Theory of Change needs better practice, not better diagrams: creating the conditions for useful Theory of Change

Executive Summary 

Theory of Change as a concept and tool is valued. But the way it is often commissioned,  facilitated, documented and then forgotten is not always optimal. This paper draws on a small survey (N=111) shared through my professional network, with responses from people working across evaluation, charities, funders, consultancy, academia and public sector organisations. It combines headline quantitative findings with open-text reflections and my own practice experience of developing, using and revisiting Theories of Change over more than two decades. 

Theory of Change is valued: 92% of respondents describe ToC processes as useful and 98%  agreed that the conversation or process of developing a ToC is valuable. But this sits alongside more complicated and nuanced findings about what ToC “useful” means. The final product or diagram was seen as less valuable than the process itself and 79% said it is often or sometimes not used afterwards. 

The data suggests that some of the most important value of ToC sits in the thinking and stakeholder alignment created through the process. 

Three findings stand out to me.  

o First, ToC creates relational value in the process itself: protected time to think together, clarify language, build shared confidence and talk about the big questions that busy organisations rarely make space for. 

o Secondly, there is a participation gap. Nearly everyone said the right mix of people matters in the process of building a ToC, yet many also reported that the right people are not always included and that power dynamics are not always handled well. 

o Thirdly, “use” is more complicated than whether people open the diagram again.  The final product is often not used afterwards, but it is not always clear whether this should be treated as failure. A more useful question may be whether the thinking generated through the process travels into decisions, learning and practice. 

This paper argues that we need to make Theory of Change processes better and lean into its relational value. That means spending more energy on creating the conditions that make the process useful. These conditions include the right people involved, the right knowledge taken  seriously, enough time and safety to think, space to challenge and routes for the theory to  influence decisions and learning afterwards.

1.1 Background 

1.1.1 Why this paper and why now? 

Practice observation: I have worked with Theory of Change for more than 20 years as a  researcher, evaluator, facilitator, learning partner and consultant. I have seen ToC processes  help people make sense of complex work, find common language, test assumptions and  build confidence. I have also seen them become overcomplicated, shaped too heavily by  funder requirements, lead by external consultant ideas or reduced to a diagram that is  published and then ignored.

Theory of Change (ToC) has become part of the everyday infrastructure of social change work.  It appears in funding applications, evaluation plans, strategic reviews, learning partnerships,  service design processes and impact reports. It is expected by funders, used by evaluators,  requested by boards and often produced by programme teams. Because it is now so common,  the quality of ToC practice matters. 

The questions I set out to answer are a) are ToCs useful and b) whether we are creating the best possible conditions for ToC processes. By conditions, I mean who is involved, whose  knowledge counts, who has time and safety to think and contribute, who can challenge, who  can influence the final theory and whether missing voices are actively sought.  

1.1.2 About the survey 

The ‘Experience of Theory of Change in Practice’ survey was shared through my (Emma  Roberts) professional network in 2026. It is a snapshot of how people who encounter, develop,  facilitate, commission or use ToCs experience them in real settings. 

In total, 111 people responded. The sample was weighted towards people who encounter ToC in their work: the largest sector groups were consultancy/freelance respondents (35%) and charity/voluntary and community sector respondents (32%). The largest role groups were  consultants, evaluators or facilitators (36%) and monitoring, evaluation and learning leads 

(31%). Just over half said they use Theory of Change regularly in their work (52%). The findings therefore reflect the views of people who are relatively close to ToC development and use. Segment comparisons should be treated as directional rather than definitive, especially where comparison groups are small. 

1.2 Key findings 

1.2.1 Key Finding 1: ToC is valued and useful 

Most respondents were positive about Theory of Change and found it useful (92%, 89/97), and almost all agreed that the conversation or process of developing a ToC is valuable (98%, 94/96).  That suggests the value is in the shared thinking the process creates.

What people appear to value is the clarity, confidence, shared language, alignment, reflection and evaluation planning that a good ToC process can support.  

