What is Theory of Change?

Image credit: Sidney Harris

 
Theory of Change is essentially a comprehensive description and illustration of how and why a desired change
is expected to happen in a particular context. It is focused in particular on mapping out or “filling in” what has
been described as the “missing middle” between what a program or change initiative does (its activities or
interventions) and how these lead to desired goals being achieved. It does this by first identifying the desired
long-term goals and then works back from these to identify all the conditions (outcomes) that must be in place
(and how these related to one another causally) for the goals to occur. These are all mapped out in an
Outcomes Framework.

The Outcomes Framework then provides the basis for identifying what type of activity or intervention will lead to
the outcomes identified as preconditions for achieving the long-term goal. Through this approach the precise
link between activities and the achievement of the long-term goals are more fully understood. This leads to
better planning, in that activities are linked to a detailed understanding of how change actually happens. It also
leads to better evaluation, as it is possible to measure progress towards the achievement of longer-term goals
that goes beyond the identification of program outputs.
How Does Theory of Change Work?
TOC maps out your initiative through 6 stages:
1. Identifying long-term goals
2. Backwards mapping and connecting the preconditions or requirements necessary to achieve that goal
and explaining why these preconditions are necessary and sufficient.
3. Identifying your basic assumptions about the context.
4. Identifying the interventions that your initiative will perform to create your desired change.
5. Developing indicators to measure your outcomes to assess the performance of your initiative.
6. Writing a narrative to explain the logic of your initiative.
The TOC process hinges upon defining all of the necessary and sufficient conditions required to bring about a
given long term outcome. TOC uses backwards mapping requiring planners to think in backwards steps from
the long-term goal to the intermediate and then early-term changes that would be required to cause the desired
change. This creates a set of connected outcomes known as a “pathway of change”. A “pathway of change”
graphically represents the change process as it is understood by the initiative planners and is the skeleton
around which the other elements of the theory are developed.
During the process of creating the pathway of change, participants are required to articulate as many of their
assumptions about the change process as they can so that they can be examined and even tested to determine
if any key assumptions are hard to support (or even false). There are typically three important types of
assumptions to consider: (a) assertions about the connections between long term, intermediate and early
outcomes on the map; (b) substantiation for the claim that all of the important preconditions for success have
been identified; and (c) justifications supporting the links between program activities and the outcomes they are
expected to produce. A fourth type of assumption which outlines the contextual or environmental factors that will
support or hinder progress toward the realization of outcomes in the pathway of change is often an additional
important factor in illustrating the complete theory of change.
TOC approach to planning is designed to encourage very clearly defined outcomes at every step of the change
process. Users are required to specify a number of details about the nature of the desired change — including
specifics about the target population, the amount of change required to signal success, and the timeframe over
which such change is expected to occur. This attention to detail often helps both funders and grantees reassess
the feasibility of reaching goals that may have initially been vaguely defined, and in the end, promotes the
development of reasonable long-term outcome targets that are acceptable to all parties.
Identifying Long-term Goals
In the first stage of theory development, TOC participants discuss, agree on, and get specific about, the long-
term goal or goals. This can be done in a variety of ways, (see our facilitator’s guide), but the important thing is
to set a good, clear outcome. The quality of the rest of the theory hinges on doing this right!
Then, TOC participants start to design a simple map of the preconditions required to bring about the long-term
goal. Beginning the mapping process helps stakeholders to visualize and prioritize their goals as well as specify
what they expect to change and for which outcomes they want to be held accountable.
Stage 1: Identifying Goals and Outcomes

Commentary
For this example, the long-term outcome is the long-term employment of domestic
violence survivors at a livable wage. To achieve that goal, the program designers
identify three preconditions: survivors attain coping skills, survivors have
marketable skills in non-traditional jobs and survivors know and have appropriate
workplace behavior. The program designers identified these preconditions from their
experience and from research. To illustrate the logical importance of the three
preconditions, we use solid, arrowed lines to show that the preconditions MUST come
before the final long-term outcome.

