theory-of-change-for-funders2

Theory-of-change-for-funders2

In this article, the authors explain what a theory of change for funders means, and which type of theory of change is appropriate to use as a funder. The authors believe that more funders should consider developing a theory of change to work through the difference they want to make. This could help them assess whether they are working as well as they could be, and understand how to improve.
Growing numbers of charities are using theory of change as a strategy and evaluation tool. This popularity is partly a symptom of funders asking charities to provide a theory of change in their application or evaluation. But can the approach also be useful for funders themselves; and how does the tool differ in this setting?
Most funders do not have a thoroughly worked out theory of change. Many are not very strategic and have not always thought through their assumptions about how they think impact happens. Many funders have broader aims than a charity does, making a theory of change more difficult to do. This lack of a theory of change can lead to missed opportunities in the charity sector: things are not joined up, and crucial elements of what makes change happen are not funded.

Can a Theory of Change approach also be useful for funders themselves; and how does the tool differ in this setting?

Theory of Change for funders: Planning to make a difference

adocacy-strategy-framework

Adocacy Strategy Framework

The idea of developing a theory of change is now a well-accepted practice among funders and their grantees. Less patience exists, however, with the tools available for articulating theories of change. Common complaints are that they can be too linear, too removed from context, and too restricted in their ability to facilitate thinking about how strategies need to adapt over time. This is especially true for advocacy, where theories and their associated strategies may need to shift in response to a variable political context, or if advocacy tactics are not as effective as anticipated.
This brief offers a simple one-page tool for thinking about the theories of change that underlie public policy advocacy strategies.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-4090 size-full" src="http://content.changeroo.com/wp-content/uploads/Academy/2018/07/adocacy_strategy_frameworkgif.gif" alt="" width="715" height="606" />
The tool—labeled the advocacy strategy framework—has several advantages over more familiar linear box-and-arrow theory-of-change tools:
<ul>
<li>As advocacy is not predictable or linear, the tool does not force linear thinking.</li>
<li>It offers a place to start, rather than a blank page.</li>
<li>It helps advocates to think more specifically about audiences—who is expected to change and how, and what it will take to get them there.</li>
<li>While theories of change often consider advocacy strategies in isolation of other efforts, this tool helps to think about how other advocates (like-minded or in opposition) are positioned.</li>
<li>It prompts thinking about useful tactics and meaningful interim outcomes.</li>
</ul>

A simple one-page tool for thinking about the Theories of Change that underlie public policy advocacy strategies.

The Advocacy Strategy Framework

endah

OM and Theory of Change (ToC) are very useful to improve the design of projects previously developed with the Logical Framework or to improve its monitoring system design. With its actor centred approach, Outcome Mapping helps to visualize the relationship amongst the stakeholders and required change of behaviour of all to contribute to the goal. Adopting two steps from Theory of Change to discuss preconditions/assumptions required for the changes will strengthen the design.

A poster from the Outcome Mapping (OM) Lab 2014 describing how Outcome Mapping is being used with Theory of Change to improve the design of a project developed with Logical Framework.