Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Initial Outcomes, Intermediate

Inputs Activities Outputs Initialoutcomesintermediate Outcome

Inputs Activities Outputs Initialoutcomesintermediate Outcome Inputs → Activities → Outputs → Outcomes Categories and Criteria for Performance Measures • Inputs represent labor and capital, which might include money, people, equipment, and buildings, all dedicated to the delivery of a good or service. • Outputs are what a “program actually does†or the “direct products and services delivered†by an organization or program. • Outcomes are the results produced by public sector outputs, and represent the change in conditions resulting from the activities. • In the early 1990s, focus began to shift to outcomes with the goal of a government that “works better and costs less.†Basic Program Logic Model Essentials of Public Service: An Introduction to Contemporary Public Administration.

Mary E. Guy and Todd L. Ely. (2022). Irvine, CA: Melvin & Leigh, Publ. ISBN: Categories and Criteria for Performance Measures Case proposal · Minimum 4 oages PLEASE USE THIS ORGANIZATION: Introduction and overview of the NPO (no more than 1 page) (10 points) Draft logic/impact model Week 4 handout on D2L) (15 points) Discuss any challenges you have identified for completing the project (10 points) Such as missing information needed for analysis or assessments, and how you propose addressing these challenges If no challenges, please explain this briefly Discuss your preliminary findings based on your review of the organization so far, including what the NPO currently does well and areas for improvement (15 points)

Paper For Above instruction

The assignment involves analyzing a nonprofit organization (NPO) by developing a comprehensive logic/impact model, identifying challenges in the project, and providing preliminary findings based on an organizational review. This process requires an understanding of program logic models, including inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes, and their application in evaluating organizational effectiveness and impact.

To begin, the paper should include an introduction and overview of the selected NPO, not exceeding one page. This section will contextualize the organization’s mission, size, target population, and key programs or services. For this introduction, it is essential to provide enough background to understand the organization’s scope and purpose without excessive detail—focusing on clarity and relevance.

Following the introduction, the core of the paper should present a draft of the logic or impact model for the NPO. This model will illustrate the sequence from resources (inputs) to ultimate goals (long-term outcomes). The model should incorporate typical components such as:

• Inputs: resources like staffing, funding, equipment
• Activities: programs, initiatives, or service delivery actions
• Outputs: immediate products or services provided by the NPO
• Initial Outcomes: short-term changes or benefits for beneficiaries
• Intermediate Outcomes: medium-term effects leading towards the long-term vision

This section should be detailed, drawing on the Week 4 handout on D2L, and demonstrate how each component logically connects within the organization’s framework. It should visually or narratively reflect the causal chain that links resources to impact, emphasizing the logic behind the organization’s interventions.

Next, the paper must address potential challenges encountered while completing this project. Challenges might include missing data, difficulty in measuring certain outcomes, or gaps in information necessary for analysis. If no significant challenges exist, provide a brief explanation of this experience, highlighting the ease or constraints faced during the process. Importantly, propose solutions or approaches to overcome identified difficulties, such as data collection strategies or stakeholder interviews.

Finally, the paper should present preliminary findings based on the review of the organization. This includes identifying what the NPO does well—such as strong community engagement, effective programs, or clear mission alignment—and areas for improvement, like resource constraints, lack of measurable outcomes, or unmet community needs. These insights should be supported by observations from organizational documents, program descriptions, or initial assessments.

In conclusion, the paper should synthesize these elements into a cohesive analysis, demonstrating understanding of program logic models, organizational dynamics, and the practical challenges of nonprofit evaluation. The goal is to produce a comprehensive, approximately four-page document that articulates a clear understanding of the NPO, its logic framework, challenges, and preliminary insights.

References

• Guy, M. E., & Ely, T. L. (2022). Essentials of Public Service: An Introduction to Contemporary Public Administration. Melvin & Leigh Publishing.
• McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, L. K. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program's performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 65-72.
• Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. Princeton University Press.
• Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Sage Publications.
• Renger, R., & Fouirnan, R. (Eds.). (2008). Program evaluation and performance measurement: An introduction to practice. Quinnipiac University Press.
• Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. Jossey-Bass.
• Davidson, E. J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Sage Publications.
• Rabin, F., & House, J. (1981). Program theory-driven evaluation. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation Models (pp. 139-161). Springer.
• Connell, J. P., & Kubisch, A. C. (1998). Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives. New approaches to assessing community initiatives.
• Connell, J. P., et al. (2005). Developing a logic model to evaluate community programs. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 11(5), 399-409.