Translating Nonprofit Program Logic Models into Systems Thinking and Systems Diagrams: A Case Study of Gospel Rescue Missions

Beyond Logic Models: How Systems Thinking Transforms Social Impact

Slides for this Article

The modern nonprofit sector operates under immense pressure to quantify social impact, demonstrate programmatic efficacy, and provide measurable returns on philanthropic investments. For decades, the dominant paradigm for answering these demands has been the program logic model. As organizations attempt to tackle increasingly entrenched social phenomena—such as intergenerational poverty, chronic homelessness, and the synthetic opioid epidemic—evaluators have come to rely on logic models to articulate strategies and secure funding¹.

However, logic models are inherently linear, descriptive tools designed to map a sequential progression from the investment of resources to the realization of societal change². While they excel at providing operational clarity and establishing contractual accountability with federal agencies and foundational grantmakers, they systematically fail to capture the reality of complex adaptive systems². Social environments do not operate in a left-to-right sequence; they are governed by feedback loops, emergent behaviors, time delays, and non-linear relationships⁴. When complex problems are managed through linear frameworks, interventions frequently generate unintended consequences, treating superficial symptoms while inadvertently exacerbating root causes⁷.

In response to the limitations of linear evaluation, public policy experts and program evaluators have increasingly advocated for the integration of systems thinking and system dynamics⁵. Systems thinking demands a philosophical paradigm shift, prioritizing the holistic understanding of interconnected parts and systemic leverage points over isolated metrics⁴. System dynamics operationalizes this philosophy, providing the visual and mathematical architecture—specifically through causal loop diagrams and stock-and-flow models—to map and simulate these complexities over time¹⁴.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the theoretical bridge between traditional nonprofit logic models and the architecture of system dynamics. By employing a detailed case study of the Gospel Rescue Mission (GRM) movement, this analysis demonstrates how linear operational evaluations of holistic recovery programs can be translated into dynamic systemic maps, revealing why certain interventions succeed where traditional municipal strategies fail.

The Architecture and Operational Utility of Program Logic Models

A program logic model is a hypothesized, visual description of the causal chains underlying a specific organizational plan or intervention¹⁶. At its core, the logic model is an operational roadmap. It answers the fundamental question of “what” will happen if a specific sequence of actions is executed, serving as a descriptive mechanism that links organizational effort to community benefit².

Evaluators construct logic models utilizing two primary cognitive strategies. Forward logic utilizes “if-then” reasoning, moving chronologically from proposed activities to expected outcomes, which is useful for mapping existing program components¹. Reverse logic, conversely, begins with the desired end-state and works backward through a series of “but how?” questions, allowing planners to identify the necessary preconditions for long-term impact¹.

The standard architecture of a logic model is highly structured, typically consisting of five sequential domains.

Logic Model Component	Definitional Scope and Function	Operational Examples in Social Services
Inputs (Resources)	The raw materials, capital, and investments required to successfully implement and sustain the program12.	Financial funding, physical facilities, trained staff, volunteer hours, and specialized curricula2.
Activities	The specific interventions, strategies, and processes undertaken using the inputs. These are the operational “verbs” of the program12.	Conducting educational training, administering medical triage, providing emergency shelter, delivering case management16.
Outputs	The direct, immediate, and quantifiable products resulting from the activities, typically measured in volume or reach2.	Number of participants trained, meals served, bed-nights provided, or coaching hours completed12.
Outcomes	The specific, measurable changes resulting from the outputs, usually categorized as short-term, intermediate, or long-term12.	Changes in participants’ behaviors, knowledge, psychological status, or functional living conditions2.
Impact	The broader, ultimate effects of the program on the community, often representing systemic or societal transformation2.	Reductions in regional chronic homelessness, breaking cycles of poverty, or long-term economic stability2.

Logic models also frequently include a perimeter of “Context” (external factors influencing the program) and “Assumptions” (fundamental beliefs regarding the program’s operation and target population)².

The logic model is deeply embedded in the philanthropic and governmental funding landscape. Federal agencies, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the National Institutes of Health, mandate logic models because they function as compliance contracts³. They provide accessible, one-page formats that allow grant reviewers to quickly verify how resources will translate into deliverables².

