When a group cares about the same problem, it is tempting to begin with the first useful thing someone suggests: hold a meeting, make a poster, start a petition. Those may be good actions. But an action on its own does not tell you what needs to change, who has to be involved, or how you will know whether it helped.
A theory of change is a plain-language answer to those questions. It is your group’s shared account of how a particular action could help bring about a particular change. Nesta describes it as a way to connect work to a bigger goal and make assumptions visible. It is a theory to put to the test.
You do not need a polished diagram, special software, or a funding application to make one. A wall, a few cards, and people with different knowledge of the place are enough to start.
Begin with a change people can recognise
Name the change as it would show up in everyday life, in a particular place, for particular people. “Improve community wellbeing” is too broad to guide a decision. “Parents in Eastfield can safely walk their children to primary school” is clearer.
Make this a conversation with people affected by the issue, not a sentence written about them. Different people will see different parts of the problem, including things a group with good intentions might miss. NPC recommends involving a range of people when creating a theory of change, beginning with the group’s needs and the end goal. Its practical guide sets out working backwards through the changes needed to reach that goal.
Ask: if we succeeded, what would be different in six months or two years? Keep the answer within your group’s real reach.
Describe the situation before you prescribe a response
Next, write down what is happening now. Be specific about the barrier rather than treating people as the problem. Whose voice is missing? What makes the present arrangement hard to use? Who makes the relevant decisions? What has already been tried, and what has changed since then?
This is where lived experience, local knowledge and existing evidence belong together. A parent may know where cars mount the pavement; a school caretaker may know which gate can be opened; a councillor may know when a crossing scheme is reviewed.
Then name the causes that seem to keep the situation in place. Some will be practical, such as a missing crossing. Others may concern power, trust, information, cost or time. Treat these as assumptions to check, rather than facts to defend. Write down why you expect an action to help, and the conditions it would need to work.
Draw the shortest believable pathway
Work backwards from the desired change. Ask, “What has to be true just before this is possible?” Repeat until you reach something your group can actually do. You might need both a physical change to a street and a change in who feels able to raise concerns.
Keep the pathway short enough to discuss. For every link, write why one change could lead to the next, and what could get in the way.
Worked hypothetical local example
This is an invented example, offered as a way to practise the method.
Residents near Eastfield Primary want children and carers to use a safe, direct crossing at the school entrance.
Working backwards, they identify a short pathway:
- The local highways team agrees that a crossing is needed and includes it in its works plan.
- The team has clear evidence of the danger and support from people who use the street.
- Parents, children, nearby residents and the school record when and where crossing is difficult, then agree a shared request.
The residents’ activities are the walkabout, short observation sessions, conversations with neighbours, and a meeting with the highways team. Their direct outputs are an observation record and a shared request. The outcomes they want to influence include the team accepting the need for a crossing, a decision to fund it, and its installation. Those decisions sit with others. Safer and easier journeys are the longer-term change the group hopes to see. A meeting count alone cannot show that change.
The group’s assumptions might be that the location is technically possible, the works plan has room for a change, and people who face the greatest risk can take part. Check each early. If carers cannot attend an evening meeting, gather views at the school gate instead. If a crossing is not possible, turn towards a lower traffic speed or a different route.
Learn only what helps you decide the next step
Learning should be proportionate. You do not need a large survey to find out whether the first conversation with the highways team happened, whether it changed their understanding, or whether a proposed action is accessible to the people it is meant to serve.
Before beginning, choose two or three signs that would help you decide what to do next. In Eastfield, note whether people describe the same crossing point, whether a named officer responds, and what decision is made. Pair these with short notes, especially when they challenge the group’s first idea.
Set a date to look at what you have learned together. Ask: which part of our pathway moved? Which assumption looks weaker? Who have we still not heard from? What should we stop, continue or change? NPC’s planning guidance makes the same practical connection: clarity about the change, for whom and why is the basis for deciding what information to collect. Read its guidance on planning for impact.
Your first theory of change needs to be clear enough that people can challenge it, contribute to it, and revise it. That is how a shared concern becomes a path forward with a part for each of us to play.