How to Build a Theory of Change for a Grant

When It Matters

A theory of change describes how and why a desired change is expected to happen in a particular context. It runs from the key problem and its causes to the long-term change you want, and it says what has to happen along the way.

Funders increasingly ask applicants to show one. Some calls name it outright. Most do not. They ask instead what need or problem you are addressing, how you know the solution will work, which evidence-based practices you will use, and what will result. Those are theory of change questions in disguise, and your answers should hang together as one line of reasoning.

Funders want it because it tells the project story in a focused way, so your intentions are clear to them and to other stakeholders.

How It Works

Build the theory before you write it up. It is best done in a facilitated workshop where anyone can question anything, whatever their position in the organization. The steps:

Set a realistic, definite goal. This is the end point. If it is vague, the theory sprawls across every possible activity and stops helping you choose a strategy. If it is huge, no single organization can achieve or measure it. Aim for something concrete and potentially measurable.
Work backwards to intermediate outcomes. For each step, ask what has to happen for it to be achieved. Link preconditions in the order they must occur.
Test the links. Work out causes and effects, and ask whether each outcome really leads to the next. If an outcome statement needs the word "and", split it in two.
Match activities to outcomes. Decide which activities lead to which outcomes.
Ask what else is needed. What would completely derail this? The answers show what else must hold for the project to work.

Each outcome should name its target population, the amount of change that signals success, and the timeframe. The theory is most useful at design stage, but it can be used before, during and after an intervention.

Key Components

A definite goal. The end point of the whole chain.
A pathway of outcomes. Early, intermediate and long-term outcomes in the order they must occur. Some projects run several pathways at once, such as a quality learning environment, quality teaching and parent involvement all feeding one goal.
Activities tied to outcomes. Each activity should point to the outcome it produces.
Assumptions with evidence. Factors you cannot control, or choose not to, that could sink the project if they fail. They include context factors, unlikely risks, what the project will not do, and the work of other actors.
The "because". A few referenced reasons the pathway should work here.
How it differs from a logframe. A logic model takes a narrow, practical look at inputs and results, often as a table. A results framework (here called the logframe) covers only what the project team is responsible for. The theory of change takes the wider view and includes preconditions outside your control. It is not the logframe retold in prose.

Best Practices

Back assumptions with evidence. Unvoiced assumptions cause confusion later in operation and evaluation, so write them down, agree them, and support each one. Sources include assessment data, existing research, publications, past project evaluations and sector experts.

Focus the list on what is outside your control. Internal implementation assumptions can go into your implementation strategy instead. Keep the assumptions list mainly for external conditions. Any that must hold should also go into your monitoring system, and be revisited if monitoring suggests they are failing.

Keep the "because" short. Give a few compelling, referenced reasons, not everything you gathered.

Check the call for format and length. Funders may want a paragraph, a longer narrative, or a visual with a narrative. A theory of change is often a diagram, but it can also be a narrative. Use the words to explain what the logframe cannot show, especially where the logic rests on the biggest leaps of faith.

Run one logic through the whole proposal. The needs statement, program design and evaluation plan should tell the same causal story.

Cite research for your activities, and show your resources. Describe each activity, how it leads to outputs and outcomes, and the research behind it. Say what you already have and what the grant will develop or acquire.

Common Mistakes

An unclear or oversized goal. The theory balloons and no strategy follows from it. Pick an end point one organization can actually contribute to and measure.

Leaving assumptions unsaid. Unvoiced or presumed assumptions often cause confusion later in operation and evaluation. Name them, back them, and monitor them.

Restating the logframe as prose. A paragraph of activities and outputs repeats the table. Use the narrative for preconditions outside your control and the reasons the change should happen.

Treating the theory as a separate section. Keep the same logic from need to design to evaluation.

Example

This is an illustration, with invented details. A small community organization in rural Kenya is applying to improve children's reading. The call asks what the problem is, how the applicant knows the solution will work, and what will result.

The team sets its goal: children in one district read with confidence. Working backwards, three outcomes must happen: children have books in their home language, teachers use better methods for teaching reading, and parents encourage reading at home. Each links to activities, and each names who changes, how much, and by when.

The team then names two assumptions outside its control. First, school authorities will allow new materials into classrooms. The team would cite past evaluations of similar projects in the district or a conversation with local education staff. Second, parents will stay engaged through the school year. The team would cite its own community survey.

The proposal narrative then carries it in a short paragraph:

"If we supply books in the home language and train teachers in new reading methods, and if school authorities keep supporting the use of new materials and parents keep encouraging reading at home, then children's reading will improve, because existing research on teaching quality and material access points in that direction and our own assessment shows the gap in this district."

If the team also draws a diagram, it shows the flow. The narrative spends its words on the two leaps of faith, authorities and parents.

Theory of change for grant applications