Backwards Mapping and Connecting

Outcomes
After the first step of laying out the long-term goals and a simple change framework, comes a more detailed
stage of the mapping process. Building upon the initial framework, we continue to map backwards until we have
a framework that tells the story we think is appropriate for the purposes of planning. Sometimes, this will require
much more detail because stakeholders want to identify the “root” causes of the problem they hope to resolve.
In other cases, the map will illustrate three or four levels of change, which display a reasonable set of early and
intermediate steps toward the long term goal.
Because this work is challenging and most social change programs or broader initiatives have a lot of moving
parts, change frameworks usually go through many revisions. Outcomes are added, moved and deleted until a
map eventually emerges that tells a story the group can agree on. For the users, the debate is often the most
valuable component of TOC because they are now jointly defining the expectations, assumptions and features
of the change process. TOC participants are required to make explicit, and agree upon, the underlying logic of
the initiative improving which improves the productivity and accountability.
Commentary
For the Project Superwomen example, program designers asked themselves what women
would need if they were going to have long-term employment. Specifically, how would
the project’s participants achieve the three identified preconditions (coping
skills, marketable skills, and appropriate workplace behavior) to the ultimate
outcome? That required identifying what it would take for women to achieve coping
skills, job skills and knowledge of workplace behavior.

Drawing Connections
We continue illustrating how the long-term outcomes are linked to the intermediate ones. In stage 1, we
connected the final long-term outcome of employment at a livable wage to the three intermediate outcomes with
solid, arrowed lines, indicating that they are preconditions. This process holds for the intermediate outcomes as
well. For “Survivors know how to get help and deal with their issues” we use arrowed lines to show that the two
outcomes below it are direct preconditions of it.
Illustrating connections helps to spot-check the initiative’s logic as well as identifying where the initiative should
intervene. Following the logical path from outcome to proposed precondition often points out inconsistencies.
TOC participants are able to readjust their frameworks and drop or add outcomes as necessary. They also
understand when these outcomes will take place on their own or require an intervention by the initiative to make
it happen, such as a program activity.
Completing the Outcomes Framework

Commentary
To complete the framework the preconditions are fleshed out all the way back to the
initial condition—a coalition of organizations working to develop employment
programs for domestic violence survivors. Again explaining preconditions remains
important, hence for “Women enroll in program” the assumption:
The program cannot help all women and so entry into the program must
include screening so that women who have sufficient literacy and math
skills to take the training, and lives stable enough to attend classes
are admitted. The program does not have the resources to handle
providing basic skills or major social services.
Early on in the planning process, the group realized that they only had the resources
to provide assistance to women who had already begun to stabilize their own lives.
The program could take care of the temporary issues, such as emergency housing but
not something more permanent or serious, such as substance abuse.
Because of the relative simplicity of this framework, it seems as if the connections are all given. At this stage,
you might think: “If it’s below another outcome, then it must be a precondition. Why all the arrowed lines?” While
in this example, it is not difficult to organize preconditions, in more complex frameworks, boxes can be near
each other without a direct relationship, connections can be made across the framework, etc. For the clarity of
the framework, connections are irreplaceable.
Identifying Assumptions
As previously discussed, the program designers realized that the program could only effectively work with
women who had already begun to stabilize their lives. Any initiative is only as sound as its assumptions.
Unfortunately, these assumptions are too often unvoiced or presumed frequently leading to confusion and
misunderstanding in the operation and evaluation of the initiative. To address that problem, TOC documents
assumptions to ensure agreement for planning and posterity.
For the long-term outcome: “Long-term employment at livable wages for domestic violence survivors”,
these assumptions must be met for the outcome to be achievable:
A. There are jobs available in non-traditional skills for women.
B. Jobs in non-traditional areas of work for women, such as electrical, plumbing,
carpentry and building management are more likely to pay livable wages and are more
likely to be unionized and provide job security. Some of these jobs also provide a
ladder of upward mobility, from apprenticeship to master, giving entry-level
employees a career future.
These two assumptions make explicit why the participants believe this program can work: there are jobs in non-
traditional work and that those jobs can offer better financial and professional
For the outcome: “Survivors attain coping skills”, (which is also a precondition of the long-term
outcome): the assumption is:
C. Women who have been abused need more than just skills, they need to be emotionally
ready for work as well.
Again, this assumption clarifies why and how this program is different from traditional job-training programs, i.e.,
the special psychological supports needed for the initiative’s clients.
For the outcome: “Survivors have marketable skills in non-traditional jobs”, it is assumed that:
D. Women can learn non-traditional skills and compete in the marketplace.
This assumption is an article of faith that women can compete and succeed in this new
labor market.
Documenting assumptions and justifications is a continuous process. As outcomes are added and moved on
the framework, it remains necessary to question and explain how and why they are necessary.

