Setting strategy, and sticking to it, can be an arduous climb. Done successfully, it's remarkably satisfying.

The key is having the right tools and knowing how to get the most out of them. In the same vein as rope, ladders, pitons, and gloves are indispensable climbers' tools, logic models are an important tool for both planning and evaluation in the non-profit and social service sectors.

Over the years we have seen examples of strong models being implemented in the strategy and evaluation efforts of different organizations. When they work, program outcomes are enhanced. But we have also seen our share of situations where logic models were treated as some kind of add-on activity to ‘regular’ program or project management. The logic models in these cases were mainly used to construct a graphical depiction of a team’s wishful thinking. In such cases the models were not been anything more than just a piece of presentation material with no impact on strategy.

Starting here, and in four future posts, we’ll lay out some tips that can augment the success of your logic modeling. Should you choose to use some of the excellent material available on the web that can guide you in using the building blocks of logic models (such as 10 Great Resources for Creating a Theory of Change from the Philanthropy411 Blog), our hope is that these tips will enhance the process.

Tip 1. In designing your logic model, remember that it’s a process and it should involve people.

We’ve seen too many examples of attractively designed models that, in the end, pursue goals that were neither necessary nor achievable. Often was the case that the designers focused on the diagram itself, and the different techniques and formulas to draw and construct logic models, instead of looking at the process around building the logic model.

To leverage the strengths that logic models can provide, it is crucial to predicate the design on the input of stakeholders with field-expertise who you involve in uncovering the root causes to problems you seek to solve. In a pluralistic fashion, the stakeholders should help you depict the landscape for the initiative (more on this in Tip 2) in such a way that a program team can target relevant, valid causes to a problem.

Also, include measurement and evaluation in the people-process right away. Involve key people who are inextricably linked to the success of the project you are modeling. For instance, if you have a project to build the capacity of teachers, invite teachers into the logic modeling process to discuss inputs and indicators.

Because designing a logic model is a process, never treat it as a “one and done.” Don’t be trapped by false pressures to develop the best, perfect model in one fell swoop. Because good logic models are derived from good processes, take the time to draw several, to think through different scenarios with your stakeholders, and assess the potential impacts of the different versions. (More on this in the forthcoming tips.)

Next tip: Depicting the landscape to strengthen your logic model

The increased appropriations in the Swedish Environment bill, from 15 to 20 billion SEK, caused the Minister for the Environment Andreas Carlgren to exclaim “Never before has this much been done for the environment”. It is probably true in economic terms, but what does it really mean to “do something for environment”?

To pour money onto a problem does not mean you are solving it. To really solve a problem require insight, bravery and systematic work. Sometimes also funding is required. In political rhetoric money is seen as a miraculous cure that automatically solves all problems. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. Many solutions, perhaps even the most impactful ones, don’t have to cost a single penny! It is humanity’s ability to think that can create miracles.

To advance the national environmental goals and the EU environment policy put high demands on our capacity to practically realize political rhetoric into operations. For example, there is a call within the appropriation for more research. Certainly some of the challenges in solving environmental issues could be addressed by seeking new knowledge. But more research doesn’t solve all the problems either. In reality nothing happens if research results are not made available and applied.

I argue that the greatest potential for change (and some of the most economical) stems from a collective and strategic use of existing knowledge and convert that into bases for decisions, working tools, guidelines, routines and practical action. It has been known for long that great gain lies in reducing the so-called implementation deficit.

To carry out comprehensive changes in a way that demonstrates improvement on environmental issues is quite a challenge. It is hard due to the complexity created by many factors and actors that, in different ways, affect the course of event and outcomes. Moreover, there is no definite key to what is right, and because of that we need to continuously learn to increase our skill to apply what we learn to reach our goals.

To have real impact, it is necessary to identify the barriers that politicians, administrative officials, society organizations, commercial and industrial life and private citizens have and that are preventing successful change. We know that these parties lack knowledge that is available within research, but this knowledge need to be transformed into instruments that are functional in workrooms, meeting spaces and in the field to a much higher degree.

