Don Ledingham’s Learning Log

This post is one of a series linked to The Logic Model - getting a social return on investement?

Activities are the things that we plan to do to try and achieve a desired outcome, e.g if I wanted to feel less hungry (OUTCOME)  - I would go for a meal (ACTIVITY) - the food I ate would be the (INPUT) - and the (OUTPUT) would be the meal itself. The Logic Model for the above would be as follows:

-INPUT (food)

      - ACTIVITY (go for a meal)

               -OUTPUT (eat the food)

                      -OUTCOME (feel less hungry)

                             -IMPACT (maintain health and well being)

Note that the very close relationship between ACTIVITY and OUTPUT - in some models they both appear under outputs but I think there is a difference between planning to carry something out and actually seeing it through to completion.

Perhaps it might help here to quote from The Kellog’s Foundation on the difference between Activities and Outputs:

Activities are the processes, techniques, tools, events, technology, and actions of the planned program. These may include products - promotional materials and educational curricula; services - education and training, counseling, or health screening; and infrastructure - structure, relationships, and capacity used to bring about the desired results.

Outputs are data about activities and are the direct results of program activities. They are usually described in terms of the size and/or scope of the services and products delivered or produced by the program. They indicate if a program was delivered to the intended audiences at the intended “dose.” A program output, for example, might be the number of classes taught, meetings held, or materials produced and distributed; program participation rates and demography; or hours of each type of service provided.

Another way of distinguishing between Activities and Outputs is to think of Outputs as being specificcally related to the intended audience or participants, for example, if the activity was to lead to the development of imporoved links beteen primary schools and secondary schools, then the output would be the number of sessions, the number of participants, the materials produced.

One of the biggest problems in recent years is that schools and local authorities have seen the implementation of the activity as being an outcome in itself - whereas it’s only an job half done.  This is best exemplified in some recent national initiatives which have been output focused - as opposed to outcome focussed.

National examples of Outputs presented as Outcome Led Initiatives:

There are a number of National examples of output led initiatives - which have not had any specific linkage to OUTCOME.

• Reduce class sizes for P1 - P3 is an example of an initiative which confuses an output with an outcome;
• in a similar vein the concept of 2 hours of physical education per week is another output presented as an outcome;
• as are Free school meals for P1 - P3 children

All of the above operate on the ASSUMPTION that the output will lead to a positive outcome for children - without specifically stating what that outcome will be.  The problem with developments such as these is that authorities, governments and schools can say “We have implemented the Policy” but the only measure of success is whether the output was achieved.  So for all that there might have been a massive investment in the implementation of the policy - there are no accurate means of judging if there has been any positive social return from that investment, aside from saying it has been spent.

The challenge for those of who might wish to use the Logic Model to improve aspects of education that we must try to avoid confusing Outputs with Outcomes.

I will explore this in more depth in my next post