Despite their utility in contract management and operational alignment, logic models possess severe methodological limitations when applied to complex social ecosystems. They are heavily criticized for forcing dynamic realities into an artificial linear progression⁵. Logic models generally treat the transition from outputs to outcomes as a “black box,” assuming a direct causal link without explaining the underlying behavioral mechanisms². Furthermore, they struggle to incorporate feedback loops—instances where an outcome fundamentally alters future inputs—and they are largely insensitive to the time delays inherent in social change².

To bridge this gap, organizations often pair logic models with a Theory of Change (ToC). While a logic model describes the “what,” a ToC explains the “why,” serving as an explanatory compass that delves into root causes, systemic context, and evidence-based mechanisms of change². The ToC acts as the strategic bridge between linear operational evaluation and the broader paradigm of systems thinking².

The Paradigm of Systems Thinking and System Dynamics

Systems thinking requires a fundamental departure from the event-based, reductionist perspective that characterizes traditional evaluation⁴. Rather than isolating individual components or evaluating immediate cause-and-effect relationships, systems thinking seeks to understand systems holistically⁴. The core premise is that the behavior of a system is primarily determined by its internal structure—the dynamic, evolving relationships between its actors, resources, and policies—rather than by exogenous events⁴.

System dynamics is the formal, methodological application of systems thinking. It utilizes specific visual mapping tools and computational models to replicate and understand how complex systems change over time²⁰. Translating a logic model into system dynamics requires fluency in three architectural frameworks: Causal Loop Diagrams, Stock-and-Flow Models, and System Archetypes.

Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs)

A Causal Loop Diagram provides a graphical accounting of the causal interconnections within a system, illuminating the feedback loops that drive systemic behavior¹⁴. While a logic model assumes unidirectional causality, a CLD recognizes that variables continuously influence one another in closed chains⁴.

CLDs consist of nodes representing system variables, connected by directed edges (arrows) that denote causal influence²³. These connections form two distinct types of feedback loops. Reinforcing (positive) feedback loops amplify change and drive exponential growth or collapse²². In public health, a reinforcing loop often models the vicious cycle of addiction, where trauma drives substance use, which leads to socioeconomic isolation, thereby generating further trauma²⁴. Balancing (negative) feedback loops, conversely, seek equilibrium or a specific goal state, counteracting change¹³. A balancing loop might represent a municipality’s response to an increase in unhoused individuals by opening more emergency shelters, which temporarily stabilizes the visible street population until capacity is reached²⁴.

Stock-and-Flow Architecture

If CLDs represent the causal hypotheses of a system, stock-and-flow models provide the quantitative architecture. These models capture the physical, biological, or human accumulations within a system, governed mathematically by differential equations that account for inertia and time delays²⁷.

Stocks are the accumulations within a system that build up or deplete over time⁴. In a homelessness response model, stocks represent distinct populations, such as the number of individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness, the number of individuals in permanent supportive housing, or the number of individuals achieving independent recovery²¹. Flows are the rates of change—measured over discrete time increments—that transition individuals into (inflows) or out of (outflows) these stocks⁴. The dynamics of a social system emerge directly from the disparity between inflows and outflows; homelessness only ends when the sum of outflows to stable housing exceeds the inflows of individuals losing their homes¹⁵.

System Archetypes and Leverage Points

System archetypes are recurring, predictable patterns of systemic behavior that explain why well-intentioned policies often produce adverse outcomes⁸. The most critical archetype for social services is “Shifting the Burden,” also known as “Addiction to the Intervenor”⁷.

In the “Shifting the Burden” archetype, a highly visible problem symptom prompts a demand for an immediate, symptomatic solution⁷. This quick fix effectively alleviates the symptom in the short term, but it inadvertently diverts attention and resources away from the fundamental solution, which typically requires a longer time horizon and greater effort⁷. Over time, reliance on the symptomatic solution grows, while the underlying root cause deteriorates, creating a systemic dependency⁷.

