Logical FrameworkFinal 13/09/2016

Purpose of the document: to promote a common approach in the application of Logical Framework as a planning tool across The Salvation Army community development projects.
Users of the document: Implementing Territories (IT).
Application: The Logical Framework or Log Frame (LF) is a management tool to assist in the planning, management and evaluation of community development projects to achieve measurable results. It highlights the ways in which key project elements relate to each other in a way that facilitates analysis, decision making and impact measurement. The LF can help establish a common ground for discussion and shared understanding, thus forming the basis for partnership and shared responsibility for achieving results.

Log Frame Matrix

The structure of an LF is a simple 4x4 matrix – four rows and four columns. You write brief descriptions in each box and then test the logical relationship between the statements. You may have to rewrite the boxes a number of times to get the logical relationship right. The benefit of using a matrix is that it is visible and helps groups of people to discuss and think through all the implications of project ideas. It is particularly suited to participative ways of planning and decision-making.

Expected Results / Objectively verifiable indicators / Sources and means of verification / Assumptions
Impact
Outcomes
Outputs
Activities

The Expected Results column identifies the hierarchy of results, from lowest level result to highest level result, as well as the activities and other resources used to achieve them. The results chain is always embedded in a given context that reflects the overall situation, needs, issues, priorities and aspirations of key stakeholders. In a well-formulated community development project, one should be able to see clearly the results that are generated from the inputs and the activities they require. Results should represent the change caused through the cause-and-effect relationship between inputs and activities and outputs, outcomes and impact. Results at each of these levels aggregate to contribute to the results at the next higher level.

To see this ‘results chain’ in the LF even clearer, simply flip it over and read it like this:

Activities / Output / Outcome / Impact

How to fill in the Log Frame

Expected Results / Objectively verifiable indicators[1] / Sources and means of verification / Assumptions
Impact
The shared vision that the project is intended to make a contribution to / What are the key indicators that will provide evidence that the project has made a contribution to the achievement of the developmental impact? / What are the sources of information and methods used to verify these indicators?
Outcomes
In specific terms, explain what your project will achieve, who will be reached, where and by when. Outcomes are specific and measurable. / How will we know the intended change has occurred – and is this change sustainable? / Sources of information and method used to show that change has occurred. / What external factors need to be in place if project is to contribute to the overall objective?
Outputs
The specific and direct results that the project will deliver after the activities have been done. Outputs are the specific, direct deliverables of the project work. These will provide the conditions necessary to achieve the outcome. / How will we know the expected results of the project have been achieved? / Sources of information and method used to show that change has occurred. / External factors that may effect whether the specific objective/outcome is achieved
Activities
List the activities/tasks that need to be carried out to produce the expected outputs. / Means/inputs and resources needed to undertake each task or activity. / Evidence that each activity/task is completed. / Factors that may effect activities achieving the expected results/outputs

Example of a Completed Log frame[2]

Expected Results / Objectively verifiable indicators[3] / Sources and means of verification / Assumptions
Impact
Reduce deaths and injuries related to disasters in the Xeno region. / G1: Ratio of deaths caused by disaster to number of people exposed to a disaster in the target district (10:100,000 within 2 years).
G2:% of injuries caused by disasters within population exposed to a disaster in the target district (5% within 2 years). / G1: Land Government Disaster Management Agency statistics for the region (analysed by project manager, annually).
G2: Sample survey by branch disaster management officers (reviewed 6-monthly by project manager). / No major unexpected epidemics, serious civil unrest or ‘mega-disasters’ occur.
Outcomes
Outcome 1:
The capacity of communities to prepare for and respond to disasters is improved.
Outcome 2:
The capacity of schools to prepare for and respond to disasters is improved. / 1a: % of people in participating communities who practice 5 or more disaster preparedness measures identified in the community DM plan (80% in 2 years)
1b: % of targeted communities with identified response mechanisms in place (80% in 2 years)
2a: % of schools that have passed the annual disaster safety inspection from the Ministry of Disaster Management (80% within 2 years)
2b: % of participating schools that have successfully conducted 1 disaster simulation (60% within 1 year and 80% within 2 years). / Focus group discussions
2a: Ministry of Disaster Management records
2b: Project reporting system through a simulation checklist. / The political and security situation remains stable, allowing community-level actions to be carried out.
Outputs
Output 1.1: Community Disaster Management Plans are developed and tested by Community Disaster Management Committees (CDMCs).
Output 1.2: Early warning systems to monitor disaster risks are established.
Output 1.3: Communities’ awareness of measures to prepare for and respond to disasters is improved.
Output 2.1 School Disaster Management plans are developed and tested at participating schools.
Output 2.2: School Disaster Management Groups (DMGs) are formed in participating schools.
Output 2.3: Disaster risk reduction lessons are included in the curriculum. / 1.1: # of participating communities that have a tested Disaster Management Plan (16 [out of 20] within 2 years).
1.2: % of communities with an early warning system in place (90% within 2 years).
1.3: % of people [of which 50% are female]in participating communities who can identify at least 5 preparedness and 5 response measures. (75% within 1 year).
2.1: # of participating schools that have a new DM Plan tested (20 [out of 25] within 2 years).
2.2: % of DMGs that have at least 2 teachers/staff, 2 parents, 2 students, and conduct regular monthly meetings (80% within 2 years).
2.3: % of students [of which 25% are female] in the targeted schools who have received disaster preparedness and disaster risk education. / 1.1: Copies of disaster management plans (collected by project manager).
1.2: Field officer’s report .
1.3: Focus group discussions (every 3 months, by National Society volunteers & project staff) – cross-checkedduring annual disaster simulation (annually by CDMC members & National Societyproject officers).
2.1: Copy of school DM plan (checked by project manager, every 6 months).
2.2: DMU meeting minutes (checked by project manager, every 6 months).
2.3: School classroom reports (project manager and volunteer, every 6 months). / The economy remains stable, and food shortages do not become acute.
The security situation in the country does not prevent implementation of the DM plan.
Local political leaders support implementation of the findings of the VCA.
Students are not taken out of school by their parents.
The majority of teachers remain in their jobs for at least 1 year.
Activities for output 1.1
1.1.1Organise 10 community planning meetings.
1.1.2Engage volunteer peer facilitators.
1.1.3Develop/
translate community DM awareness materials. / Inputs/resources
1.1.1: Space to hold meetings, trainers/peer facilitators, training materials.
1.1.2: Per diems.
1.1.3: Computers, printers, awareness-raising materials, translator. / Costs and sources
US $20,000 (appeal), US $ 2,000 (locally raised funds), volunteer time, donated space for meeting/training. / People in the community have no new demands on their time preventing them from participating.

Use of the LF throughout the project cycle

The LF should be completed during the planning stage[4], as it will form the basis for monitoring and measuring results. The LF should be modified, as required, and any such changes should be discussed by the key project stakeholders. Assumptions are critical factors in the success of a development project and should be carefully monitored during project implementation.

[1]Baseline data should be used to formulate targets and monitor progress through the indicators

[2]Content taken from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

[3]Baseline data should be used to formulate targets and to monitor progress through the indicators

[4]In the FBF process, the indicators will be found during steps 2 (Describe and Analyse) and 3 (Reflect and Evaluate) of the cycle. During step 4 the information gathered may be formalised and written down. It will involve all stakeholders and a number of tools may be used for developing the indicators.