Developing Indicators
The Indicators stage is when details are added to the change framework. This stage focuses on how to
measure the implementation and effectiveness of the initiative. By collecting data on each outcome, the initiative
can identify what it is or isn’t happening and find out why.
Each indicator has four parts: population, target, threshold and timeline. But you can forget the jargon. Simply
put, for each indicator you want to ask:
Who is changing? (women enrolled in the program)
How many do we expect will succeed? (perhaps 90% of the enrolled women)
How much is good enough? (a $12 per hour job for at least six months?)
By when does this outcome need to happen? (perhaps within two months of graduation)
 Indicator is the actual variable being measured, such as average test scores or proficiency in a
particular skill.
 Population is the group that you are measuring, such as a program’s clients.
 Threshold represents the minimum for the outcome to be successfully achieved. (E.g. the threshold for
a successful election between two candidates is 51% of the vote; if there were three or more candidates, the
threshold would be lower, because only a majority of the votes would be required to be successful.)
Here are some sample indicators for Project Superwomen:

Outcome 1: Long-term employment at a livable wage for domestic violence survivors

Indicator : Employment

Population: Program graduates

Threshold: Remain in job at least 6 months and earn at least $12 per hour

Outcome 2: Survivors have marketable skills in non-traditional jobs

Indicator : Skill in electrical, plumbing carpentry or building maintenance

Population: Program participants

Threshold: Successfully complete internship

Outcome 2: Survivors have marketable skills in non-traditional jobs

Indicator : Program graduation

Population: Program participants

Threshold: Do graduate (yes/no)

Outcome 3: Women attend training classes in non-traditional skills

Indicator : Attendance

Population: Program participants

 Threshold: Women miss no more than three classes

Identifying interventions
After laying out the near complete change framework, we now focus on the role of interventions (those things
that the program (or initiative) must do to bring about outcomes).
Interventions
At this stage, note that some arrows have solid lines while others are dashed. The solid lines represent
connections that will occur without the need for intervention. As long as the prior preconditions are met, these
outcomes will be met. We represent interventions, an initiative’s program activities, as arrows with dashed lines
for three reasons:
1. We believe the outcomes those arrows lead to will not occur at a sufficient level without an intervention.
2. They represent actions by the initiative and thus something that the initiative is responsible for
3. Because these outcomes are control variables, they need to be measured to evaluate the interventions’
effectiveness.
By identifying interventions, the stakeholders explain how their work is going to change the community. Until this
point, the change framework has been like a gumbo recipe without directions, a literal listing of intermediate
ingredients—roux, shrimp, onions, okra, etc. But until this point our “recipe” hasn’t explained explain how these
components are used and put together, i.e., how to make roux by browning flour in hot oil; when to add the
shrimp (previously peeled and cleaned), etc. The interventions explain what the stakeholders are going to do to
achieve their desired outcomes. Hence the first intervention (1), an outreach campaign, is of course necessary
to publicize the program. While this example seems obvious, the point is again to be clear about what the
stakeholders expect the initiative to do—something that is often taken for granted, but never clearly or
consistently expressed.
We also identify each intervention with boxed numbers. Often a dashed interventions arrow will have multiple
boxes because the outcome requires multiple activities for it to happen.
Spot Checking
At every stage of the TOC process, there is a need for stakeholders to question whether new revelations reveal
an inconsistency in their logic: Does specifying interventions highlight an important gap in the outcomes
framework? Do any of the assumptions suggest an additional change pathway (with additional early and
intermediate outcomes)? Stakeholders should ask themselves if what they are creating “makes sense” by
thinking about whether their map reflects a plausible theory, and whether the set of interventions are actually
feasible for them to implement, given the resources they have at their disposal.
 TOC Background
Theory of What?
Theory of Change is a rigorous yet participatory process whereby groups and project stakeholders identify the
conditions they believe have to unfold for their long-term goals to be met. These conditions are modeled as
outcomes, arranged graphically in a causal framework. The methodology used to create a Theory of Change is
also usually referred to as Theory of Change, or the Theory of Change approach. So, when you hear or say
“Theory of Change”, you may mean either the process or the product.
Like any good planning and evaluation method for social change, Theory of Change requires participants to be
clear on long-term goals, identify measurable indicators of success, and formulate actions to achieve goals. It is
distinct from any other method of describing initiatives in a few ways:
 it shows a causal pathway from here to there by specifying what is needed for goals to be achieved.
 it requires you to articulate underlying assumptions which can be tested and measured.
 it changes the way of thinking about initiatives from what you are doing to what you want to achieve and
starts there.
In developing theories of change we articulate the assumptions that stakeholders use to explain the change
process represented by the changeframework. Assumptions are at the basis of all the hypothesized causal
connections between early, intermediate, and long term outcomes, and the expectations. Practitioners also
make assumptions about how and why proposedinterventions will lead to the expected outcomes. Airing
assumptions is one of the most valuable parts of Theory of Change as a participatory process, as stakeholders
get to hear and challenge one another’s understanding of the goals, the challenges, and what must hold true in
the environment for the initiative to succeed. Assumptions may be supported by research, which strengthens
the plausibility of the theory and the likelihood that stated goals will be accomplished.