To permanently alter such archetypes, systems analysts seek “leverage points”—specific places within a complex system where a small structural or philosophical shift can produce disproportionate, lasting changes¹². Environmental scientist Donella Meadows established a hierarchy of twelve leverage points¹³. According to Meadows, adjusting the sizes of buffers, changing the rates of flows, or altering physical infrastructure represents low-leverage interventions¹³. The highest leverage points (Levels 1 through 3) require shifting the overarching goals of the system, changing the mental models or paradigms out of which the system arises, and claiming the power to transcend paradigms entirely¹³.

The Translation Framework: Logic Models to System Dynamics

To transition an organization’s evaluation framework from a traditional logic model to system dynamics, evaluators must structurally map linear components into dynamic nodes, feedback loops, and mathematical accumulations⁶. This translation elevates the evaluation from measuring isolated programmatic deliverables to diagnosing the organization’s systemic role within a broader socio-economic ecosystem¹².

Traditional Logic Model Element	System Dynamics Translation	Systemic Function and Behavioral Dynamics
Inputs / Resources	Systemic Capacity & Constraints (Buffers)	Inputs dictate the structural limits of the system, such as physical bed capacity or funding maximums. These constraints govern the maximum allowable rate of inflows and dictate the strength of balancing feedback loops12.
Activities	Flow Rates (Valves)	Activities are the mechanisms driving systemic change. They act as the “valves” regulating the flow of individuals between different stocks (e.g., the rate of delivering cognitive behavioral therapy regulates the flow from active addiction to recovery)4.
Outputs	Immediate Accumulations (Intermediate Stocks)	Outputs reflect short-term accumulations within intermediate stocks. Instead of merely counting deliverables, system dynamics measures the instantaneous volume of individuals residing within a specific programmatic state12.
Outcomes	State Transitions (Downstream Stocks)	Outcomes represent permanent or semi-permanent transitions into new downstream stocks. This involves tracking long-term stability and ensuring that positive feedback loops prevent individuals from returning to upstream distressed stocks12.
Impact	Macro-System Equilibrium	Impact is the aggregate result of multiple interacting feedback loops reaching a healthier steady state, such as achieving a state where housing stabilization outpaces economic evictions12.
Context / External Factors	Exogenous Variables & Model Boundaries	Contextual factors are mapped as exogenous drivers—such as synthetic opioid supply shocks or macroeconomic inflation—that interact with endogenous structures, formally defining the boundaries of the causal loop diagram12.
Linear Assumptions	Mental Models & Paradigms (High Leverage)	Assumptions are unmasked as the underlying paradigms and worldviews dictating the system’s design. Evaluating these mental models allows organizations to access the highest systemic leverage points12.

By executing this translation, a nonprofit can utilize a standard logic model to satisfy federal funding requirements, while simultaneously employing the system dynamics model to anticipate time delays, optimize resource allocation, and map the root causes of the phenomena they seek to resolve².

Case Study Context: The Gospel Rescue Mission Ecosystem

To ground this theoretical translation in a practical application, this analysis examines the Gospel Rescue Mission (GRM) movement. As a historic pillar of American Christian charity, the GRM movement provides emergency shelter, trauma care, and recovery services to populations experiencing severe homelessness and substance use disorders³⁶.

The GRM movement is currently navigating what the City Vision University Reframing Report describes as a “Contextual Crisis”³⁶. Historically, rescue missions operated on a simple diagnostic and prognostic frame, utilizing a repertoire colloquially known as “soup, soap, and salvation”³⁶. However, modern street homelessness is characterized by profound complexity, driven by systemic economic exclusion, severe psychiatric pathologies, and the dominance of synthetic opioids like fentanyl³⁶.

Furthermore, the GRM movement faces intense secularization pressure from the federal funding landscape³⁶. Over the past two decades, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and major public health authorities have aggressively shifted toward a “Housing First” and “Harm Reduction” orthodoxy¹⁵. Housing First operates on the philosophy that housing is a fundamental human right, providing permanent supportive housing without requiring behavioral preconditions, sobriety, or mandatory participation in psychiatric treatment¹⁵. This explicitly contrasts with the traditional “Treatment First” model, which requires compliance and sobriety as prerequisites for housing access¹⁵.

