Nonprofits & NGOs

Six Theory of Change Pitfalls to Avoid

Simply putting boxes and lines down on paper doesn’t guarantee that your organization will make better decisions.

Over the past decade, more and more nonprofits have developed a theory of change—that is, an articulation of the results an organization must achieve to be successful, and how it, working alone or with others, will achieve them. Organizations do this either of their own volition or because funders, board members, or other parties ask them to do so. In fact, according to Innovation Network’s State of Evaluation 2010, half of nonprofits report having a theory of change, and of those, nearly 80 percent either created or revised it in the past year. But simply putting boxes and lines down on paper doesn’t guarantee that your organization will make better decisions. 

To start, a good theory of change should answer six big questions:
1. Who are you seeking to influence or benefit (target population)?
2. What benefits are you seeking to achieve (results)?
3. When will you achieve them (time period)?
4. How will you and others make this happen (activities, strategies, resources, etc.)?
5. Where and under what circumstances will you do your work (context)?
6. Why do you believe your theory will bear out (assumptions)?

Theories of change come in all shapes and sizes, from “wiring diagrams” typically used by direct service organizations (see Nurse Family Partnership’s) to “systems maps,” typically used for more complex interventions that need to influence multiple actors (see Healthy Child Care Washington’s, page 36). Organizations sometimes use different versions for different audiences; for example, they may use a summary graphic for outside audiences, and a detailed prose version for leadership and staff.

In our ten-plus years of supporting clients in theory of change work, we’ve found six major pitfalls that, if avoided, can help nonprofits create actionable theories of change. 

1. Confusing accountability with hope. A theory of change must clarify what results a nonprofit will hold itself accountable for achieving; in other words, what results must it deliver to be successful. Defining results in this way will force your organization to get real about the impact you are signing up to create, not just what you hope will happen. While dreaming big and setting lofty goals, such as ending world hunger, can inspire your stakeholders, these are better left for your mission statement rather than your theory of change.

2. Creating a mirror instead of a target. A good theory of change doesn’t simply reflect what an organization is already doing; rather, it articulates what the organization wants to be held accountable for, and works backward to identify necessary activities, strategies, resources, capabilities, culture, and so on. If your theory of change work hasn’t led you to propose any changes to these elements, you probably haven’t taken a hard enough look.

3. Failing to take the external context into account. The best theories of change explicitly integrate the anticipated actions of regulators, the work of peer organizations, expected changes in the economic climate, and other factors. For example, if you are battling homelessness in a community, knowing that a coalition is soon forming to triage and coordinate the activities of providers may lead you to think differently about what activities you deliver and what results are achievable. A deep understanding of the external context will help you create a more realistic theory of change.

4. Not confirming the plausibility of your theory. While internal dialogue is a common starting point for theory of change development, the process should not conclude without a concerted effort to verify whether your “theory” is plausible. Consider the example of FIRST, a nonprofit that inspires young people to become science and technology leaders through hands-on, mentor-based programs. The organization’s recent effort to refine its theory of change included a thorough “literature review” of key evaluation studies and meta-analyses to determine what it takes to get youth into science and technology majors; discussions with evaluators and academics to assess whether FIRST’s activities were sufficient to generate its proposed results; and reviews of qualitative data from mentors, coaches, and alumni to understand what was most valued by the organization’s constituents. Though these efforts took time, they helped FIRST perfect their program model and program delivery practices in advance of implementing changes.

5. Creating a theory that isn’t measurable. To be able to test, refine, and improve your theory of change over time, you need to be able to measure its key elements. A common way to operationalize your theory of change is to get specific—articulate the input, output, and outcome indicators the theory of change suggests you should track (also known as creating a “logic model”). If you can’t actually gather these indicators at the right frequencies to learn what’s working, you may not be specifying your theory of change at a deep enough level (for example, you may need to define intermediate outcomes that are predictive of longer-term aspirations). 

6. Assuming you’ve figured it all out. To get the most out of your theory of change, you need to recognize and explicitly account for the uncertainties that underlie your plan. Learning organizations carefully specify their assumptions, regularly reflect on whether those assumptions are bearing out, and consider what new assumptions they might test to further improve impact. One simple but powerful mechanism to accomplish this is to create a “learning agenda”—a simple list of assumptions and hypotheses that your organization can test at some frequency. A learning agenda can help ensure that your organization’s theory of change is constantly revisited

Do these pitfalls resonate with your experience? Have you observed others?

Read more stories by Matthew Forti.

Tracker Pixel for Entry


  • BY Cheryl Gooding

    ON June 4, 2012 02:54 PM

    I don’t disagree with this in-depth analysis of key elements of strategic thinking and theory of change for the nonprofit sector.  My experience consulting with many different types of nonprofits (and foundations) over many years has been that the very first hurdle people face when contemplating a theory of change is the logical thinking it requires.  A daunting task for many.  Many leaps of faith substitute for strategic thinking.  And there is often an emotional component as well: a reluctance, if not resistance, to examining one’s own thinking, particularly in the context of values or ideological-driven nonprofit work.  A frequent, implicit operating assumption seems to be that our passionate caring is called into question when the idea of accountability to real results and transparent strategies to achieve those results is introduced.  I have found a useful first step in developing a theory of change is a conversation with the facilitator asking lots of questions, and then tracking the answers in a visual that becomes a simplified mental model of a theory of change - so that the organization can refine its vocabulary and develop a shared mental model before digging into some of the deeper - and necessary - questions about context, analysis, measurability, etc..

