate scale for an outcome or impact. Outcome statements can explicitly state 

a period and criteria for “success,” though these statements are not mandatory. 

6 For more information, see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of STD Prevention. (n.d.). 

Identifying the components of a logic model. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/std/Program/pupestd/

Components%20of%20a%20Logic%20Model.pdf

One way to think of the link 

between short-term and 

intermediate outcomes or 

impacts is to think of long-term 

outcomes or impacts as what 

change you expect to see after 

stable achievement of shortterm and intermediate outcome or impact success.
15

STEP 6: WHAT ULTIMATE OUTCOMES WILL 

 THE PROGRAM/GRANT ACHIEVE?

A logic model describes a series of steps needed for the program to reach its ultimate 

goal(s). Ultimate outcomes are organizational-, community-, or system-level changes 

expected as a result of the program. 

Achieving a desired impact is often an ongoing or long-term activity. Figure 2 shows 

immediate and intermediate outcomes as precursor steps to achieving ultimate 

impact, but this is a good example of how determining what constitutes immediate 

and intermediate could be relative. To differentiate between outcomes and the time 

necessary to achieve them, think of changes in learning or thinking as occurring 

rapidly (immediately). In other words, they must occur before an outcome change 

occurs. Applying changes in learning or thinking to action takes longer, so that 

creates an intermediate change. Changes in conditions are a result of changes in 

learning or thinking, and subsequently an action. While the timeframes provided in 

Figure 1 are helpful, the most important concept is that ultimate outcomes are built 

on intermediate outcomes, which are in turn built on immediate outcomes. 

Examples of ultimate outcomes or impacts include improved conditions, increased 

capacity, and/or changes in programmatic reach. Impact statements describe 

change or movement toward an ideal condition. Use words like “increase” or 

“decrease” to describe a desired change or movement. Identifying goals “big” 

enough to be viewed as an impact can be challenging, but logic model developers 

can often look to their organization’s strategic goals or priorities for examples. 

When drafting ultimate outcome statements, look back to the contextual statements to help define the large or systemic changes to be achieved. 
16

The CDC Division of STD Prevention uses a logic model structure similar to ACL’s. 

Though its areas of focus are different, examples they provide can help illustrate 

the “scale” of change desired for long-term, intermediate, and short-term outcomes or impact.

For example, in a program focusing on sexually transmitted disease prevention, the CDC states that “reduced STD prevalence; changes in morbidity 

and/or mortality” are desired long-term outcomes or impacts. This level of 

impact is the appropriate scale for developing long-term outcome or impact 

statements.7

Examples of Program Logic Models

The logic model development recommendations and template provided are not the 

only way to present a logic model. Stylistic variations exist, as do synonyms for 

several of the key components presented. The template provided should be viewed 

as a starting point. 

It is important to recognize that logic models should be updated based on new 

information such as effectiveness of practice or changes in context which can occur 

through policy changes.

This logic model (Example 1) presents a comprehensive description of the Protection 

and Advocacy for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities (PADD) program. This 

example more closely follows the column structure presented in the ACL template.

7 For more information, see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of STD Prevention. (n.d.). 

Identifying the components of a logic model. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/std/Program/pupestd/

Components%20of%20a%20Logic%20Model.pdf
17

Inputs Activities Outputs Short-Term Outcomes

(Changes in knowledge, skill, 

attitudes, and values)

Medium-Term Outcomes

(Changes in behavior, practice, 

or process)

Long-Term Outcomes

(Changes in condition, 

status, and experience)

ACL contract 

funding – 

through the 

DD Act

Collaboration with 

SAMHSA, 

CMHS, ODE 

RSA through 

PAIMI, PAIR

NDRN staff 

support

P&A staff 

support

Project Management and Evaluation

Annual strategic plan; monthly report on emerging T/TA needs and 

trends; self-monitoring process for assessing progress on outcomes; 

annual evaluation on how T/TA has supported P&As; T/TA with specific attention on the needs of legal advocacy; use evidenced based 

