The Erasmus+ logical framework — often called the logframe — is one of the most misunderstood parts of the application form. Many applicants either skip it, fill it in as an afterthought, or treat it as a simple summary of activities. All three approaches cost points.
Done correctly, the logframe is one of the most powerful tools in your proposal. It forces you to think clearly about the logic of your project — and it gives evaluators an instant, structured view of whether your objectives, activities and outcomes actually connect. This guide explains what it is, why it matters, and how to fill it in correctly for Erasmus+ KA210 and KA220 applications.
|
30
Points available for Relevance — the criterion your logframe directly supports
|
4
Levels every Erasmus+ logframe must address
|
4
Columns in a complete logframe matrix
|
85+
Score needed to be competitive — a strong logframe is essential to get there
|
📋 In This Guide
1. What Is the Erasmus+ Logical Framework?
The logical framework is a structured matrix that maps the logic of your project in a single table. It shows evaluators how your project’s activities lead to outputs, how outputs lead to outcomes, and how outcomes contribute to the overall goal — and what evidence you will use to prove it happened.
In Erasmus+ KA210 and KA220 applications, the logframe is not always a separate required document — but the underlying logic it represents runs through the entire application form. When evaluators score your proposal on Relevance and Quality of Project Design, they are essentially checking whether your logframe logic holds up. Organisations that build the logframe first and use it as a writing guide consistently produce stronger, more coherent proposals.
💡 How to Use This
Build your logframe before you start writing the application form sections. Use it as your internal planning document — then let it guide what you write in Context & Rationale, Objectives, Work Plan, and Impact sections.
2. The Four Levels of the Logframe
A logframe is read from bottom to top — activities are at the bottom and the overall goal is at the top. Each level feeds into the one above it. Think of it as an “if-then” chain: if we carry out these activities, then we will produce these outputs; if we produce these outputs, then we will achieve this outcome.
| Level | Erasmus+ Term | What It Means | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 (top) | Overall Goal / Impact | The long-term societal change your project contributes to. Your project alone cannot achieve this — it contributes to it. | Improved digital inclusion of youth across Europe |
| Level 2 | Specific Objective / Outcome | The change your project directly achieves by the end of the project period. This is what you are accountable for. | Youth workers in 3 countries have improved digital facilitation competencies |
| Level 3 | Outputs / Results | The concrete deliverables your project produces — training programmes, toolkits, reports, events, platforms. | 1 digital competence training programme; 1 open-access toolkit; 3 transnational workshops |
| Level 4 (bottom) | Activities | The specific tasks your consortium carries out to produce the outputs. These map directly to your work plan and budget. | Needs assessment; curriculum development; pilot training; evaluation; dissemination events |
3. The Four Columns: What Goes in Each One
Each row in the logframe matrix has four columns. Together they answer the same question at every level: what will change, how will we measure it, how will we prove it, and what do we assume?
| Column | What to Write | Common Mistake |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative Summary | A concise description of the goal, outcome, output or activity at each level | Writing vague statements like “improve skills” instead of naming who benefits and what specifically changes |
| Indicators (OVIs) | Measurable, specific signals that prove each level has been achieved — include quantity, quality, target group and timeframe | Using unmeasurable indicators like “participants will be satisfied” — evaluators cannot verify this |
| Means of Verification | The data sources or documents that will prove your indicators have been met — surveys, reports, attendance lists, published outputs | Listing generic sources like “project reports” without specifying what data they will contain |
| Assumptions | External conditions outside your control that must hold true for your project logic to work — be honest and specific | Writing blanket disclaimers like “political stability” — name the specific assumptions relevant to your project context |
4. Ready-to-Use Logframe Template with Example
Below is a complete logframe example for a fictional KA220 project on digital competence for youth workers. Use it as a structural template — replace the content with your own project details, keeping the same logic and format.