The philosophical divergence between the secular public health model and the holistic GRM model is rooted in fundamentally competing worldviews⁴¹. Secular scientific naturalism typically limits its interventions to material and biological variables. Subject to Hume’s Guillotine—which separates empirical facts from moral imperatives—the secular model views the individual experiencing addiction as a chronic patient whose biology must be managed indefinitely by the state through pharmacological stabilization (e.g., Medications for Opioid Use Disorder) and unconditional shelter⁴¹.

In contrast, the GRM model operates on a holistic integrated Christian worldview⁴¹. It diagnoses homelessness and addiction not merely as an absence of material resources, but as a symptom of deep relational poverty, untreated trauma, and a collapse of moral agency³⁶. The GRM prognostic frame aims for complete holistic regeneration, seeking to reconcile the individual with their creator, restore their Imago Dei (the image of God), and reintegrate them into healthy, sanctified communities⁴¹.

To address the modern crisis, exemplary GRM organizations have evolved highly sophisticated programmatic repertoires that far exceed traditional shelter services. For instance, the Gospel Rescue Mission in Tucson, Arizona, developed the “Center of Opportunity” in 2018⁴². This facility functions as a massive, centralized campus that integrates comprehensive medical care, legal assistance, workforce development, and emergency shelter into a single location, effectively addressing the systemic barriers of navigating disjointed municipal services⁴².

A critical component of this holistic model is the “Genesis Process,” a specialized recovery curriculum utilized heavily by GRMs⁴⁴. Developed by Michael Dye, the Genesis Process integrates biblical foundations with advanced neurochemical science to help participants identify subconscious triggers and dismantle the psychological mechanics of self-destruction⁴⁴. Coupled with models of “Redemptive Entrepreneurship”—such as the integrated work therapy and social enterprises seen at Springs Rescue Mission and The Foundry Ministries—modern GRMs focus on forging character, restoring dignity, and establishing true economic independence³⁶.

Evaluating the GRM Program via a Traditional Logic Model

If the Tucson Gospel Rescue Mission were to submit a grant proposal to a traditional philanthropic foundation or a federal agency, the operational architecture of the Center of Opportunity and the Genesis Process would be documented using a linear logic model².

The following table maps the holistic GRM recovery program through the traditional left-to-right logic model sequence.

Logic Model Category	Programmatic Elements and Deliverables
Inputs (Resources)	• Financial capital from private donors, churches, and select municipal grants. • The physical infrastructure of the Center of Opportunity campus. • Highly trained staff, including clinical counselors, chaplains, and vocational trainers. • The Genesis Process recovery curriculum workbooks and training materials44. • Strategic partnerships with local medical providers and law enforcement46.
Activities	• Conducting intake triage and providing low-barrier emergency shelter. • Administering the Genesis Process curriculum (cognitive behavioral therapy, neurochemical education, relapse prevention planning)44. • Facilitating relational discipleship and spiritual mentorship programs. • Managing integrated work therapy and vocational training enterprises36. • Providing on-site trauma-informed psychological and medical care.
Outputs	• Number of emergency bed-nights and meals provided annually. • Number of participants enrolled in and graduating from the Genesis Process. • Total hours of integrated work therapy logged by participants. • Number of individuals assisted in proactively resolving legal warrants46.
Outcomes (Short/Med)	• Participants achieve sustained neurochemical sobriety and behavioral stabilization. • Participants demonstrate improved mental health, trauma resolution, and executive control. • Participants secure steady employment and establish independent financial stability. • Participants successfully transition from the mission campus into independent housing.
Impact (Long-Term)	• Permanent restoration of individual human dignity and moral agency. • Dismantling intergenerational cycles of poverty, incarceration, and addiction. • Significant reduction in regional chronic homelessness and public system expenditures.

This logic model effectively communicates the operational capacity and programmatic scope of the Gospel Rescue Mission. It clearly delineates how the acquisition of a centralized campus and specialized curricula (Inputs) enables staff to conduct therapeutic interventions (Activities), which result in measurable service delivery (Outputs) and eventual participant stabilization (Outcomes).