Figure 1. Theory of Change is valued overall, but the final diagram/product is valued less strongly than the process itself. 

Finding	Share of respondents	%
ToC processes are useful	██████████████████	92%
Conversation/process is   valuable	████████████████████	98%
Final diagram/product is  valuable	████████████	68%

This means we should be careful about how we judge a successful ToC. A good ToC process may shift how people understand the programme, service or organisation. It can help people find common language, notice assumptions, challenge each other constructively and prioritise what matters most. 

1.2.2 Key Finding 2: The main value of ToC is relational  

As Figure 1 shows, almost all respondents valued the conversation or process of developing a  ToC (98%), while the final diagram or written product was seen as less valuable (68%). This suggests that some of the most important value may be created through the process itself, including the shared thinking, clearer language, surfaced assumptions, alignment and confidence that people take back into their work. 

Practice observation: One of the things I often hear after facilitating a ToC process is how  rare it is, in busy organisations, for people to have protected time to step back and talk  together about the big questions: what change people are trying to create, why do we think  this work will lead to that change and what are we assuming? People value that space and  being taken through that process. In that sense, some of the value of ToC may be immediate  and relational. The value seems to be less about something that shows up later through a  document or diagram being regularly used.

With this in mind, we might want to consider what we mean by people “using” ToC in their work. For example, it may not always mean opening the diagram again. Sometimes the process has done its work because people now carry the theory in how they talk and make sense of the work. This might mean we should be careful about treating repeated reference to the diagram as the only sign of value. 

If the process is where most of the value sits, then we should stop treating facilitation as a prelude to the ‘real’ output. The workshop, conversation and careful thinking are not just routes to the ToC. They are the ToC.

1.2.3 Key Finding 3: Clarity is the dominant reason that teams/organisations  develop ToCs 

The most commonly selected reason for developing a Theory of Change was to clarify what a programme, strategy or organisation is trying to achieve. More than three-quarters of respondents selected this (77%). 

Figure 2: Reasons people develop a ToC 

This challenges an assumption I had going into this research. I had assumed that many teams and organisations were only going through a ToC process because funders asked for one. But it is not the whole story. Across the full sample, the most common reason for developing a  ToC was still clarity about what a programme, strategy or organisation is trying to achieve.  People working with ToC also use it because the work is hard to describe and evaluate. In complex social programmes, people often need a shared account of what they are trying to  change before they can make good decisions about delivery, measurement or learning. 

Practice observation: Something I have noticed in my own facilitation practice is that  clarity often comes from grounding the discussion in real life. Visualisation exercises can  help: asking people to picture a person, household or community affected by the work, then  describe what would be different if the programme, strategy or intervention really made a  difference. This keeps the theory connected to reality, rather than letting it drift into  organisational language.  

Good ToC facilitation also involves gently challenging jargon. I often ask people to say what  they mean in plain English, or to use “I” statements: “I think this matters because...” or “I  believe this change happens when...” That shift can make abstract concepts more honest  and grounded. It also helps people notice where they agree, where they are guessing and  where they are using familiar words without shared meaning.

1.2.4 Key Finding 4: There is a participation gap  

Participation is strongly endorsed as part of good Theory of Change practice. Figure 3 shows that the right mix of people (99% of respondents) and careful handling of power (95%) are often seen as core to a good ToC process . 

Figure 3: High levels of exclusion have been e

xperienced in ToC processes  

The survey shows a gap between principle and practice. Almost all respondents said that having the right mix of people involved matters when a ToC works well, and views on handling power carefully were also deemed important. But that commitment is not always reflected in how ToC processes happen. 

As Figure 3 shows, most respondents said the process does not always include the right people  (85%) and many said power dynamics are often or sometimes not addressed (77%). This matters because participation affects the quality of the theory itself. If the right voices are missing, a ToC may still look coherent, but it is less likely to reflect the full reality of the work,  its assumptions, barriers and change process. 