  • Matthew Forti's avatar

    BY Matthew Forti

    ON August 16, 2012 07:33 AM

    Cheryl - this is great advice for anyone undertaking an exercise to develop a theory of change.  Even though the final product should be comprehensive in the ways you note above, the process to get there need not address every element right upfront.  The ‘first step’ you describe above is a great way to ease people into the discussion.  Another approach could also be asking staff to share narratives of how the average constituent (beneficiary) experiences the program - where do they come from?  how do they find the organization?  what do they look like?  how frequently do they show up?  how are their lives changed?  This process can also be a helpful way into a topic that might otherwise appear esoteric or even threatening

  • BY Bernadette Wright

    ON September 9, 2013 10:13 AM

    Many good points in this article. Most organizations have already articulated some idea of what they are doing, for example in writing a business plan, grant application, or marketing materials. However, goals and strategies can change over time; different people may have different ideas of what the specific goals are and how they will be achieved, and new opportunities and ideas might come up that you hadn’t considered. Clarifying and validating the “map” of where you are going can increase chances for successfully reaching desired goals.

    The idea should be to get the best possible understanding of what the organization is doing and the realities in which it operates, not to force it to fit a particular theory of change or logic model structure.

    I would argue that a theory does not need to be limited to only what’s measurable. Limiting a model to what’s measurable can sometimes limit an organization to doing what’s easily measured rather than what’s important (see

    In addition to assessing theories in the ways that you mention, I would add that we now have scientific techniques to assess theories in terms of their internal structure, as we are advancing at the Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory ( This provides a new way to test the likely effectiveness of an idea before it is carried out.

  • BY David Pritchard

    ON October 4, 2013 02:36 AM

    These are on point.  We will add these to our training etc.

  • Duncan Green's avatar

    BY Duncan Green

    ON March 25, 2014 11:46 AM

    A thought experiment: apply these lessons to the suffragettes or the abolitionists. Tricky, no?

  • Maria Elena Medina's avatar

    BY Maria Elena Medina

    ON March 19, 2015 01:21 PM

    What are your thoughts around including Development in the process?  Most organizations I’ve seen include Development so there is a deep understanding of the TOC work in the organization leading up to the strategy.  It greatly aids in the private and public fundraising strategy.  Thanks.

  • Ruth Herrera's avatar

    BY Ruth Herrera

    ON October 14, 2015 09:08 PM

    Es interesante el análisis de “trampas que se deben evitar en la “teoría del cambio”, concuerdo con ellas, acentuando que toda teoría debe basarse en datos reales, concretos y mesurables,  todos integrados a un planificación estratégica; no caben las elocubraciones, que inducen a la improvización, e impiden hacer una real medición de los avances de los resultados a corto, mediano y largo plazos. Toda Institución sea sin fines de lucro o comercial, deben tener capacidad, para que sus ejecuciones, sean sostenibles y se proyecten hacia cambios integrales. La optimización de las capacidades y/o esfuerzos, son claves para concertar apoyos, y encontrar cooparticicipación privada y pública, frente a los resultados que lo social, por su magnitud amerita presupuestos significativos y acciones permanentes, concatenadas y continuas, para la solución de problemas.

  • BY Erik KIJNE

    ON May 27, 2016 03:19 AM

    SIX BIG QUESTIONS ! ... ? Isn’t it interesting and outrageously worrying that among those six questions, those target population of ‘end-users’ as they are called are not even consulted about the change we (NGO’s and public institutions) think THEY should ‘benefit’ from .... Isn’t the WHY question the most important in any development undertaking?
    This is the BIG difference between the Theory of Change thinking from the point of view of the organisation that dreams of putting those changes (results) into reality, and the Logical Framework Analysis that starts from a context analysis with the WHO (the ‘End-users’ and ‘Supplyers’) and then analysing (ASKING) the WHY, the real existing PROBLEMS that are experienced from the point of view of all the stakeholders. Only then Results and ASSUMPTIONS can be determined after which the Activities can be creatively determined. Working BACKWARDS towards the HOW the implementing organisations will organise themselves to implement the activities.
    Theory of Change works the other way around, referred to as ‘forward engineering’, by determining the Activities up front and making the hypothesis of the results that may possibly be materialised ...
    What a mess! Reinventing the use of trees to roll your stones on….  Good luck!

  • BY steve powell

    ON June 1, 2016 01:10 PM

    some good points here! I agree with Bernadette though that it is often fine that some variables in our ToC are not measurable, at least not numerically. For one thing, even if we are going to identify numerical indicators, it is important to be able to formulate our goals and intermediate steps in ways which are clear even before we turn to the indicators. For another thing, objective measurement is always a compromise and filled with noise and incomplete. As humans engaged in the collective enterprise, we still need to have a vision of what we are trying to do and how, and a ToC can help with this too.

  • To me as a system level leader, bringing CHANGE in my organization should be centred around the Users that is students. If it is impacting their learning positively than that change is welcomed. Out of the six pitfalls that resonate with my experience, the most relevant are the 5th and 6th. The option that we should be prepared for unexpected and the theory of change has to be measurable and plausible in my setting.

Leave a Comment


Please enter the word you see in the image below:


SSIR reserves the right to remove comments it deems offensive or inappropriate.