Knowing these barriers, decision makers, officials, interest groups, businesses and privates can establish strategies and implement activities that they believe will address these barriers accurately. For each specific issue there are a number of possible strategies. The question is, which mechanisms should the strategy depend on for impact? Should it be competence development, economic incentives or attempts to influence attitudes? The real issue is always — What activities are most likely to accomplish the targeted change? In order to arrive at functional strategies, accurate knowledge and precision tools are needed in the hands of those who take environment policy to action.

All parties involved in the realization of strategies and measures should implement them and collaboratively draw conclusions on how to refine and improve the strategy for the next step. In this way we learn over time what works and what does not work. It’s like working with innovation. You start with an idea, you make a hypothesis, test, learn and revise.

In sum, we can enhance the success of Sweden’s environmental programs by placing existing knowledge in the hands of those that can and should apply it. In our effort of doing this, we should systematically work as innovators to manage our inputs and activities as testbeds and modify our strategies accordingly as new knowledge and understanding gets reclaimed. In other words, practical realization of complex environmental objectives is not primarily a question of money. What is needed above all is the insight that solving environmental issues is an innovation process. By working as innovators we are able to continuously produce activities needed to have impact in workrooms, meeting spaces, in fieldwork and everywhere where we have influential factors on the environment. It is not until then we can pour money into the bucket where real impact is guaranteed. Then we have done something for the environment.

A little over four years ago we started to ask people what some of the root causes were to better organizational effectiveness in the foundation and nonprofit sectors within the United States. We talked with personnel at large and small nonprofits, and program staff from small family foundations to large private ones . We also consulted the literature on organizational effectiveness in the nonprofit world. Over time we captured what we heard into a poster size (3 feet x 2 feet) root cause “map” with over 65 boxes containing discrete assertions about the challenges foundations and nonprofits face in attaining organizational effectiveness. The diagram also contains scores of arrows that conceptually connect the assertions.

Early versions of the map were shown to our initial interview respondents from the foundation and nonprofit world (and to just about anyone who would look at it!). Over time we confirmed, disconfirmed, and refuted many issues, ever refining the map. It’s not perfect, but it does reveal an honesty and candor that underscores the passion of the people working in the third sector.

Because the concepts are ever evolving, our aim is to make transparent what we've learned and start a conversation on

• where the most viable opportunities for improvement are, and
• what we should address as a field.

In a series of posts we’ll report on what we’ve learned and ask for your reaction. Part One is about foundations. In Part Two we'll look at nonprofit organizations. We'll also publish the map in an upcoming post so anyone can have a copy of it and see the ecology of effectiveness, as we've captured it, for the sector.

Part One: Foundation Effectiveness

We began this thought experiment with the following assertion:

“We, as a social change community, not as effective as we could be.”

We then asked stakeholders in the field why that’s the case, particularly in foundations.

Four major clusters of root causes evolved from the above assertion. One cluster of reasons focused on the way in which the input from consultants, on which many foundations rely, doesn’t always translate into better overall effectiveness. Another cluster focused on how proposal vetting is not as effective as it could be. A third looked at how program evaluation is not leveraged in the best ways possible. And the fourth cluster, which I’ll discuss more in depth below, notes that foundations are not as strategic as they could be.

Why Aren’t Foundations As Strategic As They Could Be?

Three major areas developed in our analysis as to why foundations are not as strategic as they could be.

The first is no surprise. It's hard to stick to a strategy.

• With the passage of time, leadership and staff attain new knowledge that influences how they view the future.
• The stakes for not sticking to a strategy are not readily evident in the day to day work of foundation staff.
• It's hard to make strategy visible and operational in every step of an organization's day.
• It's hard to deliberately re-focus a strategy.
• Board members may have personal interests that can influence grantmaking.
• The needs of a community change over time.

