Draft a Theory of Change from a Program Narrative
Transform an existing program narrative into a structured theory of change with causal pathway, intermediate outcomes, and testable assumptions. Useful when the program description is written but the ToC is not yet formalized.
Draft: Draft a Theory of Change from a Program Narrative
Fill In Your Details (3 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 transform an existing program narrative into a formalized Theory of Change (ToC) with a clear causal pathway, intermediate outcomes, and testable assumptions.
Program Narrative: paste your program narrative covering problem statement, target population, activities, and intended outcomes
Long-Term Outcome: your program's long-term outcome
Donor Context: the relevant donor framework
Requirements:
- Extract the Long-Term Outcome: Identify the long-term outcome from the narrative, or use the one provided above. Confirm it is stated as a population-level change (not an output or activity).
- Backwards-Map Intermediate Outcomes: Identify 2-4 intermediate outcomes that plausibly lead to the long-term outcome. Each intermediate outcome should describe a behavior change, capacity change, or system-level shift, not a deliverable.
- Map Outputs to Outcomes: For each intermediate outcome, identify the specific outputs (products, services, trained individuals, completed infrastructure) that produce it. Flag any intermediate outcome lacking a plausible output chain.
- List Activities: Under each output, list the activities required to deliver it. Draw activities directly from the narrative where possible.
- Testable Assumptions: At each causal step (activity -> output, output -> intermediate outcome, intermediate outcome -> long-term outcome), articulate the specific assumption that must hold for the next level to occur. Assumptions must be falsifiable, not truisms. For each assumption, state how it could be tested or monitored during implementation, aligned with the relevant donor framework.
- Evidence Base Gaps: For each causal link, indicate whether the link is supported by strong evidence (cite source type such as systematic review, program evaluation, or sector literature), moderate evidence, or is primarily theoretical. Flag links where evidence is weak and a learning question is warranted.
Output Format:
- Structured ToC Narrative: A written explanation of the causal pathway from activities through outputs, intermediate outcomes, and long-term outcome, with assumptions and evidence flags integrated at each step.
- Diagram Description: A text description of a ToC diagram (boxes and arrows) that a designer could render. Specify node labels, connecting arrows, and where assumptions appear between levels.
- Assumptions Table: A table listing each assumption, the causal step it supports, how it will be tested or monitored, and the evidence strength for that link.
- Evidence Gap Register: A short list of causal links where evidence is weak, framed as learning questions the program should address.
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]