LOGICAL FRAMEWORK TEMPLATE

[Project Name] LOGFRAME

INDICATORS MEANS OF ASSUMPTIONS
OBJECTIVES VERIFICATION
Goal

Outcome 1
Output 1.1
Output 1.2
Output 1.3
Activities Activities may often be included in separate Inputs/resources Costs & sources
document (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
 [Project Name] LOGFRAME
Continue to add additional rows for outcomes, outputs and activities as necessary

Logical Framework (logframe) – Definition of Terms

OBJECTIVES INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS
(What we want to achieve) (How to measure change) (Where / how to get (What else to be aware of)
information)
Impact Indicators
Goal
Quantitative and/or qualitative How the information on the
The long-term results that an External conditions necessary if
criteria that provide a simple indicator will be collected (can
intervention seeks to achieve, which the Goal is to contribute to the
and reliable means to measure include who will collect it and
may be contributed to by factors next level of intervention.
achievement or reflect changes how 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 As above necessary if the outcome is to
commonly in terms of the
stated outcome. contribute to reaching intervention
knowledge, attitudes or practices of
goal.
the target group.
Outputs
External factors not under the
The tangible products, goods and Output Indicators
direct control of the intervention
services and other immediate As above, connected to the As above
which could restrict the outputs
results that lead to the achievement stated outputs.
leading to the outcome.
of outcomes.
External factors not under the
Activities2
Process Indicators As above direct control of the intervention
The collection of tasks to be carried
As above, connected to the which could restrict progress of
out in order to achieve the outputs.
stated activities. activities.

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
 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 (What else to be aware
information) of)
Goal: G1 % (percentage) reduction in water and sanitation Ministry of Health / WHO
Reduce death and illness related diseases among target population statistics
related to Water and G2 % of children under 36 months with diarrhoea in Records from village clinics
Sanitation related diseases in the last two weeks
the targeted communities
1a % of people in the target communities using 1a,b,d Household survey Civil war / hostilities do
Outcome 1 minimum 25L of safe water per day 1c Key informant interviews not return
Improved access to and use 1b % of targeted households with access to an with WatSan committee Improved access to
of sustainable sources of safe functional water source members clinical health facilities
water in target communities 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 “Community Facility Low rainfall does not
1.1 Community water points national standard (140) Inspection” field report limit overall water
constructed or 1.1ab% of water handpumps rehabilitated to supply.
rehabilitated national standard (35)
1.2 Community management 1.2a # of communities with a WatSan committee 1.2a Household survey No major disputes or
of water points is established Key informant interviews with conflicts within the
improved 1.2b # of WatSan committees with technicians WatSan committee members community
trained to perform basic maintenance on water
points
1.2c % of WatSan committees collecting adequate
charges to maintain the water points
2a % of people in the target communities using 2a,b Household survey Civil war / hostilities do
Outcome 2 latrines on a daily basis 2c Key informant interviews not return
Improved access to and use 2b % of targeted households with access to with WatSan committee
of sustainable sanitation functional latrines meeting national standard members
facilities among targeted 2c % of latrines managed by local WatSan
 EXAMPLE 1: WATER AND SANITATION PROJECT
communities committees