Another second reason why foundations are not as strategic as they could be is that program portfolios can become populated with projects that may not be mission-related. This can occur when foundations have vague, unattainable or unrealistic goals. There are several reasons why foundations would hold such goals:

• It can be more appealing for a foundation to make small contributions to a big problem rather than completely solving a delimited one
• Foundations and grantees are not necessarily centered on a culture of measurement. After all, with measurement comes responsibility; what one doesn't see one doesn't need to fix.
• Foundations want to leave their options open.
• A foundation's strategy may be illusive and confusing. The contributors to this include
  • An inherent ambivalence about power and control over grantees. Foundations can be reluctant to tell grantees what to do because
    
    • they wish to be detached and objective and not involved in funded projects
    • they don't have staff or resources to support funded projects
    • they have respect for the independence of grantees
  • A lack of a market that drives foundations to be more effective and outcome oriented.
  • A tendency to prefer being detached and objective and not involved in funded projects

A third area that contributes to foundations' difficulty in sticking to strategy is a lack of emphasis on results that lead to a change or impact. A reason offered for this is that the quality of grantee operations may be based on foundation's perception of a grantee's organizational efficiency rather than a grantee's social results.

Next Time: Evaluation, Proposal Vetting, and Consultants and Their Relationship to Foundation Effectiveness

The total amount Sweden spends on regional development is at least 100 times bigger than the biggest number that fits on the display of a regular calculator. We are talking about the Regional Growth Programs, the EU Structural Funds, The Rural Development Program, The European Fisheries Fund, The Regional Service Programs and others like them. Progress is most evident in initiatives that address bottlenecks and barriers blocking the way for improvements. In most initiatives I believe we would expect that fixing the problems is part of the strategy.

However, in a review we made recently of the regional strategies for the implementation of the Rural Development Program in the different regions in Sweden we discovered that problems and priorities in many cases do not match. The priorities set in a strategy do not reflect the conclusions in the SWOT analysis. In other words, it is not clear how the measures planned in a strategy will address challenges that exist in the area. Of course, this does not apply to all strategies. Some regions have a great strategy, but alas, they are way too few.

When we hold seminars and presentations at events and conferences involving public officials we frequently ask if anyone has ever experienced working in a program that, when completed, was unable to demonstrate tangible results. We get roars of laughter. We see nods of recognition from all directions in the room. People confirm they have seen large amounts paid out through programs that only had marginal impact, or less. Public benefit programs are not the only types of project that suffer this sort of fate.

We wonder why this is the case. Is it because we routinely think in terms of inputs rather than results? Perhaps this is not so strange after all. Any kind of grant system is about the distribution of money. And money is an input. The more money we spend the bigger the input, right? In reality, however, results do not only depend on the size of the sum alone. The best results are produced by adequate measures and performance. To get to that, we need to build on the analysis and understand what the problem is that needs to be fixed.

We are also noticing that more and more people are dedicated to ensuring we get more value from public spending. Do you have the same impression? I believe that today both directors and managers at our public agencies are striving for tangible progress. Surely, everyone wants to do a good job.

In Sweden, when government agencies kick off domestic development initiatives, we've become accustomed to a common routine: program guidelines are released, criteria for partnerships are set, desired outcomes are described, and an amount of special funds are allocated for the work.

Recently, the Swedish Consumer Agency, Konsumentverket, issued guidelines for an upcoming round of the societal development programs called Regional Service Programs (RSP). This particular RSP, subtitled “Service as Growth Factor in Countryside and Sparsely Populated Areas,” is an effort to increase access to commercial and public services for citizens, focusing on fuel, everyday commodities and increased access for persons with disabilities.

There's something notable in the new guidelines: there are no funds allocated for the programs. Program partnerships are expected to be developed and implemented and supported /within/ existing regular budgets. At first this sounds like a true challenge. How can new programs mandated by the government succeed without new funding? But in thinking about this one step further, a very interesting question that arises: Do we need funds attached to new programs or are we better off without them?

For instance, additional funds usually leads to added activities as a second layer on top of regular business. If the intention of the new program is to enhance performance of regular activities, perhaps more funding is not such a great idea. Besides, who said that better and more efficient work would cost more money?

I suppose the worst case scenario is that with no money, service programs have their hands tied behind their back because an unfunded mandate makes people unable to carry out the program activities that are needed. It is going to be very interesting to see how this develops. We're collaborating now with the RSP in Dalarna region. Their hope is to be able to demonstrate that they can create compelling early outcomes absent funding using existing resources and partnerships, acting on levers that are theorized to be effective but cost little.

I'm curious to know if any of you have had successful experiences making unfunded mandates work. My take on this is that we may have an opportunity for people to focus on improving society without the need for outside funding. Thoughts?