strategies, resources and tools; apply innovative techniques while 

maintaining cost-efficiency; develop resources of broad relevancy and 

provide individualized support to more complex needs

Knowledge Development, Sharing and Transfer 

Redesign T/TA website; develop and delivery of trainings using 

technology and peer to peer techniques; develop and disseminate 

high quality, expert analysis legal advocacy resources; provide rapid 

response legal and operational support; provide individualized, 

outcome oriented T/TA 

Strengthening Peer to Peer Contacts and Networking 

Establish and maintain a cadre of P&A/legal advocacy experts; 

electronic means of supporting peer-to-peer networking

Collaboration

Foster partnership with federal agencies, P&As and other key stakeholders; electronic work plans outlining shared goals; establish a 

participatory group to provide guidance in the design and implementation of the T/TA contract; electronic work plans to address issues 

related to pressing disability issues; relevant documents to identify 

and address emerging priorities and needs 

Information Management

Web-based information management system of services and supports 

for electronic submission of federal reports and applications; establish a system that accommodates change to information management 

systems maintained by the contractor; web-based federal reporting 

information management system with interactive components; webbased information management system for P&As to report on current 

and past efforts; T/TA to P&A and federal staff on the PPR and SGP 

web-based information management system; PAIMI annual report

Data reflecting P&A 

satisfaction with T/TA 

and P&A outcomes

# of specialized T/TA 

provided by topic

# of resources added 

to library

# on site trainings 

and # of attendees

# Web based trainings and number of 

attendees

# of conferences 

attended and # of 

conference presentations with # of 

participants

# Listserv 

correspondence

# conference calls 

and emails

# Legal and disability 

advocacy resources 

updated

# Legal and disability 

advocacy resources 

developed

# of TAG meetings

Development of a foundational 

program in order to advance 

knowledge in the following 

areas:

• The P&A program, including 

the history of the program and 

disability rights movement

• Historical and emerging 

issues in the legal field, 

including civil rights law

• Various effective approaches 

to legal advocacy focused on 

the protection of and advocacy for the rights of individuals 

with disabilities

• Historical and emerging 

issues in the disability 

field and how they relate to 

legal advocacy aimed at the 

protection of and advocacy for 

the rights of individuals with 

disabilities

• Standard P&A practices for 

individual and systemic legal 

advocacy, investigations, 

information and referral, monitoring, and public outreach

• Measurement and evaluation 

of P&A effectiveness

• Planning for P&A activities

• Personnel management

• Financial/Fiscal management

• Historical and emerging promising practices in effective 

P&A operations 

Improved P&A performance (e.g., 

legal advocacy services to include 

individual and systems advocacy), operations, and outcomes

Improve P&A achievement and/ 

or maintenance of statutory compliance, and achieve statutory 

compliance when needed

Improved collaboration with other 

entities funded under the DD Act 

and PAIMI Act

Increased ability of P&As to: 

engage in complex litigation and 

systemic advocacy;

• demonstrate leadership in 

the disability community in 

their review of HCBS transition 

plans and implementation of 

Olmstead

• develop capacity in new practice 

areas—such as juvenile justice 

and monitoring

• utilize their access authority 

more effectively in correctional 

facilities and other facilities 

housing individuals with disabilities allowing P&As to represent a greater cross section of 

individuals with disabilities

• re-invigorate P&A performance 

through re-structuring their organization, legal practice, Board 

practices and implementation of 

P&A principles and values

P&As positioned as 

leaders and catalysts 

of systems change, 

capacity building and 

advocacy at the national, 

state/territory, and local 

levels

Improvements in 

living conditions

Increased percentage of 

cases closed that meet 

ACL regulations

Example 1. Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities (PADD) 
18

The next two logic models (Examples 2 & 3) describe the implementation of federal 

grants rather than a program. As you can see, they follow many of the same 

conventions as those previously described but use statements or requirements 

from federal grant opportunity announcements (FOAs) for the need/purpose 

(external factors). They also more clearly link opportunities and outputs than in 

the previous examples. 
19

Example 2. Protection & Advocacy for Voting Accessibility (PAVA)

Inputs Activities Outputs Short-Term Outcomes

(Changes in knowledge, skill, 

attitudes, and values)

Medium-Term Outcomes

(Changes in behavior, practice, 

or process)

Long-Term Outcomes

(Changes in condition, 

status, and experience)

