LOGICAL FRAMEWORK TEMPLATE

Click the links for definition of terms, example logframe 1 and example 2 and project/programme planning guidance manual on Fednet

[Project Name] LOGFRAME

OBJECTIVES INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS
Goal
Outcome 1
Output 1.1
Output 1.2
Output 1.3
Activities Activities may often be included in separate document Inputs/resources Costs & sources
(activity schedule) for practical purposes
Outcome 2
Output 2.1
Output 2.2
Output 2.3
Activities Inputs/resources Costs & sources

Outcome 3
Output 3.1
Output 3.2
Output 3.3
Inputs/resources Costs & sources
Activities

Continue to add additional rows for outcomes, outputs and activities as necessary
 IFRC Logical Framework (logframe) – Definition of Terms
OBJECTIVES INDICATORS ASSUMPTIONS
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
(What we want to achieve) (How to measure change) (What else to be aware of)
(Where / how to get information)

Impact Indicators
Goal
Quantitative and/or qualitative How the information on the
The long-term results that an External conditions necessary if the
criteria that provide a simple and indicator will be collected (can
intervention seeks to achieve, which Goal is to contribute to the next level
reliable means to measure include who will collect it and how
may be contributed to by factors of intervention.
achievement or reflect changes often).
outside the intervention.
connected to the goal.
Outcomes1
External conditions not under the
The primary result(s) that an
Outcome Indicators direct control of the intervention
intervention seeks to achieve, most
As above, connected to the stated As above necessary if the outcome is to
commonly in terms of the knowledge,
outcome. contribute to reaching intervention
attitudes or practices of the target
goal.
group.
Outputs
External factors not under the direct
The tangible products, goods and Output Indicators
control of the intervention which
services and other immediate results As above, connected to the stated As above
could restrict the outputs leading to
that lead to the achievement of outputs.
the outcome.
outcomes.

Activities2 As above External factors not under the direct

Process Indicators control of the intervention which
The collection of tasks to be carried out
As above, connected to the stated could restrict progress of activities.
in order to achieve the outputs.
activities.