Outputs 2.1a # of fully functioning household latrines “Community Facility Flooding or other
2.1 Sanitation facilities constructed (3,500) Inspection” 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
promoted 2.2b # of awareness session on use of latrines (25) Inspection” field report
2.2 c # of people reached by sanitation promotion
activities (2000)
2.3 Community management See also indicator 1.2a Key informant interviews with No major disputes or
of 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 Household survey Civil war / hostilities do
Enhanced practice of safe separate, 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 Household survey Cultural practices
3.1 Household knowledge identify at least 3 critical times when to wash hands. (unknown to project
increased on safe team) do not go against
hygiene & sanitation practices promoted
3.2 Household training on 3.2a % of households trained in safe hygiene and Training report. People continue to have
safe hygiene and sanitation practices including at least one female sufficient time to attend
sanitation provided member. training
3.2b # of trainings on safe hygiene and sanitation
practices given
 EXAMPLE 2: COMMUNITY & SCHOOL DISASTER MANAGEMENT (DM) PROJECT
Indicators Means of verification Assumptions
Objectives
G1: ratio of deaths caused by disaster to
G1: Xland Government Disaster
number of people exposed to a disaster in
Management Agency statistics for
the target district (10:100,000 within 2 No major unexpected
Goal: the region (analysed by project
years) epidemics, serious civil
Reduce deaths and injuries related manager, annually)
unrest or “mega-disaster”
to disasters in the Eastern District. G2: Sample survey by branch disaster
G2: % of injuries caused by disasters within occur.
management officers (reviewed 6
population exposed to a disaster in the
monthly by project manager)
target district (5% within 2 years)
Community Disaster Management Capacity Building
1a: % of people in participating communities
1a: Focus group discussions during
who practise 5 or more disaster
Outcome 1: CDMC meetings (monthly, by CDMC The political and security
preparedness measures identified in the
The capacity of communities to members & Red Cross volunteers). situation remains stable
community DM plan (80% in 2 years)
prepare for and respond to allowing community-level
1b: % of targeted communities with
disasters is improved. 1b: CDMC meetings/DM plans actions to be carried out.
identified response mechanisms in place
(collected & verified by project officer)
(80% in 2 years)
Output 1.1: Community Disaster The economy remains
Management Plans are developed 1.1: # of participating communities that have 1.1: Copies of DM plans (collected by stable, and food
and tested by Community Disaster a tested Disaster Management Plan (16 [out project manager) shortages do not become
Management Committees of 20] within 2 years) 1.2: Field officer’s report acute.
(CDMCs).
1.2: % of communities with an early warning 1.3: Focus group discussions (every 3 The security situation in
Output 1.2: Early warning systems
system in place (90% within 2 years) months, by National Society the country does not
to monitor disaster risks are
volunteers & project staff) – cross- prevent implementation of
established.
1.3: % of people [of which 50% are female] in checked during annual disaster the DM plan.
Output 1.3: Communities’ participating communities who can identify simulation (annually by CDMC
awareness of measures to at least 5 preparedness and 5 response members & National Society project Local political leaders
prepare for and respond to measures. (75% within 1 year) officers) support implementation of
disasters is improved. the findings of the VCA.
Activities (for Output 1.1) Inputs/resources Costs & sources People in the community
 EXAMPLE 2: COMMUNITY & SCHOOL DISASTER MANAGEMENT (DM) PROJECT
1.1.1Organize 10 community
1.1.1: Space to hold meetings, trainers/peer
planning meetings.
facilitators, training materials CHF 20,000 (appeal), CHF 2,000
1.1.2Engage volunteer peer have no new demands on
1.1.2: Per diems (locally raised funds), volunteer time,
facilitators. their time preventing them
1.1.3: Computers, printers, awareness- donated space for meeting/training
1.1.3Develop/translate from participating.
raising materials, translator
community 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 Disaster Management (80% within 2 1a: Ministry of Disaster Management
Outcome 2 The political and security
years) records
The capacity of schools to situation remains stable
prepare for and respond to allowing school-level
1b: % of participating schools that have 1b: Project reporting system through
disasters is improved actions to be carried out.
successfully conducted 1 disaster a simulation checklist
simulation (60% within 1 year and 80% within
2 years)
1.1: # of participating schools that have a
Output 2.1 School Disaster new DM Plan tested (20 [out of 25] within 2 1.1a: Copy of school DM plan
Management plans are developed years) (checked by project manager, every 6
and tested at participating Students are not taken out
months)
schools. of school by their parents.
1.2: % of DMGs that have at least 2
Output 2.2: School Disaster teachers/staff, 2 parents, 2 students, and 1.2a: DMU meeting minutes (checked
Management Groups (DMGs) are The majority of teachers
conduct regular monthly meetings (80% by project manager, every 6 months)
formed in participating schools. remain in their jobs for at
within 2 years)
least 1 year.
Output 2.3: Disaster risk reduction 1.3a: School classroom reports
1.3: % of students [of which 25% are female]
lessons are included in the in the targeted schools who have received
(project manager & volunteer, every 6
curriculum. disaster preparedness and disaster risk
months)
education
Activities (for output 2.1) Input/ Resources Costs & sources People in the community
2.1.1 Organize 10 school 2.1.1: Space to hold meetings, trainers/peer CHF 10,000 (appeal), CHF 3,000 have no new demands on
 EXAMPLE 2: COMMUNITY & SCHOOL DISASTER MANAGEMENT (DM) PROJECT
planning meetings.
facilitators, training materials
2.1.2 Train school teachers in
2.1.2: Classroom, training materials (locally raised funds), volunteer time,
facilitating DM planning. their time preventing them
2.1.3: Computers, printers, awareness donated space for meeting/training
2.1.3 Develop/translate school- from participating
raising materials, translator
based DM awareness
materials.
Activities for other outputs Inputs & resources for other outputs Costs & sources for other outputs