The difference between “Magic” (I mean, Logic) Models and Theories of Change by Sara Vaca

Dear AEA365 readers, hi!

I’m Sara Vaca, independent consultant and frequent Saturday contributor to this blog.

I feel so lucky as I’m in the middle of a new assignment as facilitator to develop Theories of Change (ToCs): my first long ToC assignment was in 2017 for UNICEF Indonesia. And now I am working with the World Food Program, for five countries in the Asia region.

My assignment includes working with the teams in each country office to develop their ToCs with different purposes: to design their new Strategic Plan, to check if their baselines or evaluations are covering the right scope or to reinforce their implementation and discussions with donors.

Lessons Learned: Although the colleagues I work with –multicultural teams of highly-educated experts in their areas, have all heard about ToCs, the first thing I need to do is to align our ideas about what a ToC is. This way we agree on what we mean by concepts such as results, outcomes, outputs, cause-effect, actions, strategies, impact, and so on. However, the first burning question they have is: But what is the difference between a ToC and our Results Based Monitoring Framework?

Lessons Learned: Explaining the differences between ToCs and traditional logic models, I came to realize that Logic Frames, Logic Models, RBM frameworks, whatever we want to call them, are more like “magic” models – they tell you what they are planning to do and what they are trying to achieve, without much further information. So one could think that they pretend to work a bit like magic!

Lessons Learned: Sometimes I am of the opinion that it is better not to get too hooked on tags and names, and that it is not such a big deal to figure out what exactly the difference is between these two important tools for program management.

However, other times I wonder (or understand if people wonder): is this one or the other?

Hot Tip: In my experience, to tell difference, answer this question: Is this description of the program explaining to me the “How” or just the “What”?

If this is still not helping, perhaps it is easier with an example: if it tells you that a program is trying to reduce undesired pregnancies by counselling adolescents, I would say it is a logic model. On the other hand, if the explanation or the diagram also tells you that the counselling is expecting to improve their sexual and reproductive health knowledge, change their attitudes and empower them, mostly girls, to be more assertive in their sexual relationships, so that introduces changes in their practices and dynamics, so sexual relationships are better informed, so pregnancies are reduced… I would say it is a theory of change.

An explanation, either in text or displayed in a diagram, of how change is expected to happen through program activities, is a ToC.

Rad Resource: This paper I co-wrote with Lovely Dhillon, published in 2018 by JMDE, Refining Theories of Change could be helpful to know more about the subject.

Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

3 thoughts on “The difference between “Magic” (I mean, Logic) Models and Theories of Change by Sara Vaca”

  1. Hi Sara – Just a quick note to say great blog and terrific description of the differences between logic models and theories of change. The what/how distinction is probably the most useful & accessible explanation I seen of how the two tools differ. I will definitely look to use it 🙂 Many thanks — Josh

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.