TOC Benefits
There are many processes that help organize the components of a project.
Almost any type of logic model will present your initiative in terms of resources, activities, short and long-term
outcomes. These are useful tools, and can help clarify goals and communicate the basics of how an initiative
works to others.
TOC takes theses approaches further: it requires more specificity about goals and about the conditions needed
to reach them. Therefore, it is hard work and results in a more useful guide for your work than other most other
processes. Here are some of the benefits of developing your Theory of Change:
When you have a complete Theory of Change, you will have:
 A clear and testable hypothesis about how change will occur that not only allows you to be accountable
for results, but also makes your results more credible because they were predicted to occur in a certain way
 A visual representation of the change you want to see in your community and how you expect it to come
about
 A blueprint for evaluation with measurable indicators of success identified
 An agreement among stakeholders about what defines success and what it takes to get there
 A powerful communication tool to capture the complexity of your initiative
You can use your theory:
 As a framework to check milestones and stay on course
 To document lessons learned about what really happens
 To keep the process of implementation and evaluation transparent, so everyone knows what is
happening and why
 As a basis for reports to funders, policymakers, boards

TOC Origins
It is difficult to trace precisely when the term “theory of change” was first used, but a hint at its origins can be
found in the considerable body of theoretical and applied development in the evaluation field, especially among
the work of people such as Huey Chen, Peter Rossi, Michael Quinn Patton, and Carol Weiss. These evaluation
theorists and practitioners, along with a host of others, have been focused on how to apply program theories to
evaluation for many decades.
The stream of work leading to the use of theories of change in evaluation can be traced back to the late 1950s
with Kirkpatrick’s ‘Four Levels of Learning Evaluation Model’. Further progress and evolution has included
Daniel Stufflebeam’s CIPP (context, input, processes and products) and the widely used logical frameworks
(logframes) or logical models which set out causal chains usually consisting of inputs, activities, outputs and
outcomes coupled to long-term goals.
Methods such as logframes were a significant advance, providing a framework through which the relationships
between a program’s components could be drawn out and articulated. However,  US writers such as Weiss,
Chen and Patton increasingly highlighted the challenges in evaluating complex social or community change
programs when it was not clear precisely what the programs had set out to do or how and therefore difficult to
evaluate whether or how they had achieved it (James, 2011).
One organisation which began to focus on these issues was the US based Aspen Institute and its Roundtable
on Community Change. The work of the Roundtable led to the publication in 1995 of New Approaches to
Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives. In that book, Carol Weiss, a member of the Roundtable’s
Steering Committee on Evaluation, hypothesized that a key reason complex programs are so difficult to
evaluate is that the assumptions that inspire them are poorly articulated. She argued that stakeholders of
complex community initiatives typically are unclear about how the change process will unfold and therefore give
little attention to the early and mid-term changes that need to happen in order for a longer term goal to be
reached. The lack of clarity about the “mini-steps” that must be taken to reach a long term outcome not only
makes the task of evaluating a complex initiative challenging, but reduces the likelihood that all of the important
factors related to the long term goal will be addressed (Weiss, 1995).
Weiss popularized the term “Theory of Change” as a way to describe the set of assumptions that explain both
the mini-steps that lead to the long-term goal and the connections between program activities and outcomes
that occur at each step of the way. She challenged designers of complex community-based initiatives to be
specific about the theories of change guiding their work and suggested that doing so would improve their overall
evaluation plans and would strengthen their ability to claim credit for outcomes that were predicted in their
theory. She called for the use of an approach that at first blush seems like common sense: lay out the sequence
of outcomes that are expected to occur as the result of an intervention, and plan an evaluation strategy around
tracking whether these expected outcomes are actually produced.
Since the publication of Weiss’s book, the use of planning and evaluation using theories of change has