EXAMPLE 1: WATER AND SANITATION PROJECT

OBJECTIVES INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS
(What you want to achieve) (How to measure change) (Where & how to get information) (What else to be aware of)
1
When there is more than one outcome in a project the outputs should be listed under each outcome – see the examples on the following pages.
2
Activities may often be included in separate document (e.g. activity schedule / GANTT chart) for practical purposes
Goal: G1 % (percentage) reduction in water and sanitation Ministry of Health / WHO
Reduce death and illness related related diseases among target population statistics
to Water and Sanitation related G2 % of children under 36 months with diarrhoea in the Records from village clinics
diseases in the targeted last two weeks
communities
Outcome 1 1a % of people in the target communities using minimum 1a,b,d Household survey Civil war / hostilities do
Improved access to and use of 25L of safe water per day 1c Key informant interviews with not return
sustainable sources of safe water 1b % of targeted households with access to an functional WatSan committee members Improved access to clinical
in target communities water source health facilities
1c % of water points managed by local WatSan
committees
1d # hours spent by women in fetching water daily
Outputs 1.1a # (number) of water points constructed to national “Community Facility Inspection” Low rainfall does not limit
1.1 Community water points standard (140) field report overall water supply.
constructed or rehabilitated 1.1ab% of water handpumps rehabilitated to national
standard (35)
1.2 Community management of 1.2a # of communities with a WatSan committee 1.2a Household survey No major disputes or
water points is improved established Key informant interviews with conflicts within the
1.2b # of WatSan committees with technicians trained to WatSan committee members community
perform basic maintenance on water points
1.2c % of WatSan committees collecting adequate
charges to maintain the water points
Outcome 2 2a % of people in the target communities using latrines 2a,b Household survey Civil war / hostilities do
Improved access to and use of on a daily basis 2c Key informant interviews with not return
sustainable sanitation facilities 2b % of targeted households with access to functional WatSan committee members
among targeted communities latrines meeting national standard
2c % of latrines managed by local WatSan committees
Outputs 2.1a # of fully functioning household latrines constructed “Community Facility Inspection” Flooding or other
2.1 Sanitation facilities (3,500) field report environmental problems
constructed do not affect sanitation
facilities
2.2 Sanitation facility use is 2.2a # of demonstration toilets constructed (25) “Community Facility Inspection”
promoted 2.2b # of awareness session on use of latrines (25) field report
2.2 c # of people reached by sanitation promotion
activities (2000)
2.3 Community management of See also indicator 1.2a Key informant interviews with No major disputes or
sanitation facilities is 2.3a # of community WatSan committees with WatSan committee members conflicts within the
improved technicians trained to perform basic maintenance community
sanitation facilities
2.3b % of WatSan committees collecting adequate
charges to maintain the sanitation systems
Outcome 3 3a % of households storing drinking water in separate, Household survey Civil war / hostilities do
Enhanced practice of safe covered containers. not return
hygiene and sanitation in the 3b % of households storing food in sanitary, covered
household containers
Outputs 3.1 % of people (men/women) who can correctly identify Household survey Cultural practices
3.1 Household knowledge at least 3 critical times when to wash hands. (unknown to project team)
increased on safe hygiene do not go against practices
& sanitation promoted
3.2 Household training on safe 3.2a % of households trained in safe hygiene and Training report. People continue to have
hygiene and sanitation sanitation practices including at least one female sufficient time to attend
provided member. training
3.2b # of trainings on safe hygiene and sanitation
practices given
 EXAMPLE 2: COMMUNITY & SCHOOL DISASTER MANAGEMENT (DM) PROJECT
Objectives Indicators Means of verification Assumptions
G1: ratio of deaths caused by disaster to G1: Xland Government Disaster
number of people exposed to a disaster in the Management Agency statistics for the
No major unexpected
Goal: target district (10:100,000 within 2 years) region (analysed by project manager,
epidemics, serious civil
Reduce deaths and injuries related to annually)
unrest or “mega-disaster”
disasters in the Eastern District. G2: % of injuries caused by disasters within G2: Sample survey by branch disaster
occur.
population exposed to a disaster in the target management officers (reviewed 6
district (5% within 2 years) monthly by project manager)
Community Disaster Management Capacity Building
1a: % of people in participating communities 1a: Focus group discussions during CDMC
Outcome 1: who practise 5 or more disaster preparedness meetings (monthly, by CDMC members & The political and security
The capacity of communities to measures identified in the community DM plan Red Cross volunteers). situation remains stable
prepare for and respond to disasters (80% in 2 years) allowing community-level
is improved. 1b: % of targeted communities with identified 1b: CDMC meetings/DM plans (collected actions to be carried out.
response mechanisms in place (80% in 2 years) & verified by project officer)
The economy remains
Output 1.1: Community Disaster 1.1: # of participating communities that have a 1.1: Copies of DM plans (collected by stable, and food shortages
Management Plans are developed tested Disaster Management Plan (16 [out of 20] project manager) do not become acute.
and tested by Community Disaster within 2 years)
Management Committees (CDMCs). 1.2: Field officer’s report
The security situation in the
1.2: % of communities with an early warning
Output 1.2: Early warning systems to 1.3: Focus group discussions (every 3 country does not prevent
system in place (90% within 2 years)
monitor disaster risks are months, by National Society volunteers & implementation of the DM
established. project staff) – cross-checked during plan.
1.3: % of people [of which 50% are female] in
Output 1.3: Communities’ awareness participating communities who can identify at annual disaster simulation (annually by
CDMC members & National Society Local political leaders
of measures to prepare for and least 5 preparedness and 5 response measures.
project officers) support implementation of
respond to disasters is improved. (75% within 1 year)
the findings of the VCA.
Activities (for Output 1.1) Inputs/resources Costs & sources People in the community
1.1.1 Organize 10 community 1.1.1: Space to hold meetings, trainers/peer CHF 20,000 (appeal), CHF 2,000 (locally have no new demands on
planning meetings. facilitators, training materials raised funds), volunteer time, donated their time preventing them
1.1.2 Engage volunteer peer 1.1.2: Per diems space for meeting/training from participating.
facilitators. 1.1.3: Computers, printers, awareness-raising
 EXAMPLE 2: COMMUNITY & SCHOOL DISASTER MANAGEMENT (DM) PROJECT
Objectives Indicators Means of verification Assumptions
1.1.3 Develop/translate community materials, translator
DM awareness materials.
Activities for other outputs Inputs & resources for other outputs Costs & sources for other outputs
School-based Disaster Management Capacity Building
1a: % of schools that have passed the annual
disaster safety inspection from the Ministry of 1a: Ministry of Disaster Management
The political and security
Outcome 2 Disaster Management (80% within 2 years) records
situation remains stable
The capacity of schools to prepare for
allowing school-level actions
and respond to disasters is improved 1b: % of participating schools that have 1b: Project reporting system through a
to be carried out.
successfully conducted 1 disaster simulation simulation checklist
(60% within 1 year and 80% within 2 years)

Output 2.1 School Disaster 1.1: # of participating schools that have a new
Management plans are developed DM Plan tested (20 [out of 25] within 2 years) 1.1a: Copy of school DM plan (checked
Students are not taken out
and tested at participating schools. by project manager, every 6 months)
of school by their parents.
Output 2.2: School Disaster 1.2: % of DMGs that have at least 2
Management Groups (DMGs) are teachers/staff, 2 parents, 2 students, and 1.2a: DMU meeting minutes (checked by
The majority of teachers
formed in participating schools. conduct regular monthly meetings (80% within 2 project manager, every 6 months)
remain in their jobs for at
years)
Output 2.3: Disaster risk reduction least 1 year.
1.3a: School classroom reports (project
lessons are included in the 1.3: % of students [of which 25% are female] in
manager & volunteer, every 6 months)
curriculum. the targeted schools who have received disaster
preparedness and disaster risk education
Activities (for output 2.1) Input/ Resources
2.1.1Organize 10 school planning 2.1.1: Space to hold meetings, trainers/peer Costs & sources
People in the community
meetings. facilitators, training materials CHF 10,000 (appeal), CHF 3,000 (locally
have no new demands on
2.1.2Train school teachers in 2.1.2: Classroom, training materials raised funds), volunteer time, donated
their time preventing them
facilitating DM planning. 2.1.3: Computers, printers, awareness raising space for meeting/training
from participating
2.1.3Develop/translate school-based materials, translator
DM awareness materials.
Activities for other outputs Inputs & resources for other outputs Costs & sources for other outputs