How will your organization change the world? That’s the underlying question behind a theory of change.

Every nonprofit has a theory of change, but I find many nonprofit professionals are tentative about defining it. Sometimes, they’re afraid they are using the phrase incorrectly or worry about making assumptions about the organization. Let’s unpack exactly what a theory of change is, and then talk about how to use it in your planning.

Many nonprofit professionals are familiar with the idea of an organizational mission. An organizational mission explains what you’re trying to accomplish, and maybe why you want to accomplish it. For example, you organization may have a mission to end world hunger or bring educational opportunities to underserved kids or safeguard a community’s cultural stories or end the surveillance state. The mission serves as a guiding light for the organization; everything you do at your nonprofit should be in service to your mission. Knowing your mission can also help you recognize when you are “off mission” — spending time and energy on things that aren’t moving you closer to achieving the change you want to achieve in the world. When you achieve your mission (which does happen sometimes!), your work is done; then you can either shut down operations or find a new mission.

Before you can have a theory of change, you have to have a well-defined mission.

The theory of change is how you plan to achieve that mission. It answers the question: how will your nonprofit achieve its mission?

Cooking offers a great analogy. The mission is what you’re trying to make (say, blueberry muffins). The theory of change is the recipe: the steps that you take that you believe will get you those blueberry muffins.

Different nonprofit organizations may take wildly different approaches for achieving similar missions.

Let’s imagine two hypothetical nonprofits that both have a mission of ending hunger. The first nonprofit might have a theory of change that is grounded in local communities and addressing food deserts. It might write its theory of change like this:

“We believe that ending food insecurity requires transforming communities so that they can connect those in need with healthy food. We will end hunger by mobilizing, educating, and supporting community groups. We provide education, resources, community organizing, and support so that community members can set up food banks, neighborhood kitchens, meal delivery services, and farmer’s markets. We also work directly with community planners and major grocery stores to bring healthy food options to low income communities.”

As you can see, this organization’s goals are about ending hunger, but their theory of change is grounded in the idea of empowering local communities. All of the important parts of the recipe are right there: supporting communities to set up food banks and neighborhood kitchens, working with community planners, etc.

Now imagine another nonprofit that is also focused on ending hunger, but with an entirely different theory of change:

“We believe that to end world hunger, we must reinvent our food supply on a global scale. By supporting agricultural research, regenerative farming technologies, and genetically modified food innovations, our nonprofit seeks to ensure a world in which every mile of farmland can support 1,000 humans while protecting the environment for future generations. We invest directly in agricultural research by sponsoring labs at universities across the world, host conferences that bring agricultural innovation, scholars, and global leaders together to collaborate on the future of food, and lobby for federal and international policies that champion food and agricultural innovation.”

This second nonprofit may have a similar mission to end hunger, but it has a wildly different theory of change. Instead of empowering communities, this nonprofit seeks to change the world through research and technology. This nonprofit is focused on improving the productivity of agriculture through innovation, and they invest directly in research and encourage innovative food policies. They aren’t talking to communities; they are talking to global leaders, universities, and researchers.

Can you see how the theory of change makes a huge difference? The first nonprofit has a theory of change that ending food hunger requires transforming local communities to better get food to those who need it. The second nonprofit has a theory of change that ending hunger requires reinventing the food supply through innovation.

Once you have a theory of change established, it makes it much easier to see whether to adopt new programs or partnerships. For example, a collaboration with a veterans service that delivers healthy meals to injured vets might make a lot of sense for the first nonprofit, but it wouldn’t work for the second. An opportunity to present ideas at a global agricultural summit fits right into the theory of change for the second nonprofit, but not the first.

A chance to engage in federal lobbying for foodstamps? That doesn’t fit into either theory of change. Advocating for healthier meals within prisons? Neither nonprofit. Sponsoring a mobile library for homeless youth? That still doesn’t fit with either nonprofit’s theory of change, or frankly with either nonprofit mission.

These may seem like farfetched examples, but I’ve seen many a nonprofit get enticed to do something wildly outside its theory of change. Sadly, these projects are often distractions that takes resources away from the more impactful programmatic work the organization could be doing. (That said, sometimes this can be a helpful experiment that leads to a nonprofit changing or updating its theory of change.)

Nonprofits should be able to explain why they’ve adopted that specific theory of change. The theory of change should be grounded in a reasonable belief that it will help the nonprofit effectively advance toward its mission.

Frequently, a nonprofit will cite one of three things: research (either formal academic research or less formal investigations), knowledge gained from studying the strategies of other organizations or movements, or the nonprofit’s own experience based on years of work. Not every theory of change is grounded in one of these justifications, but often at least one of them will show up.

So, our first hypothetical nonprofit might justify its theory of change by stating:

“Our nonprofit is replicating the extremely successful food programs pioneered by the city of Alexandria in 1998. Alexandria used community surveys to discover that hunger was often rooted in a “last mile” problem—healthy food resources that could help those in need were too far away or too complicated to access. Alexandria successfully addressed this issue by improving connections between available services and those in need. We modeled our efforts on these time-tested efforts, optimizing the delivery and access to food. We also spent several years honing in on the best way to deliver these food services, including organizing volunteers, app-based food delivery systems, municipal collaborations, and corporate partnerships. We found that partnering with existing local groups who had deep community connections made food delivery programs 80% more likely to exist beyond the initial 3 years, resulted in an average of 50% more people served, and helped us identify new populations in need of these services. As a result, we have made nurturing local community partnership the heart of our strategy.”

In this instance, the nonprofit relied on the lessons from other similar projects to inform their own theory of change. Additionally, the nonprofit analyzed its impact and optimized its programs based on what was working best.

The second theoretical nonprofit might explain its theory of change in this manner:

“We have adopted the theory of change of optimizing farmland to serve more people based on a foundational academic study about sustainable population support through optimized farming techniques as well as three large-scale studies on the impact of agriculture techniques on land development and the food supply. Additionally, we’ve surveyed the impact of our conferences and can show a clear connection between policy ideas proposed in our forums to legal changes made in target countries within two years as well as agriculture practices adopted by target countries within five years. Finally, our investments in academic research have resulted in the development of farming innovations that have created ways to improve soil regeneration by up to 80%, water usage by 30%, and productivity of target crops by 25-75%.”

For that nonprofit, the theory of change was grounded in academic research as well as the nonprofit’s own data from tracking the efficacy of its interventions and programs.

Whatever theory of change you develop, you should be able to explain why you think taking these actions is likely to have the desired outcome. You should also be tracking your progress. Over time, you may adapt your theory of change based on both the changing world and your nonprofit’s ever-sharpening experiences of attempting to achieve your mission.

It’s important for nonprofits to be honest with themselves about their theory of change. For example, if a nonprofit’s primary theory of change is grounded in federal lobbying to expand carbon-neutral energy sources, that needs to be at the heart of everything it does. The nonprofit may have other programmatic work such as digital engagement with supporters on climate issues, corporate education around environmentalism, school outreach, or state lobbying around energy—but all of these programs should be in support of and complementary to that core theory of change.

Unfortunately, many nonprofits add complementary and supportive programs around their theory of change, and then lose sight of that original idea that inspired this approach. This is where the role of nonprofit leaders is so important. Where each individual person at a nonprofit may be very focused on her individual task, a nonprofit leader should be able to tell the story of how that task fits into a larger theory of change for the organization—or recognize if it does not.

That’s an organizational theory of change. You can apply a similar approach to developing a theory of change for each specific programmatic project: in short, explaining how that project will help you achieve your mission and why you think it will do that.

Want to help your organization develop a strong theory of change? Reach out today to talk about trainings with Groundwork.