ACL grant funding 

– through HAVA

Continually assess HAVA related T/TA needs of P&As

Regular discussions, needs assessments, annual HAVA 

Program Performance Reports; teleconferences; obtain 

feedback from Training and Advocacy Support Center (TASC); 

review evaluations from HAVA related training activities; query 

P&As about their T/TA needs; annual survey of P&A network; 

identify P&As that would benefit from targeted outreach; 

Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE) GoVoter Advisory 

Committee

# of knowledge 

transfer strategies 

developed and used

P&As are more well-versed in 

the use of voting systems and 

technologies as they affect 

individuals with disabilities

Increased accuracy of assessments of the availability and 

use of systems and technology 

for individuals with disabilities

Increase inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the 

voting process

NDRN and NFB

staff support # of resources 

developed and 

disseminated

Improved proficiency in the 

use of voting systems and 

technology among voting 

center staff and individuals 

with disabilities

P&A staff support

P&As are able to demonstrate 

and evaluate the use of such 

systems and technologies by 

individuals with disabilities 

(including blindness)

The meaningful involvement of, 

and input from, the P&As and 

individuals with disabilities

# of peer to peer 

exchanges Improved work related to voting 

for individuals with disabilities Provide timely and informative T/TA and tools to the P&As

One-on-one T/TA to P&A staff by answering questions, 

explaining details, troubleshooting, educating, etc.; webbased trainings; teleconference open to P&A network to 

share information; sessions at annual conference addressing 

voting issues; targeted outreach; SABE Voter Education Teams 

internet based trainings; Voting Listserv; quarterly articles; 

update and maintain websites; content on voting issues; SABE 

Voter Education Toolkit

# training sessions 

held

# consultations 

provided

Improved ability for P&As 

to meet HAVA stature 

requirements

Increased identification of 

modifications to improve 

non-visual access

# evaluation 

webinars

# Voter Experience 

Survey responses Identify promising practices from the Network 

that improve voting access

Collect information on innovative practices; share information 

using Voting Listserv, website posts, discussions, etc.;

SABE Voter Project 

Facebook analytics

Monitor voting related trends affecting people with 

disabilities nationally

Integrate critical voting issues into T/TA activities; participate 

in national voting coalitions and meetings; work with elections 

administration community and voting technology manufacturers; monitor national election listservs and publications

# attendees at 

teleconferences
20

Example 3. AIDD NAS Interdisciplinary Training Implementation Logic Model 

Need/Purpose Inputs Activities Ouptuts Immediate 

Outcomes

Intermediate 

Outcomes

Ultimate 

Outcome

This FOA supports 

the Secretary’s 

priority to address 

the opioid crisis.

AIDD funding of a 

3-year cooperative 

agreement @ 

$451,952 annually

Implementation of a NAS Interdisciplinary Training 

Curriculum in Targeted States to address health, education and behavioral strategies for professionals to 

improve outcomes of children and families impacted 

by NAS in the highest need states as determined by 

the grantee.

Number of interdisciplinary teams trained in NAS 

strategies 

(1) Professionals

trained report 

increased knowledge in NAS and 

trauma-informed 

care approaches.

(1) Training

participants report 

implementation of 

learned skills/strategies to provide better 

treatment.

Reduction in gaps in 

access and delivery 

of quality education 

and support services 

to children and 

families impacted by 

neonatal abstinence 

syndrome (NAS) or 

by related substance 

exposure.

Number of participants from 

The grant will ad- rural and urban areas 

dress through training gaps in access 

to and delivery of 

quality treatment and 

services to infants, 

young children and 

families impacted by 

neonatal abstinence 

syndrome (NAS). 

Project Officer 

Support

Input from federal 

partners (CDC, HRSA, 

SAMHSA, ACF, ED/

OSEP)

Formation and Training of 

Interdisciplinary State Teams in Targeted States.

Working through a lead program in the state, 

interdisciplinary teams will be recruited to include 

key programs (e.g., Part C, Part B, Head Start, FQHC, 

Mental Health) as well as others programs the state 

determines relevant. During the first year, the grantee 

will provide training and ongoing TA to the teams. 

For the subsequent years, the grantee will expand 

to other states based on need and continue to offer 

additional training as needed to year 1 states.

