Create a Theory of Change
Build a theory of change showing how your program activities lead to outcomes and impact, with assumptions and risks identified.
Draft: Create a Theory of Change
Fill In Your Details (7 Blanks)
Add your information to get a tailored prompt. You can also use it as is.
Sector and Donor Context (Optional)
Your Prompt (With Your Details)
This is the complete prompt, ready to copy and paste.
You are a senior MEAL specialist. Your task is to develop a comprehensive Theory of Change (ToC) for your program. The ToC should clearly articulate the causal pathway from key activities to your intended outcomes and ultimately to the long-term impact.
Requirements:
- Causal Pathway: Detail the sequence of change, including:
- Long-term impact statement
- Intermediate outcomes
- Immediate outputs
- Key activities
- Assumptions: Identify at least 3-5 critical assumptions that underpin the causal links. These should include contextual factors such as the relevant policy environment. For each assumption, describe the evidence supporting it or how it will be verified. Consider alternative scenarios for community participation.
- Risks: Identify at least 2-3 significant risks that could impede progress towards the outcomes or impact. These may include implementation challenges, sustainability issues, or measurement difficulties, such as limited teacher training materials. For each risk, propose specific mitigation strategies. Consider additional risk scenarios.
- Stakeholder Perspectives: Integrate relevant stakeholder perspectives into the ToC design.
- Disaggregation Plan: Outline a plan for disaggregating data for key indicators, considering relevant disaggregation variables (e.g., gender, age, geography). Identify potential gaps in measurement based on these variables.
- Indicator Clarification: Clarify specific indicators for measuring progress towards literacy rates and other key outcomes.
Output Format:
Provide the following components:
- Visual Logic Map: A diagram illustrating the causal pathway from activities to impact.
- Narrative Summary: A clear explanation of the ToC logic, detailing the causal links and rationale.
- Assumptions Table: A table listing assumptions, supporting evidence or verification methods, and alternative scenarios.
- Risk Register: A table detailing identified risks, their potential likelihood and impact, and proposed mitigation strategies.
- Disaggregation Plan: A description of how data will be disaggregated and potential measurement gaps.
Check: Score It with the Theory of Change Assessment Rubric
The Review Prompt
Paste the draft at the bottom of this prompt and run it. It scores each criterion from 1 to 5 and says why.
You are an expert M&E advisor. Score the Theory of Change I will provide using the rubric below.
SCORING RUBRIC - Theory of Change Assessment Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:
DIMENSION 1: Causal Logic
- Score 5: Pathway from activities to long-term change explicit at every step. Each causal link stated. A reviewer unfamiliar with the context can trace the full logic without additional explanation.
- Score 4: Pathway explicit at every step with no more than two links implied rather than stated.
- Score 3: Pathway recognizable but half or more causal links are implied rather than stated. A reader can follow general direction but must fill in multiple steps.
- Score 2: Half or more causal steps are missing or jumpy. Several outcomes do not follow from the preceding change.
- Score 1: No clear causal pathway. Reads as a list of activities and aspirations.
DIMENSION 2: Evidence Base
- Score 5: Every major causal claim references specific evidence (research, program data, or contextual analysis). Evidence directly supports the claimed mechanism.
- Score 4: At least 80 percent of major causal claims reference specific evidence. The remainder rely on assertion, but no major mechanism is unsupported.
- Score 3: Half or more major causal claims reference evidence; the remainder rely on assertion. Evidence cited may lack specificity or direct relevance for some claims.
- Score 2: Less than half of causal claims reference evidence, OR cited evidence is generic ("research shows") without specific source.
- Score 1: No evidence cited. ToC is entirely assertion-based.
DIMENSION 3: Assumptions
- Score 5: Preconditions and external dependencies listed at every major transition point. Each is specific, testable, and genuinely external.
- Score 4: Assumptions listed at at least 80 percent of major transition points. The remainder may be vague but major dependencies are visible.
- Score 3: Assumptions listed at half or more transition points. Those listed are recognizable as external conditions but half or more lack the specificity needed for monitoring.
- Score 2: Assumptions listed at less than half of transition points, OR half or more are trivially true or program activities.
- Score 1: No assumptions stated. Change is presented as inevitable.
DIMENSION 4: Outcomes Hierarchy
- Score 5: Short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes clearly differentiated and correctly sequenced. Every level represents a qualitatively different type of change.
- Score 4: Hierarchy present and correctly sequenced. No more than two outcomes appear at the wrong level or are ambiguously labeled.
- Score 3: Hierarchy visible but at least three outcomes are at the wrong level or sit ambiguously between adjacent levels.
- Score 2: Half or more outcomes are at the wrong level, OR levels are inconsistently labeled.
- Score 1: No discernible hierarchy. All outcomes at one level.
DIMENSION 5: Boundary & Sustainability
- Score 5: ToC scoped to what the program can plausibly influence within its timeframe and resources. Sustainability section names who owns the change post-project, what conditions must hold, and what handover steps the program will take.
- Score 4: Scope reasonable. Sustainability section present but lacks one of (named post-project owner, required conditions, handover steps).
- Score 3: Scope implied but not stated. Sustainability referenced in general terms (e.g., "the change will be sustained through capacity building") without specifying owner, conditions, or handover.
- Score 2: ToC over-ambitious (claims credit for changes the program cannot drive alone), OR no sustainability section.
- Score 1: No boundary defined and no sustainability mention.
OUTPUT FORMAT: Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:
| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from ToC | Priority Revision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causal Logic | |||
| Evidence Base | |||
| Assumptions | |||
| Outcomes Hierarchy | |||
| Boundary & Sustainability |
Total: X/25 Band: Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10) Single Most Important Revision: [One specific sentence]
For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.
THEORY OF CHANGE TO SCORE: [Paste your Theory of Change narrative or diagram description here]
Fix: Revise What Scored Low
The Revise Prompt
Paste the draft and its scores at the bottom of this prompt. It revises the parts that scored below 4.
You are an expert M&E advisor. Review the draft Theory of Change I will provide and fix every problem that falls below the Good (4) threshold on the Theory of Change Assessment rubric.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR AND FIX:
Causal Logic problems: Steps that jump without explanation (e.g., "training leads to improved livelihoods" with no intermediate step). Activities presented as outcomes. Outcomes listed in the wrong order.
Evidence Base problems: Claims stated as fact without any citation. Generic references ("evidence shows") without specifics. Causal mechanisms that contradict published research.
Assumption problems: Missing assumptions at major transition points. Assumptions that are trivially true ("beneficiaries will participate"). Assumptions that are actually program activities. Assumptions so broad they cannot be monitored ("government will be supportive").
Outcomes Hierarchy problems: Knowledge-level changes labeled as long-term outcomes. Behavior change listed before the enabling conditions are in place. Ultimate goal stated as an activity output.
Boundary and Sustainability problems: Program claims full attribution for changes involving many actors. No mention of what happens after project close. No identification of who sustains the change.
OUTPUT FORMAT: For each problem found:
- Dimension: [which dimension]
- Location: [which section or statement in the ToC]
- Problem: [one sentence describing what is wrong]
- Revised version: [the corrected text]
Then provide the complete revised Theory of Change incorporating all corrections.
DRAFT THEORY OF CHANGE TO REVISE: [Paste your draft Theory of Change here]