Skip to main content
Community Contribution

Making Theories of Change as easy as ABC

Aug 06, 2024
Andrew Koleros, Sean Mulkerne, Mark Oldenbeuving, Danielle Stein

Theories of change (TOCs) are now widely recognized as essential to guide the design and delivery of aid activities. Using technical and contextual insights to articulate a pathway from intervention to impact, while highlighting critical assumptions, is now simply considered good practice. Donors and funders routinely require a TOC as part of early design processes as well. As readers likely know, USAID stipulates that all Program Cycle processes be grounded in a TOC, and its CLA Framework promotes the use of TOCs to support more learning-centered and robust development programming. 

At the same time, aid work has become more complex and multi-faceted, comprising varying types of interventions delivered in multiple locations by different types of partners, and targeting diverse stakeholder groups, often involving different actors and several layers of government. Activities are also frequently trying to bring about change in complex settings and environments, and must contend with a diverse range of factors. An evolving or informal political economy context, unpredictable climate conditions, or a changing security situation can all affect an activity’s ability to achieve results, and so activities must deliver interventions that are designed to be flexible and responsive to these changing contexts. It is essential therefore for design teams to begin addressing some of this complexity as they develop a TOC. But how can we do this?

The aid community has proposednumber of approaches and insights for developing a TOC in recent yearsincluding USAID. We hope to further the conversation by offering our own approach to TOC development for complex settings, called the Actor-Based Change (ABC) Framework, that focuses on a crucial element: people. By better understanding people - what they do, what makes them tick, who they influence and are influenced by, and what they need to further their goals - we are far more likely to deliver effective and locally responsive aid programming.

The ABC Framework follows three key components discussed in the sections below: system mapping, understanding behavior change, and designing interventions. They should be followed iteratively, rather than sequentially, and with the close participation of local actors concerned with the development issue.

Who’s who? Mapping the system

Whether working with farmers to apply a new agricultural input, supporting business to adapt to more inclusive business models, or strengthening civil society organizations to be more effective advocates, activities are often focused on working with and supporting local people to do things differently. But often, engaging these actors directly isn’t enough as they are part of a local system. People are influenced and shaped by a range of other actors (their friends, colleagues, supervisors, etc.) and factors (from formal rules and regulations to more informal social and cultural norms) in much more powerful ways than one activity can likely achieve directly. Understanding these influences and working through and between them can lead to more durable impacts.

The first component within the ABC Framework therefore focuses on mapping the key actors in the system and their relationships to one another, teasing out what and who influences whom and how. Who stands to lose or gain if the situation changes? Who holds power and the ability to change the situation? Why?

For example, a typical activity aimed at addressing corruption might invest in offering training on conduct and penalties to local officials, and a few of those officials might be persuaded to act differently. While this hypothetically may reduce corruption in the short term, when the activity ceases its work, the overriding influences on their behavior, perhaps a culture of corruption or patronage within the office, will return. Without a focus on the local system and what gives rise to current behaviors amongst key actors, the activity likely won’t achieve its aims in a sustainable manner. On the other hand, looking at this same aim through a local systems lens would help to identify the other groups who would also need to change their practice to sustain any reduction in corruption in the long term. This could include supporting a local ombudsman that can monitor and act on violations, or encouraging citizens to report corrupt practices through a new online platform.

What makes people tick? Understanding behaviors

We need to go beyond just identifying actors and how they’re connected, however - we also need to understand why they act and interact in the way they do. To help clarify these drivers, ABC’s second component centers on exploring three broad categories (first proposed by Michie et al): capabilities, opportunities and motivations. 

  • Capabilities refer to the psychological or physical ability to act in a certain way. This might involve knowledge or skills about a particular topic, or one’s ability to persuade others.
  • Opportunities are the physical and social environments that enable or inhibit a particular behavior. This could include access to a particular technology or influential decision making forum.
  • Motivations are reflective and automatic mechanisms that activate or inhibit a particular behavior - think interests and incentives. This may refer to a belief in oneself to change, or on the other hand, a sense that “everyone is acting in this way, so I should do the same.”

We apply these lenses to the actors identified in order to better understand what is driving their current practices. In order to support changes in those practices, we can think about who or what can influence the capabilities, opportunities, or motivations of those actors, which may surface additional groups and relationships that deepen the system map described above.

To return to our earlier example, a corrupt local official issuing land permits to those willing to pay bribes may have a strong understanding of how to do their job effectively (capability). But they may also be financially motivated or pressured to engage in corruption, and they may have regular opportunities to do so as there is no one confirming whether the permits align with local development plans. Similar analyses could be done to understand the behavioral drivers of land developers, local citizens, and the minister in charge of land management and their aides, among others. By focusing on behaviors and what gives rise to them, an activity trying to address corruption may be better equipped to deal with the root causes. 

What can we do? Charting pathways to impact

With a systems map outlined and the drivers of behavior and relationships better understood, an activity using ABC can then turn to the third component: designing interventions focused on shifting the behavioral drivers for each actor group and bringing about the desired change within the local system. Here, we make explicit the detailed steps from activity intervention, to changes in behavioral conditions, and then in turn to changes in behavior for each actor or relationships between actors. This creates causal impact pathways a) from an intervention to actor-level changes, and b) from actor-level changes to the conditions for wider systems change. For example, providing training to a local ombudsman and working with legislators to raise their political profile may reduce opportunities for corruption within the land registry.