However, the logic model fails to explain why the GRM model achieves transformational results in populations where highly-funded secular municipal systems often fail. It does not capture the complex psychological feedback loops disrupted by the Genesis Process, nor does it illustrate how the immersive environment of the Center of Opportunity actively isolates participants from the toxic peer contagion of the streets. Furthermore, the linear model cannot demonstrate the systemic failure of the “Treatment First” versus “Housing First” binary, because it lacks the capacity to model the time delays, feedback structures, and unintended consequences inherent in treating symptoms rather than root causes².

System Dynamics Translation of the GRM Model

To truly comprehend the efficacy and strategic positioning of the Gospel Rescue Mission movement, the linear logic model must be translated into the language of system dynamics. This involves mathematically mapping the stock-and-flow architecture of the homeless response system, identifying the causal loop diagrams that drive addiction and recovery, and locating the systemic leverage points that the GRM actively exploits.

The Stock-and-Flow Architecture of Homelessness and Recovery

In system dynamics, the regional homelessness crisis is conceptualized as a network of interconnected accumulations (stocks) governed by transition rates (flows)¹⁵.

The primary upstream stock consists of the distressed population: individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness and active, unregulated substance use disorders²⁷. The inflows to this stock are driven by exogenous economic evictions, untreated mental health crises, and the proliferation of synthetic opioids²⁷.

The dominant secular municipal responses—Housing First permanent supportive housing (PSH) and Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD)—function as specialized intermediate buffer stocks¹⁵. These programs successfully intercept the distressed population to mitigate acute biological hazards, reducing immediate mortality and street visibility¹⁵. However, because they rarely alter the internal state variables of the individual (such as resolving psychiatric pathology or achieving total neurochemical independence), individuals remain tethered to the state system. System dynamics modeling demonstrates that the outflow from these secular programs to true independence is severely restricted; for example, it requires approximately 7.8 years for existing adult PSH stock to completely turn over²⁷. The stock simply accumulates until municipal capacity is exhausted, leading to massive systemic bottlenecks²⁷.

A Gospel Rescue Mission, conversely, acts as an active, high-velocity processing stock. Individuals flow into the mission from the unsheltered stock. The dwell time (retention rate) within the mission is critical. During this delay, intensive programmatic flows (activities like the Genesis Process and vocational training) target the internal state variables of the individual. Because the GRM model focuses on holistic regeneration and vocational independence, the primary outflow from the GRM stock is directed toward a stable, self-sustaining downstream population stock, completely decoupled from the subsidized social safety net³⁶.

Mapping Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs): The Dynamics of the Genesis Process

The transformational mechanics of the GRM model can be precisely mapped using Causal Loop Diagrams, highlighting how the Genesis Process rewires human behavior.

The Vicious Cycle of Addiction (Reinforcing Loop): At both the micro-scale (neurobiological) and meso-scale (social), addiction operates as a powerful reinforcing feedback loop²⁵. Unresolved trauma or adverse childhood experiences lead to profound psychological pain, driving the individual toward substance use for self-medication. Substance use temporarily numbs the pain but causes severe neurochemical alterations, including dopamine depletion and incentive sensitization⁴¹. This loss of executive function drives destructive social behaviors, leading to job loss, criminal justice involvement, and severe isolation. This isolation generates further trauma, looping back to intensify the original psychological pain and accelerating the cycle of self-destruction²⁵.

The Virtuous Cycle of the Genesis Process (Balancing and Reinforcing Loops): The Genesis Process disrupts this vicious cycle by introducing new causal edges and feedback mechanisms. It provides participants with a neurochemical and biblical framework to recognize their subconscious triggers⁴⁴.