Practice observation: I’ve noticed that the people most often missing from ToC processes  are the people services (or programmes) are intended for. Their absence can leave a theory  looking coherent while missing important truths about barriers, trust, relevance and  exclusion. Well-facilitated spaces also need different ways of taking part. Not everyone  thinks best in a whole-group discussion, and the loudest voices are not always the most  useful ones. Simple structures such as individual reflection and paired discussion can make  a difference. They give people time to think before they speak and they make it harder for  one perspective to dominate too quickly.

Practice observation: I am interested in what a more anti-oppressive approach to Theory  of Change could look like in practice. Anti-oppressive practice is usually understood as  noticing the impact of power, inequality and oppression on people and actively working  against those barriers. For ToC work, that would mean starting with the people furthest away from access and power, rather than starting only with the people who are already engaged,  already known to the organisation or already comfortable in its language and systems. This is something I have touched on in my own practice, and would like to do more of. I  would also like to see it become a more mainstream part of ToC practice. In particular, I think  we need better ways of involving people with lived experience who do not currently access  services or support. Their views may unsettle some of the assumptions that sit behind a  theory: that this service is the right route, that the organisation is trusted, that existing activities are relevant, or that the programme is the only or best way change could happen. This is one of the most useful prompts an anti-oppressive ToC process can offer. An anti oppressive approach to ToC would allow us to centre what we might be assuming about  power, access and trust. And it encourages us to design ToC processes that more humble  and less attached to proving that the current service or organisation is already the answer.

The participation gap may also reflect how ToC is framed at the outset. The survey suggests that listening to communities or people with lived experience is much less commonly seen as a reason for developing a ToC than clarity, evaluation planning or alignment. If participation is not regarded as part of the purpose of the process, it is less likely to shape who is invited or whose knowledge influences the final theory. 

1.2.5 Key Finding 5: Facilitation quality determines whether a ToC is collective 

The survey points to a facilitation and power-related practice gap. Just over three-quarters  (77%) of respondents said power dynamics are often or sometimes not addressed in ToC processes, while 94% rated careful handling of power dynamics as important. People recognise power as important in the process, but practice is not consistently matching that recognition. 

This matters because ToC processes can become overly consultant-led and formulaic. At their weakest, consultants do some limited engagement, go away and squirrel behind closed doors and then return with a polished theory that the group has had only partial opportunity to shape. Workshops can also look participatory while still failing to hear quieter, marginalised or dissenting voices or to test the assumptions sitting underneath the theory. 

One respondent described the problem directly: “Facilitators are too dogmatic… The skill is to  be adaptable to different contexts…” This captures an important point. Good facilitation is not simply extracting information and converting it into a diagram, or taking partial input from a group and then shaping the real theory elsewhere. It requires a clear but adaptable process that actively distributes participation, surfaces disagreement and assumptions, addresses power, and enables the organisation, not the consultant to own the theory

Practice observation: I notice this in workshops when people start pre-empting what  funders want to hear before the work has been properly discussed. The conversation can  shift away from the reality of the programme or service and into funder-friendly language:  systems change, sustainability, co-production. I also see the risk when consultants hold too  much of the thinking outside the room: gathering fragments of input, then shaping the final  theory privately. A stronger ToC process does not remove power, but it creates space to  notice these pressures, slow them down, test assumptions openly and bring the discussion  back to what change they are trying to create.

1.2.6 Key Finding 6: There is a gap between expectations for use and what  happens afterwards 

The survey raises an unresolved tension about what happens after a ToC process. Almost all respondents agreed that the conversation or process of developing a ToC is valuable, while the final diagram or written product was valued less strongly. At the same time, 79% said the final product or diagram is often or sometimes not used afterwards. This sits alongside a high expectation that ToC should lead to something practical: 99% said that, when a ToC process works well, it is important that the process leads to something practical that can be used afterwards. 

