At a Glance
A theory of change explains how and why you expect change to happen. A results framework takes the results you have chosen to be held to and lays them out in levels with indicators. This page is about the step between them, because that is where most of the reasoning gets lost. For the three-way view that includes the logframe, see Logframe vs Theory of Change.
At a Glance
| Theory of change | Results framework | |
|---|---|---|
| Question it answers | Why will this lead to that? | What will we deliver, and how will we know? |
| Main content | Causal pathways, assumptions, context, other influences | Results by level, indicators, sources, and sometimes targets |
| Who it is mainly for | Design team, partners, evaluators | Managers, funders, portfolio and reporting teams |
| How many results | As many as the story needs, including ones you will not measure | A selected set you will manage and report |
| How it changes | Revised when evidence challenges the logic | Revised at agreed review points, often needs funder sign-off |
| Level of the claim | "We expect X because of Y, if Z holds" | "We will report X at this level, using this measure" |
| Typical form | Diagram plus narrative | Hierarchy or matrix |
| Failure mode | Too large to use, never tested | Looks complete but no longer explains why anything works |
Read the table as a division of labor. The theory of change keeps the reasoning, and the results framework keeps the promises. Each is weaker when asked to do the other's job. See theory of change and results framework for definitions.
Same Program, Both Ways
The Same Program Both Ways: Village Clinic Referrals
Take a fictional program, Village Clinic Referrals, that trains volunteers to identify pregnant women with danger signs and take them to a clinic.
As a theory of change (extract). If volunteers learn the danger signs (capacity), they will recognize them in neighbors, because women trust a local volunteer more than a stranger (assumption). Recognition leads to referral when transport and a nurse are available (assumption). Referral leads to earlier treatment, which lowers serious complications. Two other things also move complications: a new road and a national free-delivery policy. The program is one contributor, not the only one.
As a results framework (same program).
| Level | Result | Indicator | Source | Key assumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goal | Fewer serious pregnancy complications in the district | Percent of births with a serious complication | Clinic registers, annual | Clinics record complications consistently |
| Outcome | Pregnant women with danger signs reach a clinic sooner | Percent of women with danger signs who reach a clinic within 6 hours | Exit interviews, twice a year | Transport is available at night |
| Immediate outcome | Volunteers identify danger signs correctly | Percent of volunteers scoring 80 percent or higher on a case-based check | Volunteer assessment, after training | Volunteers stay in role |
| Output | Volunteers trained | Number of volunteers completing training | Training registers, quarterly | Villages nominate volunteers |
The framework is clean and measurable. It is also silent about several things the theory of change said out loud.
What Gets Lost
What Does Not Carry Over
Five things in the theory of change have no natural row in the results framework above.
Why the arrows hold. "Women trust a local volunteer" is the reason referral should follow recognition. In the framework it is at best a short phrase in the assumptions column.
Other contributors. The new road and the free-delivery policy are in the theory of change as influences. The framework has no place for them, so a drop in complications could be credited to the program by default.
Pathways you will not measure. The theory of change may include a path (volunteers change community attitudes) that you choose not to report this year. The framework drops it, and the team forgets it was part of the logic.
Conditions for each step. The nurse needs to be at the clinic when the woman arrives. This is a condition in the story and a risk in the framework, and it is often moved to a separate risk register nobody reads.
Feedback loops. If early referrals overload the clinic, clinics may discourage referrals. A hierarchy of results has no arrow back.
Do not try to fit these into the framework. Keep the theory of change as a living document and link each framework row to the pathway it comes from, so a reader can trace both ways. When a quarterly review shows the outcome indicator is flat, the theory of change tells you which assumption to test first.
Which to Use
Which Do You Need Now?
| Your situation | Start with |
|---|---|
| Designing a new program with several pathways | Theory of change, then a results framework from it |
| Funder template asks for a results framework | The framework, plus a short written theory of change kept for the team (include it as an annex only if the funder allows) |
| Reporting across many projects in a portfolio | Results framework, with the theory of change per project underneath |
| Evaluation shows the program is not working as expected | Return to the theory of change and test its assumptions |
| Small, single-activity project with obvious logic | A simple results framework or logframe is enough |
If you are building both, How to Write a Theory of Change covers the first step, and the results framework template on the results framework page covers the second.
Common Mistakes
Treating the framework as the theory of change. A hierarchy of boxes shows what you expect at each level. It does not show why, and a funder or evaluator cannot test logic that is not written down.
Putting every pathway into the framework. A framework with 40 indicators is no easier to manage than a theory of change with 40 boxes. Choose the few results you will actually be held to.
Writing the theory of change after the framework. A theory of change written to justify an existing framework tends to repeat it in sentences. Write it before, or at least separately.
Never revisiting either one. The framework can be fixed by agreement, but the theory of change should change as you learn. If it has not changed since the proposal, nobody is testing it.
Confusing "results framework" with "logframe". They overlap, and terms vary by funder. Check which template is required, as set out in Logframe vs Theory of Change.