• The Balancing Loop: When an individual experiences a trigger (psychological pain), rather than flowing into substance use, the individual utilizes Genesis Process cognitive tools and relies on relational accountability within the mission. This mechanism successfully regulates the emotional state without chemical intervention, gradually restoring prefrontal executive control and breaking the dependence on the substance⁴¹.
• The Virtuous Reinforcing Loop: As executive control and sobriety increase, the individual can participate effectively in Integrated Work Therapy and redemptive social enterprises³⁶. Success in work therapy generates self-efficacy, restores dignity, and builds a new, healthy peer network. This newly formed sanctified community creates a positive peer contagion that drastically reduces feelings of isolation and trauma, fundamentally reversing the original vicious cycle and establishing a sustainable trajectory toward flourishing⁴¹.

Escaping the “Shifting the Burden” Archetype

A fundamental system dynamics analysis reveals that purely secular, symptomatic interventions frequently fall victim to the “Shifting the Burden” archetype⁷.

In this archetype, the severe visibility of unsheltered homelessness, emergency room overcrowding, and public overdose deaths creates massive political pressure for immediate relief³¹. The municipal response is a symptomatic fix: unconditional permanent housing or pharmacological buffering via methadone¹⁵. This quick fix successfully and rapidly reduces the immediate symptoms of street homelessness and acute withdrawal¹⁵. However, this symptomatic intervention diverts massive financial resources and political will away from fundamental, high-leverage solutions that require extended time horizons, behavioral friction, and deep relational investment⁷.

Over time, a devastating side effect emerges: the individual becomes entirely dependent on the state-subsidized buffer. System models indicate that when an individual loses access to MOUD or permanent supportive housing, mortality and relapse rates spike catastrophically, demonstrating that the intervention was a temporary external buffer rather than a fundamental internal cure⁴¹.

The holistic Gospel Rescue Mission model explicitly rejects the “Shifting the Burden” archetype. While missions provide the immediate symptomatic relief of a bed and a meal to ensure physical survival, they refuse to accept long-term buffering as the ultimate objective. The entirety of their programmatic design remains focused strictly on the fundamental solution: the total spiritual, psychological, and economic regeneration of the individual³⁶.

Systemic Leverage Points: Paradigm and Worldview Transformation

According to Donella Meadows’ hierarchy of systems interventions, attempting to solve the homelessness crisis by simply adjusting the parameters of the system—such as increasing funding for affordable housing units, optimizing Coordinated Entry algorithms, or altering the specific rules of a “Treatment First” model—constitutes a low-leverage intervention¹³. While mathematically necessary for managing immediate survival and system throughput, adjusting these physical stocks and flow rates cannot permanently alter the behavioral trajectory of a complex adaptive system.

The Gospel Rescue Mission achieves its disproportionate success by intervening at the absolute highest leverage points within the social system:

Meadows’ Leverage Point	Traditional Secular Intervention	The Gospel Rescue Mission Intervention
Level 3: The Goals of the System	Secular systems define their ultimate goal as biological stabilization and harm reduction41. Success is achieved if an individual is housed and alive, regardless of their ongoing chemical dependency or social isolation.	The GRM alters the overarching goal of the system to holistic human flourishing, vocational dignity, and relational reconciliation36. By elevating the goal, the GRM ensures all resources are directed toward true independence.
Level 2: The Mindset or Paradigm Out of Which the System Arises	Secular naturalism operates on a deterministic paradigm, viewing the individual as a chronic patient whose biology and housing status must be managed indefinitely by state apparatuses41.	The GRM operates on the paradigm of the Imago Dei. It assumes that despite severe trauma and chemical degradation, every individual possesses intrinsic divine value and the latent capacity for total moral and spiritual regeneration41.

When a program’s staff, curriculum, and community architecture operate from this elevated paradigm, it radically alters the interpersonal feedback loops. The individual experiencing homelessness is no longer treated as a socio-economic liability to be warehoused via “Housing First” mandates, but as a future neighbor, worker, and citizen to be restored³⁶.

Conclusion

As the nonprofit sector seeks to navigate increasingly entrenched and complex social crises, the exclusive reliance on linear logic models must be challenged. While logic models remain indispensable for defining operational inputs, establishing contractual clarity with federal and foundational funders, and tracking immediate programmatic deliverables, they are fundamentally inadequate for mapping the non-linear realities of trauma, homelessness, and addiction recovery.