There are some differences by role that add nuance to this finding. Evaluation planning was one of the main reasons respondents said organisations develop a ToC: 73% selected it as a motivation for developing a ToC in the first place and a third identified it as the primary motivation. Respondents whose main relationship with ToC was supporting evaluation were also more likely than others to rate ToC as very or extremely useful (68% compared with 56%  among all other relationship types). This suggests that people using ToC for evaluation may be slightly more likely to see practical value in what follows the process. 

The low reported use of ToC diagrams could be read as evidence that ToC diagrams are often weak, unclear or impractical. But that may not be the whole story. It may also be that, once a good process has landed, people no longer need the diagram in the way it was originally planned or envisaged. The thinking may have become embedded in how people talk about the work, what they notice, what they prioritise and what they remember.

Practice observation: In my experience, some of the best ToC processes do not end with a sprawling diagram that people need to keep decoding and revisiting. They land on a small number of memorable outcomes that people can recall and use in conversation. A theory with three clear outcomes that people remember may be more useful in practice than a diagram with 36 outcomes that technically captures everything but is too much for people to hold in their heads. If the process leaves people with clearer shared outcomes, stronger language and a simpler account of the change they are trying to create, the diagram may have done some of its work even if it is not regularly reopened.

1.3 Where do we go from here? 

1.3.1 What good practice now requires 

Based on the survey and my practice experience, I suggest that Theory of Change practice should focus less on producing better-looking diagrams and more on creating the conditions for better thinking, participation and follow-through. I suggest five shifts. 

1. Treat the process as the work. The survey suggests that much of the value of ToC sits in the conversation itself: the shared thinking, clearer language, surfaced assumptions,  alignment and confidence people take back into their work. Facilitation is not a warm-up activity before the “real” output. It is where the theory is made useful. 

2. Get the conditions right. Good ToC practice depends on who is involved, whose knowledge counts, who has time and safety to think, who can challenge and who can influence the final theory. This means actively designing for participation, not just inviting people to a workshop. It also means noticing who is missing, including communities, people who access services, people who do not, frontline staff and partners. 

3. Take relational value seriously. A ToC process can create protected time for people to step back, talk honestly about change, build shared confidence and find common language. These relational gains are not an ‘extra’. They are often part of what makes the theory usable in practice because they shape how people understand and carry the work afterwards. 

4. Think differently about use. If a diagram is never opened again, that tells us something important. But repeated reference to the diagram should not be the only test of value. A ToC process may also be useful when it shapes what happens next, e.g. the decisions people make, the questions they ask, the assumptions they notice and the conversations they feel able to have. The final product still matters, but some of the value sits in the relational seeds planted during the process. 

5. Name assumptions, power and review points explicitly. Strong ToC practice needs space to test assumptions, surface disagreement, challenge jargon and revisit the theory when evidence, context, delivery or relationships change.

1.3.2 A framework for better ToC practice 

The model below can be read as either a practical checklist for designing a useful ToC process and/or a reflective framework for interrogating quality and inclusion.

Condition	Practice prompt
Purpose  There is a clear reason for doing the ToC that  goes beyond compliance.	What question is this ToC helping us answer?
People  The right mix of people and knowledge is  involved, including those closest to delivery and  those affected by the work.	Who needs to be in the room, who is missing and whose knowledge is shaping the theory?
Power  Power dynamics are noticed, named and  designed for, rather than treated as something  that will sort itself out in the room.	What methods will help people speak honestly,  disagree safely and challenge assumptions?
Facilitation  The process creates enough structure, time and  challenge for people to move beyond activities,  jargon and quick agreement.	How will we support reflection, plain English,  clarity, prioritisation and constructive  challenge? What facilitation methods and  approaches will we use?
Participation  People have different ways to contribute, so the  theory is not shaped only by the most  confident, senior or familiar voices.	What mix of individual reflection, small groups  or creative methods will support meaningful  participation?
What people carry forward  The ToC might support thinking, questions and  decisions travel beyond the process.	What decisions will this help us make and what  questions should people carry back into  practice?