| Level | Narrative Summary | Indicators (OVIs) | Means of Verification | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Goal | Improved digital inclusion and participation of young people across partner countries | Increase in digital literacy rates in target regions (Eurostat Digital Economy Index, 3 years post-project) | Eurostat reports; national digital strategy reviews | EU digital policy priorities remain stable; demand for digital youth work continues to grow |
| Specific Objective | Youth workers in Greece, Portugal and Poland demonstrate measurably improved digital facilitation competencies by project end | 80% of 60 trained youth workers score ≥70% on post-training competency assessment; 3 organisations formally adopt new digital methods | Pre/post competency assessments; partner self-evaluation reports; institutional adoption declarations | Youth workers are able to participate in transnational training; partner organisations maintain commitment throughout project |
| Output 1 | 1 validated digital competence training programme for youth workers (open access, available in 3 languages) | Programme published by Month 18; minimum 200 downloads in first 6 months post-publication | Programme hosted on project website; download analytics report | Translation quality is maintained; target users have internet access |
| Output 2 | 3 transnational pilot workshops delivered (1 per country), training 60 youth workers | 3 workshops completed by Month 22; minimum 20 participants per workshop; ≥80% satisfaction rate | Attendance lists; post-workshop satisfaction surveys; workshop reports | Venue availability; participant travel is feasible; no major public health restrictions |
| Activities | 1.1 Needs assessment survey · 1.2 Curriculum design · 1.3 Peer review · 1.4 Translation · 2.1 Workshop planning · 2.2 Pilot delivery · 2.3 Evaluation | All activities completed within timeline; budget spent as planned | Progress reports; financial statements; meeting minutes | Partners have sufficient staff capacity; key personnel do not leave during project |
✅ Free Logframe Draft Available
GrowthProjects.eu can draft the logframe for your specific project as part of the Full Proposal Development service, or as a standalone Project Concept Structuring (€95).
5. The Most Common Logframe Mistakes
These are the errors that appear most frequently in proposals that score below 75 points on Relevance and Quality of Design.
Confusing outputs with outcomes. An output is something you produce — a training module, a report, a platform. An outcome is a change that results from that output — improved skills, changed behaviour, new institutional practice. Many applicants describe outputs when evaluators are looking for outcomes at the Specific Objective level.
Unmeasurable indicators. “Participants will have better skills” is not an indicator. A strong indicator names a quantity, a quality standard, a target group and a timeframe: “80% of 60 participants score ≥70% on the post-training assessment by Month 22.”
Activities that don’t connect to outputs. Every activity must produce something. If you cannot identify which output an activity contributes to, either the activity is unnecessary or you are missing an output.
Generic assumptions. Writing “political stability” or “partner commitment” as assumptions without any project-specific context signals to evaluators that the logframe was filled in quickly, not thought through carefully.
Logframe and work plan don’t match. Evaluators cross-check your logframe activities against your work plan timeline and budget. Inconsistencies — an activity in the logframe not appearing in the budget, or vice versa — are automatic point deductions.
6. Practical Tips for Scoring Higher
Write the logframe before the application form. Use it as your planning blueprint. Every section of the form — Context, Objectives, Work Plan, Impact — should reflect the logic you have established in the logframe.
Use the “if-then” test. Read your logframe bottom to top: if we carry out these activities, then we will produce these outputs; if we produce these outputs, then we will achieve this outcome. If any link in that chain feels weak, fix it before writing the form.
Keep indicators SMART. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound. Aim for 1–2 strong indicators per level rather than a long list of weak ones.
Cross-check against the budget. Every activity in the logframe must have a corresponding budget line. Run this check before submitting — it is one of the fastest ways to catch inconsistencies that cost points.
Align your Overall Goal with an EU priority. The goal level of your logframe is where you connect your project to the broader Erasmus+ programme priorities — digital transformation, inclusion, green transition. Name the priority explicitly rather than paraphrasing it.
Need Help Structuring Your Erasmus+ Project?
GrowthProjects.eu can build your logframe, structure your concept, and develop your full proposal. Over 32 funded projects across 18 countries.
✅ Not Sure If You Qualify?
Check your Erasmus+ eligibility for free — takes 2 minutes, no sign-up required.