Constructing these causal impact pathways also helps in identifying the main risks and assumptions that could prevent the pathway from working. ABC’s focus on identifying actors' capabilities, opportunities and motivations is particularly useful here. It allows us to identify the behavioral conditions for each actor which are not addressed by the intervention, but which must be met for behaviors to sustainably change. For example, perhaps there is no funding available to set up a digital platform for reporting corrupt practices, which may or may not be a necessary condition for addressing corruption. Understanding such a risk at the outset of activity design may stimulate necessary discussions on the approach.

In addition, the impact pathway provides a framework for establishing a robust monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) system to track whether activity interventions are working as intended: whether the target actors are being reached with interventions, and whether being reached with these interventions is leading to the desired actor-level changes. This information, collected on a regular basis, then supports activity adaptation and improvement.

An alphabet for complexity

USAID implementers are already making use of ABC to help understand and act upon key development issues. A recent study by Chemonics and Mathematica applied ABC to understand how to advance educational reforms and teaching practices for foundational literacy to inform future USAID/Liberia programming. The study found that, to enable sustainable changes in teaching practice, a new activity should:

  • Improve teacher capabilities through continuing professional development and targeted feedback.
  • Create opportunities for applying new practices by supporting an enabling environment, including supporting teacher practice and a culture of excellence.
  • Strengthen teacher motivation by supporting their personal well-being and offering progress-driven recognition.

Development is often a complex and challenging business, but it is also fundamentally about people. Identifying the key actors and their relationships, understanding why they do what they do, and thinking seriously about what might enable them to work together differently is one approach to cutting through the noise and focusing on what matters. Your activity’s interventions will be better grounded, better adapted to the local context, honest about what can be achieved, and oriented toward sustainability.

We welcome your feedback on the ABC Framework and would be very happy to help your activity make use of it. Feel free to reach out to us. Additional information about the ABC Framework can be found here, and in the American Journal of Evaluation. The ABC Framework was developed during our time working with Palladium.

About the authors
Photo of Andrew Koleros
Andrew Koleros

Andrew Koleros is a Principal Researcher at Mathematica with twenty years of experience in designing and delivering mixed-methods evaluations and program monitoring, evaluation and learning systems for small and large projects. He brings expertise in using theory-based approaches that integrate complexity concepts and systems thinking into program and evaluation design processes. His most recent work focuses on providing evaluation and learning services for strategies aimed at catalyzing systems change to address complex societal problems from affordable housing to youth employment to advancing health equity. He has recently edited the open access publication Theories of Change in Reality and published on his work in peer-reviewed journals and multiple practitioner settings.

Bio image of Sean Mulkerne
Sean Mulkerne

Sean is the Senior Governance and Learning Specialist at USAID Learns. He has over a decade of experience leading teams and advising USAID and FCDO through in-country postings in Vietnam, Rwanda, northern Nigeria, and consultancies elsewhere, particularly in Africa. His work focuses on advising on governance issues and strategies; developing robust monitoring, learning, and adaptive management systems informed by theories of change; leading applied political economy analyses; providing technical assistance for program design; and conducting research. He is also recognized for his skills in analysis and reporting, strategy development, capacity building, and facilitation. He is the author of several blogs, resources, and academic articles, including on the Actor-Based Change Framework.

Photo of Mark Oldenbeuving
Mark Oldenbeuving

Mark Oldenbeuving is an independent consultant who specializes in the design and continuous improvement of interventions in complex environments. He employs a blend of approaches to drive success, including theory of change development using the ABC Framework to understand change in complex systems, human-centered design to identify crucial leverage points and design impactful solutions, and evaluation methods to foster adaptive learning processes. Over the last few years, Mark employed these approaches to support improvements in monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management practices for large-scale funds, including UK’s Integrated Security Fund and IsDB's Lives and Livelihoods Fund. Mark has made contributions to the field of program theory through publications in academic literature.

Photo of Danielle Stein
Danielle Stein

Danielle Stein is an independent consultant with a particular focus on linking evidence to program improvement and decision making. She has over fifteen years of experience working closely with program implementers and commissioners to deliver innovative monitoring, evaluation and learning approaches for complex interventions, including using the Actor-Based Change Framework and behavior-change models. Most recently, Danielle served as Team Leader for several multi-component portfolio-level evaluations, including of UK support to Kenya’s 2022 elections and UK global peace process support. She currently advises embassies and high commissions across Asia and Africa on monitoring and learning approaches with to strengthen learning systems in highly fluid environments. Danielle is also an experienced researcher focusing on qualitative and mixed methods and is the co-Founder of Empatika, an Indonesia-based research consultancy, where she serves as Research Director. She was previously a Research Fellow with the Asia Foundation and London School of Economics and has published a range of academic articles and working papers, including related to Theories of Change and the Actor-Based Change Framework.