- Move from a problem tree to a theory of change.
- Build a logframe: objectives, results, activities, assumptions.
- Check the vertical and horizontal logic.
1From problem tree to objective tree
The problem tree places the core problem at the trunk, its causes in the roots and its consequences in the branches. Example: “high rate of diarrhoea among children under 5”, caused by unsafe water, lack of latrines and poor hygiene practices.
The objective tree turns each statement into a positive situation: “households have access to safe drinking water”, “households use latrines”. The branches on which the organisation can act are then selected: this is the strategy analysis.
2The theory of change
A theory of change explains how and why the activities will lead to the desired change. It reads as a chain of “if… then…” statements:
If we rehabilitate water points and train management committees, then households will have access to safe drinking water; if they also adopt handwashing, then diarrhoea among children will decrease, provided that spare parts remain available and the security situation allows access.
The “provided that” statements are the assumptions: they must be monitored, because if they fail, the project logic fails with them.
3The results chain
- Inputs: money, staff, materials.
- Activities: what the team does (train, distribute, build).
- Outputs: direct, controllable results of the activities (300 kits distributed, 40 community volunteers trained).
- Outcomes: changes in behaviour, access or practices among beneficiaries (75% of households treat water at home).
- Impact: the long-term change to which the project contributes together with other actors (reduced child mortality).
A common mistake: writing an activity instead of an outcome (“organise awareness sessions” is not an outcome).
4The logframe
The logical framework (logframe) summarises the project in a matrix of 4 rows and 4 columns.
| Intervention logic | Indicators | Means of verification | Assumptions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall objective | Contribute to reducing water-related morbidity in the area | Prevalence of diarrhoea among children under 5 | Health district data | — |
| Specific objective | Targeted households have sustainable access to safe drinking water and good hygiene practices | % of households using an improved source | Baseline and endline surveys | Security allows access |
| Results | R1: 20 water points rehabilitated and managed by committees | Number of functional water points | Technical reports, visits | Spare parts available on the market |
| Activities | Rehabilitation, committee training, awareness-raising | Means and budget | Financial reports | No supply disruption |
Vertical logic: read from bottom to top, “if the activities are carried out and the assumptions hold, then the results are achieved…”. Horizontal logic: each level has its indicators, and each indicator has a realistic means of verification.
The logframe for a nutrition project
Rural district, Horn of Africa
You are helping to draft the logframe for a project treating acute malnutrition among children under 5.
The team has written as the specific objective: “Distribute 12,000 sachets of therapeutic food”. The donor asks for the intervention logic to be revised.
Decision 1 of 3What is wrong with this specific objective?
Decision 2 of 3Which assumption is the most important to include between “children screened and admitted” and “children cured”?
Decision 3 of 3The country director wants to add the impact “Eradicate poverty in the region”. What do you suggest?
Key takeaways
A sound logframe distinguishes activities, outputs, outcomes and impact, and makes visible the assumptions on which success depends.
Exercise: your logframe
Choose a problem in your area (malnutrition, school dropout, gender-based violence…). Draw the problem tree with three causes, turn it into an objective tree, then fill in the “intervention logic” column of a logframe: one specific objective, two results and three activities per result. Add two assumptions.
Key points
- A theory of change explains the how and the why.
- Output = what we deliver; outcome = what changes for people.
- Assumptions are monitored just like indicators.
- The logframe is read from bottom to top.
Further reading: course references
- OECD-DAC (2019). Better Criteria for Better Evaluation: Revised Evaluation Criteria Definitions and Principles for Use. www.oecd.org/fr/cad/evaluation/criteres-cad-evaluation.htm
- ALNAP (Buchanan-Smith, Cosgrave, Warner) (2016). Evaluation of Humanitarian Action Guide. www.alnap.org/help-library/evaluation-of-humanitarian-action-guide
- CHS Alliance, Groupe URD, Sphere (2024). Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS). www.corehumanitarianstandard.org
- Sphere Association (2018). The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response. spherestandards.org/fr/manuel-2018
- United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) (2016). Norms and Standards for Evaluation. www.unevaluation.org
Daily quiz
3 questions to check what you have learned. Answer them all to complete the day.