increased exponentially among philanthropies, government agencies, international NGOs, the UN and many
other major organizations in both developed and developing countries. This has led to new areas of work, such
as linking the theory of change approach to systems thinking and complexity. Change processes are no longer
seen as linear, but as having many feedback loops that need to be understood. Theories of change are
strengthening monitoring, evaluation and learning. They are also helping to understand and assess impact in
hard to measure areas, such as governance, capacity strengthening and institutional development. Innovations
continue to emerge.
Despite the growing ubiquity of theory of change however, especially in the development arena, understanding
of the approach and the methods necessary to implement it effectively are not uniform. In fact, there is evidence
of some confusion about what the term ‘theory of change’ actually means and in some cases what some
program developers describe as theories of change are in essence simply log frames or other approaches that
do not encompass the complexity of the theory of change approach.
In this context, ActKnowledge, a social enterprise based in New York City, has been one of the pioneers in the
conceptual development of Theory of Change and in developing various guides and supports necessary for the
implementation of the Theory of Change approach to an agreed standard. This has included the development of
Theory of Change On-line (TOCO), a tailor made software tool. Other important conceptual work included
recent work by Sue Funnell and Patricia Rogers (2011) and guides by organisations such as GrantCraft.
References and Resources
ActKnowledge (2003). Tips and Challenges on Team Building with Theory of Change.
Funnell, Sue C and Particia J Rogers (2011). Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change
and Logic Models.
Grantcraft (2006). Mapping Change: Using a Theory of Change To Guide Planning and Evaluation.
James, Cathy (2011). Theory of Change Review: Report Commissioned by Comic
Relief. http://mande.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2012-Comic-Relief-Theory-of-Change-Review-
FINAL.pdf
Organizational Research Services (2004). Theory of Change: A Practical Tool For Action, Results and Learning
Prepared for the Annie Casey Foundation. http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/cc2977k440.pdf
Weiss, Carol (1995). Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for
Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families in ‘New Approaches to Evaluating Community
Initiatives’. Aspen Institute.
WK Kellogg Foundation 2004. Logic Model Development Guide. WK Kellogg Foundation.
Michigan. http://www.wkkf.org/knowledge-center/resources/2010/Logic-Model-Development-Guide.aspx
Taplin, Dana, Heléne Clark, Eoin Collins and David L. Colby (2013). Theory of Change Technical Papers: A
Series of Papers to support Development of Theories of change Based on Practice in the Field. ActKnowledge:
New York.
Theory of Change tools and training materials are available on the Theory of Change website, a joint venture
between the Roundtable and ActKnowledge: www.theoryofchange.org.
When to Use
COMPONENTS OF AN INITIAIVE ROLE OF THEORY OF CHANGE THINKING AND STEPS

Identify Problem Before TOC begins.

Convene Key People to

Before TOC begins.
Address Problem

Conduct Research in
Can occur before having a clear theory, and revisited when new questions emerge as a
Community to Better
result of the TOC process.
Understand the Problem

Where TOC really begins, in establishing consensus around well-defined long-term

Set Initial Goals
goals.

Based on knowledge of initial participants, but in creating the theory it often become
Enlarge Stakeholder Group
clear that other people need to be at the table.

As part of TOC, stakeholders are asked to be clear and explicit about their beliefs, goals,
Team Building and Forging
and assumptions. The process of discussion around these issues helps let everyone
Collaboration
know where everyone stands and helps to build trust.

The TOC process includes steps to elicit a conceptually tight, highly-detailed explanation
Begin Planning an Initiative
for what changes need to occur and their relation to one another.

Use your change framework and narrative to demonstrate to funders that your
Raise Funds initiative is well thought out, practical, and measurable and that you have a process in
place to be accountable for results.

The theory developed during the initial planning phase identified interventions and
strategies needed, and also identified how much change you are expecting. These two
Develop an Action Plan
things provide the basis for deciding which specific actions will bring about the
expected degree of change.

Your theory of change is the blueprint for evaluation. It identifies indicators of success
Develop an Evaluation Plan and specifies the details of who is expected to change and how much. This is the basis
for developing the methodologies to measure the indicators.

