There is no doubt that these terms are being used interchangeably, but some people do see them as different things.

It seems I have my own personal distinction which doesn’t match the literature (blast!). I have been making a distinction that a program logic model concerns itself with how one specific program will contribute to outcomes - (eg its program centric). It doesn’t necessarily map out how other programs/ stakeholders/issues are contributing to the same outcome. I have been reserving the term ‘Theory of change’, for the situations when you map out a much bigger scenario - more of a whole systems view of what change needs to occur in order to achieve that outcome (outcome centric).

Under this framework a program logic focuses on just one set of pathways in the broader theory of change - depending what that program can uniquely offer that is not already being done. I think Paul Dougan refers to it as ‘global logic’. And its great when you have a complicated program to map this bigger theory of change out first, then decided which bits your program can usefully focus on to leverage maximum contribution to outcomes. Hey I still like my distinction!! Also I guess a theory of change under my distinction is very useful in the planning stages of a program.

Others, (notably the Aspen Institute) seem to be focusing on the theory of change being more about specifying the magnitude of a particular precondition required to achieve an outcome.

www.evaluationtoolsforracialequity.org/…/TOCs_and_Logic_Models_forAEA.ppt

I am not so sure about their distinction, I am sure you could do that with a logic model if you wanted! Also it all sounds very mathematical - but I guess it does come out of this whole evidence based movement. Eg prove how much of this precondition is required to achieve the next condition. I bet this could be done nicely with Basian network software!

I would love to hear about how you define the difference!