Translating a logic model into the terminology and architecture of system dynamics—converting static activities into flow rates, outputs into accumulated stocks, and linear arrows into dynamic feedback loops—allows organizations to visualize the true mechanics of their interventions. The case study of the Gospel Rescue Mission movement perfectly illustrates this duality. A standard logic model successfully quantifies a mission’s capacity to deliver emergency beds, meals, and specialized curricula like the Genesis Process. However, it requires a system dynamics analysis to reveal why these programs achieve transformational results: they systematically avoid the “Shifting the Burden” archetype of secular buffering, they disrupt the neurobiological and social reinforcing feedback loops of addiction through relational discipleship, and they intervene at the highest systemic leverage points by transforming the fundamental paradigm of human identity. Ultimately, by integrating the operational clarity of a logic model with the strategic depth of a system dynamics framework, nonprofits can design interventions that move beyond managing societal symptoms to catalyzing profound, sustainable systemic change.

This report was generated by Google Gemini Deep Research using the prompt: “Research how nonprofit program logic models could be translated into the terminology of systems thinking and systems diagrams. Then use Gospel Rescue Mission programs as a case study where you explain their program using logic models and then translate into the terminology of systems thinking and systems diagrams.” It was reviewed by Dr. Andrew Sears for accuracy.  

Works cited

1. Chapter 2., Section 1. Developing a Logic Model or Theory of Change, https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/overview/models-for-community-health-and-development/logic-model-development/main
2. Theory of change vs logic model: complete comparison, https://toctoolkit.org/article/theory-of-change-vs-logic-model-complete-comparison/
3. Logic Model vs Theory of Change: Which Framework to Use, https://www.fundrobin.com/articles/how-to-guide/unlock-fundrobins-power/logic-model-vs-theory-of-change-strategic-guide/
4. Applications of Systems Thinking – Systems Thinking Framework, https://www.6sigma.us/systems-thinking/systems-thinking-framework/
5. Systems thinking and evaluation | Request PDF – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282266625_Systems_thinking_and_evaluation
6. the water of systems change | fsg, https://www.fsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Water-of-Systems-Change_rc.pdf
7. Systems Thinking Part 3 — Common Systemic Patterns – Medium, https://medium.com/better-systems/systems-thinking-part-3-system-archetypes-192b0b6ebd95
8. Systems Thinking for Social Changemakers by Preeti Varma, CPA, https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstreams/0c3682a0-6351-4801-9716-a25a5b85dd44/download
9. Systems Thinking For Social Change – System Dynamics Society, https://systemdynamics.org/product/systems-thinking-for-social-change/
10. Systems Thinking and Homelessness Policy in Ireland | PublicPolicy.ie, https://publicpolicy.ie/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Systems-Thinking-and-Homelessness-Policy-in-Ireland_-Bob-Jordan.pdf
11. Designing Initiative Evaluation, https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/5000521.pdf
12. Using logic models as agents of system thinking in service design, https://medium.com/@DrUrvashi.Sharma/using-logic-models-as-agents-of-system-thinking-in-service-design-e4175aba5633
13. (PDF) What Are Leverage Points and How Can We Find Them?, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329138506_What_Are_Leverage_Points_and_How_Can_We_Find_Them
14. Causal Loop Diagram – Tool/Concept/Definition – Thwink.org, https://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/CausalLoopDiagram.htm
15. Solving Homelessness from a Complex Systems Perspective – PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6445694/
16. Logic model – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_model
17. Logic models: Powerful tools to help you understand and … – TSNE, https://tsne.org/blog/logic-models-powerful-tools-to-help-you-understand-and-communicate-your-programs-impact/
18. The connection between logic models and systems thinking concepts, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333871457_The_connection_between_logic_models_and_systems_thinking_concepts
19. Leveraging Grantmaking: Understanding the Dynamics of Complex, https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context=tfr