Your theory of change is a dynamic, living set of ideas which should guide
Implementation
implementation and provide a framework for checking that the initiative stays on track.

Because your theory of change is a living, dynamic set of ideas, you can make changes
Revise Plans (Mid-Course
to it as you learn from your experiences. A TOC helps guide decisions about how to
Corrections)
make adjustments by clearly showing the relationship between outcomes.

Your theory of change is the framework against which the success and obstacles of your
initiative will be evaluated. Because you will have articulated all the assumptions,
Evaluation
justification, and contextual conditions you believe affect your likelihood of success,
lessons about how these change, expand, or prove correct will be evident.

Reporting to Funders, Boards, Again, your theory of change provides the basis against which you can report your
the Community, etc. successes, setback and lessons, and your evaluation results.

While a good theory of change is critical for planning and evaluation, it is also a
Dissemination of Results to a
powerful communication tool because you can capture the complexity of your initiative
Wider Audience
in a form that is understandable to others.

Being specific about what made your initiative successful, and how much change, or
Influencing Policymakers success can be expected under given conditions and actions is what policymakers need
Glossary
The following list is a work in progress of the terms we use and how and when we use them. The actual terms
are only important to ensure consistent usage. This guide is intended to help you develop your own way of
talking about your initiative’s theory, or to clarify the terms we use so you can use them more effectively. Not
surprisingly, these terms are usually best understood in action, so please read our guided example to see how
these terms and TOC can be applied to your initiative.
We welcome any comments about additional terms to add, or further clarification needed.
[A – M] [N – Z]

Assumption
Conditions or resources that your group believes are needed for the success of your program, and that you
believe already exist and will not be problematic. An assumption like a precondition is a condition that is
necessary for your program’s success. Unlike a precondition, it already is in place and does not need to be
brought about. When your group states your assumptions, it is a good time to take into account the various
conditions that your program’s success will rely on. Assumptions are crucial because if they are incorrect it can
completely alter how your program works.

Backwards Mapping
The process of beginning with your long-term goal and working “backwards” toward the earliest changes that
need to occur. This is the opposite of how we usually think about planning, because it starts with asking
“what preconditions must exists for the long-term outcome to be reached?” rather than starting with the
question: “What can we do to bring the outcome about?” a questions that comes later.

Change Framework
The illustration of your theory. This is a graphic representation of your outcomes and pathways, with
interventions, assumptions and justifications keyed to the diagram.

Core Planning Group

The team of stakeholders who will be responsible for development of the theory. This group should know
development of the theory. This group should know the process, plan and facilitate meetings, summarize and
represent the information produced at the meetings so it can be brought back to the larger group, and ensure
that all the components of the theory are completed and solid. This is too much work for one person, so we
recommend that a team of 2-4 people who act as “guardians” of the process.

Facilitator
The person who runs the meetings. We strongly recommend at least two facilitators at each meeting, since a lot
has to be taken down. The facilitator(s) is responsible for asking the right questions to make sure that all the
pieces of the theory are articulated.

Indicator
Measurable evidence of meeting a goal. Indicators are visible signs, (e.g. reading scores, attendance) that
demonstrate that the outcomes are achieved. Often, indicators can be counted (quantitative), but sometimes
evidence will be something more descriptive (qualitative). Each indicator needs to have four
components: population, target, threshold and timeline. These answer the questions: Who or what is to
reach this goal? (population) How many of that group do we need to have reach the goal? (target) What level
needs to reached — how good is good enough?) (threshold) By when does this goal need to be reached?
(timeline)

Interaction
Sometimes the achievement of two (or more) outcomes at the same level will have an impact on each other.
For example, if parents being motivated to read to their children and parents being literate are
both preconditions required for parents to read to their children more, there may also be an interaction in that
as parents become more motivated to read they may also undertake to become more literate, or as parents
take literacy classes, they may see the value of reading and become more motivated. In the theory, we
represent this graphically with a sideways arrow.

Intervention
The things your program or group of stakeholders will undertake to bring about outcomes. Sometimes people
use the term strategy or activity. We use strategy to describe the overall focus of the initiative, and activity to
describe all the specific actions that make up an intervention. So, for example, an intervention might be “hold
literacy classes” and the various activities needed to make that happen would be things like identifying space
and teachers, choosing a curriculum, screening students, etc. We indicate where an intervention is needed to
bring about an outcome with a dashed arrow leading from one outcome to another.

