Several years ago, I worked on a proposal for a collaborative project. The RFP asked for a narrative and a logic model for the process we were proposing. We spent time crafting both, but I remember thinking: What’s the point of requiring both, especially if you’re still going to come back with additional questions?
If the narrative is clear and if we can articulate what we’re trying to do, isn’t that enough?
I’ve also had nonprofit clients tell me they only create logic models funding, and never revisit them after submitting their proposal.. Or that they only build ToCs when funders require them, not because they find them useful. But the most striking moment was during a funder ToC session I facilitated, where program officers openly questioned whether they themselves would use the tool once it was built.
Theories of change (ToCs) and logic models are treated as standard tools. For some funders, they’re a default request to understand a grantee’s vision, approach, and impact. For some nonprofits, they’re just another part of the proposal process.
But they aren’t useful.
ToCs and logic models aren’t useless, but they aren’t useful either
ToCs and logic models can be powerful tools for surfacing assumptions, building shared language, and guiding evaluation. But they’re only as helpful as they are usable. And too often, they’re created to satisfy a requirement, not to support meaningful reflection or strategy.
Let I also understand why program officers want streamlined frameworks. Large philanthropic organizations often need consistency across programs and staff turnover. Strategic tools like ToCs and logic models can provide a foundation for internal learning, alignment, and accountability.
It gets tricky when a funder’s internal needs don’t translate well into external requirements for grantees, as the needs are without consideration for whether these tools serve the grantee’s day-to-day work.
A better question: What purpose are these tools serving for everyone?
I’m noticing more funders reimagining their RFP process, most likely in response to how time consuming they are, whether they yield what funders and grantees are looking for, and how it just makes sense to co-create a process together.
This happened due to funders asking researchers and evaluators if the RFP process is useful for securing projects.
The same can be done for ToC and logic models. What would it look like to pause and ask:
- Why are we requiring this tool?
- Do our grantees actually use it?
- Have we ever asked them whether they find it helpful?
- Do we use it once it’s submitted?
If the answer is no or “not really”, that’s not a failure. It’s a conversation starter. Strategic tools don’t have to be standardized to be meaningful, and they don’t have to be visual to be valuable.
Many nonprofits already have tools that work for them, like work plans, annual goals, internal OKRs, reflective team check-ins. These tools may not follow a logic model template, but they do the job of guiding, adapting, and staying accountable to community needs.
Key takeaway
If a nonprofit can clearly articulate a program or services’ outcomes, values, and community impact without a logic model, why require one? I wouldn’t create logic model for my consulting services, not because I’m resistant to structure, but because I can articulate what I do and how it creates value. And that should be enough.
ToCs and logic models don’t have to be eliminated. Instead, let’s focus less on requiring strategic tools, and more on asking how they’re actually being used, by both funders and nonprofits.
Program officers, I’d encourage you to begin:
- Review your current strategy tools. Are they still active documents or archived files?
- Ask grantees what tools they use to guide their work.
- Consider where flexibility might be more meaningful than uniformity.
- Start internal conversations about what makes a strategic tool practical, not just present.
Because when program officers are quietly asking if these tools are useful, they’re naming a gap between intention and implementation. And they’re opening the door to a better question: What do we really need to understand, and how can we get there together?
Raise Your Voice: If ToCs and logic models weren’t required, what would you ask for instead to understand a grantee’s strategy? Share in the comments section below.
Was this useful? Subscribe to the Raise Your Voice newsletter, and explore my consulting services.