20. Making the Case for Proactive Strategies to Alleviate Homelessness, https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/526
21. Using a System Dynamics Simulation Model to Identify Leverage, https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/11/3/163
22. Lecture B1 (2021-01-21): Introduction to Causal Loop Diagrams, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTv5nlv_zWw
23. Strategizing towards the future hospital: a systems thinking approach, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12107927/
24. Use of System Dynamics Modelling for Evidence-Based Decision, https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/11/5/247
25. Dynamics of Parental Opioid Use and Children’s Health and Well, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8275850/
26. Long drives and red tape: mapping rural veteran access to primary, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9396592/
27. System Dynamics of Housing First and Medications for Opioid Use, https://www.cityvision.edu/article/system-dynamics-of-housing-first-and-medications-for-opioid-use-disorder-stock-and-flow-quantifications-buffering-efficacy-and-archetypal-policy-feedback/
28. Solving Homelessness from a Complex Systems Perspective, https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013553
29. Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Housing First for Homeless People, https://kmb.camh.ca/eenet/sites/default/files/2018/Rochon_Hannah_EBOH_Thesis%20as%20submitted.pdf
30. Discovering Opportunities for Actions in Risky Places – DiVA Portal, https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1910039/FULLTEXT01.pdf
31. SYSTEM ANALYSIS & REDESIGN, https://www.mcad.edu/sites/default/files/2022-04/CindyShi_PIC_Final%20-%20Cindy%20Shi.pdf
32. Intervening in Complex Social Systems: Donella Meadows, https://www.cityvision.edu/article/intervening-in-complex-social-systems-donella-meadows-hierarchy-of-leverage-points-in-organizational-governance-worldview-transformation-and-missional-praxis/
33. Studying Social Innovation through Systems Thinking and, https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/dd64b4d3-ece5-450d-b305-c8695ba69456/download
34. Homelessness Ecosystem Analysis Phase 2 – Common Sense Institute, https://commonsenseinstituteus.org/colorado/research/housing-and-our-community/homelessness-ecosystem-analysis-phase-2/
35. The endogenous perspective: a friendly amendment, https://systemdynamics.org/the-endogenous-perspective-a-friendly-amendment/
36. Gospel Rescue Mission Reframing Report – City Vision University, https://www.cityvision.edu/article/gospel-rescue-mission-reframing-report/
37. Rehab Cost in Arizona — 2026 Treatment Cost Guide, https://clearcostrecovery.com/states/arizona/
38. Housing First: A Journey Towards Ending Homelessness in the U.S., https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=soe_student_ce
39. Catalyzing Bold Investments, https://collectiveimpactsv.org/catalyzing-bold-investments/
40. The Role of Housing: A Comparison of Front-Line Provider Views in, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3571623/
41. How Worldviews Shape Our Understanding of Causes & Solutions, https://rescuemissions.cityvision.edu/p/how-worldviews-shape-our-understanding
42. May 10, 2024 • Arizona Stadium • Tucson, https://commencement.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/COM24_Program.pdf
43. Rescuers radio show – Omny Studio, https://www.omnycontent.com/d/playlist/5e27a451-e6e6-4c51-aa03-a7370003783c/aadf4a32-6e11-4fb9-a8e4-abaa01236ef1/22be8611-b13a-41cf-be64-abaa0123c6e1/podcast.rss
44. Genesis Process – RescueMissionCurriculum.org, https://www.rescuemissioncurriculum.org/curriculum/genesis-process/
45. 5 reasons you should care about that hopeless drug addict, https://blog.uniongospelmission.org/stories/5-reasons-you-should-care-about-a-drug-addict
46. 2025 annual report – AZPM, https://media.azpm.org/master/document/2026/2/27/pdf/2025-transition-center-annual-report_with-attachments.pdf
47. An Industrial and Systems Engineering Approach to Addressing, https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=engineering-student
48. Mental Health & Homelessness: A Social Work Guide (2026), https://mastersinsocialworkonline.org/resources/homelessness/
49. Housing for vulnerable populations—identifying system cost, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371347885_Housing_for_vulnerable_populations-identifying_system_cost_implications_an_analytic_literature_review
50. Zooming Out and Zooming In: Studying Social Innovation Through, https://www.emerald.com/books/edited-volume/21248/chapter/109378398/Zooming-Out-and-Zooming-In-Studying-Social