Justification
Statements about why we expect one set of outcomes to lead to another. Why are
the preconditions necessary for the outcome to be achieved? Justifications are often based on research, but
may also come from past experience, common sense, or knowledge of the specific context.

Long-Term Outcome
The goal you want to reach which is the purpose of your program; for example, academic achievement for
youth, or employment for a certain group. All other outcomes on your framework are preconditions to this
outcome.

Narrative
A summary of your theory that explains the pathways of change, highlights some of your
major assumptions, justifications and interventions, and presents a compelling case as to how and why
your initiative expects to make a difference. The narrative may also contain some information that is additional
to what is in your theory, such as your overall vision, the history of how your initiative came to be, and some
community context. The purpose of the narrative is twofold: (1) to convey the major elements of your theory
easily and quickly to others; (2) to better understand how the elements of the theory work as a whole. We
usually recommend that narrative shouldnât be more than one or two pages.
Outcome
An outcome is a state, or condition, that must exist for your initiative to work and does not currently exist. An
outcome may represent a change in a group of people, organizations, or places. Outcomes are the building
blocks of your Theory of Change. Except for the long-term outcome, all outcomes on your change framework
are also preconditions which are necessary for other outcomes.

Outcome Framework
The visual depiction of the pathway of outcomes, in which they are placed in sequence showing which
outcomes are preconditions of other outcomes. This is the first component you will complete in developing
your theory.

Pathway
The sequence outcomes must occur in order to reach your long-term goal. Most initiatives have multiple
pathways which lead to the long-term goal.

Population
The entity (some common examples are groups of people, organizations or places) your initiative seeks to have
an impact on, e.g. students in a certain school, parents, residents of a certain neighborhood. This is one
component of an indicator.

Precondition
All outcomes, except the long-term outcome, are also preconditions. They are called preconditions because
they are conditions that must exist in order for the next outcome in the pathway to be achieved. You can think of
them as precursors because they must be achieved before the next outcome in the pathway, and as
requirements for the accomplishment of the next outcome.

Scope
The extent to which your theory attempts to account for all the factors necessary to reach your long-term
outcome. Different scopes are appropriate for different purposes. In general, each group must decide the
“breadth” of its scope — how many of all the possible pathways for change will you identify, and the “depth” of
its scope — how many levels of preconditions will your pathway have which shows all the steps to reach the
goal.

Target
How many of your population you expect will change based on your initiative. For example, do you expect 80%
of students in a school to improve in some way? Or do you expect to find jobs for 100 residents? As with all
components of indicators, your target for your long-term outcome should be set by combining your vision for
change with a realistic assessment of your resources. Targets for all other outcomes should be based on how
many people need to change in order for it to be enough for the next outcome in the pathway to occur. For
example, if only 20 people take a literacy class, would you be able to raise overall literacy rates in your
community by the amount you want?
Theory of Change
A theory of change defines all building blocks required to bring about a given long-term goal. This set of
connected building blocks — interchangeably referred to as outcomes, results, accomplishments, or
preconditions — is depicted on a map known as a pathway of change/change framework, which is a graphic
representation of the change process.

Threshold
How much does your target group need to change? Simply put, “how good is good enough”? For example, if
students improve reading scores by one grade, is that sufficient? Or how many sessions must participants
attend of a class or workshop to attain the skill being taught? Again, as with the target and timeline, how much
change is determined by how much you believe is needed to reach the next outcome.

Timeline
By when does the outcome need to be reached at the level (threshold) and for the number of people you have
specified? The timeline for reaching any given outcome depends on the timeline for reaching the outcomes
above and below it on the pathway. So, for example, if residents will not have completed a literacy class until
the end of the year, it is unrealistic to expect to see an increase in literacy rates in a shorter timeline. Likewise, if
the long-term outcome is that parents read to their children within three years, you can work backwards to
determine by when they need to have increased literacy and motivation.

Ultimate Outcome
Often, a group has a vision of change which is beyond, or grander, than they can achieve through the initiative,
but they believe the initiative contributes to this vision. When that is the case, we put a dotted line above
the long-term outcome (e.g. stable employment) and have an ultimate goal (e.g. end of poverty in the
community). Your group will not hold itself accountable for this goal, but may like to keep it visible as a reminder
of your vision for the community and what you hope your project contributes to, beyond the concrete goal you
will hold yourself accountable for.