Number of participants by 

discipline (e.g., health allied 

health, education, behavioral 

health, family systems, early 

childhood, etc).

 (2) Professionals 

report increased 

confidence in treating NAS and other 

family challenges.

(2) Training participants report increased

confidence in treating 

NAS and other family 

challenges. Providers more 

capable of serving 

this population.

The purpose of the 

NTI is to train interdisciplinary teams on 

emerging knowledge 

and evidence-based 

practices in screening, monitoring and 

care for children with 

NAS, or impacted by 

related substance 

exposure.

URC support to 

include meetings 

with federal partners 

and the grantee and 

in disseminating 

findings

Initial report with 

recommendation(s) 

from current NAS 

pilot

Sustainability/Dissemination Plan for continuing 

the NAS training effort past the project period that 

demonstrates how it will employ traditional and 

non-traditional methods for marketing and maintaining the project over time. Plan should include methods that will be used to disseminate the project’s results and findings and products in multiple accessible 

formats, to parties who might be interested in using 

the results of the project to inform practice, service 

delivery, program development, and/or policy-making, including and especially those parties who would 

be interested in replicating the project.

Number of States/UCEDDs 

participating in NAS 

trainings.

Number of collaborative partnerships among agencies at 

the local, state and national 

levels to jointly address NAS.

Number of NAS trainings 

conducted.

(3) Providers/

caregivers report 

increased educational, health and 

behavioral supports.

 (4) Caregivers report 

increased access to 

quality community 

services. 

Demographic data of participants including gender, race, 

ethnicity, education, SES. 

Evaluation Plan: Evaluation of the results will be 

collected from interagency state team participants, 

families, UCEDD network partners and local, state and 

federal agencies via customer satisfaction surveys. 

The data will be collected pre and post interventions.

Number of participants 

continuing in more than one 

or all trainings.

Number/types of NAS 

training products/ materials 

disseminated. 
21

Logic Model Resources

There are a large number of quality logic model development and other related 

resources available to program administrators, implementers, and evaluators. The 

resources referenced below are freely available examples.

Administration for Community Living. (2019). Performance Outcome Measurement Project. Retrieved 

from https://acl.gov/programs/pomp

Administration for Community Living. (2020). ACL’s Performance Strategy. Retrieved from https://acl.

gov/programs/research-and-development/data-collection-projects

Bartholomay, T. (n.d.). Outputs/outcomes/impacts: A framework for objectifying key aspects of a 

program’s intended intervention and identifying resulting intended change. University of Minnesota. 

Retrieved from https://cyfar.org/sites/default/files/OutputsOutcomesImpacts_pres.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Aligning a logic model with a strategic plan.

Evaluation Briefs, No. 3. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief8.txt

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention. (n.d.). 

Evaluation guide: Developing and using a logic model. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/

docs/logic_model.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of STD Prevention. (n.d.). Identifying the 

components of a logic model. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/std/Program/pupestd/

Components%20of%20a%20Logic%20Model.pdf

University of Wisconsin-Division of Extension. (2003). Enhancing Program Performance with Logic 

Models. Retrieved from https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/programdevelopment/files/2016/03/

lmcourseall.pdf

Shakman, K., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2015). Logic models for program design, implementation, and 

evaluation: Workshop toolkit. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational 

Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/

pdf/REL_2015057.pdf

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). W. K. Kellogg Foundation logic model development guide. 

Retrieved from https://www.bttop.org/sites/default/files/public/W.K.%20Kellogg%20LogicModel.pdf
22

ACL Logic Model Template

NEED/PURPOSE INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS IMMEDIATE 

OUTCOMES

INTERMEDIATE 

OUTCOMES

ULTIMATE 

OUTCOME

Insert Name of Program/Grant

Authorizing Statute[s]/Mandates: 
23
24
Developed by Jennifer Tillery, ACL Sr. Social Science Analyst

in partnership with New Editions Consulting, Inc.

For additional information contact:

Office of Performance and Evaluation

Center for Policy and Evaluation

Administration for Community Living

330 C St SW

Washington, DC 20201

www.acl.gov/contact
Administration for Community Living

Office of Performance Evaluation