Theory of Change: Two Worked Examples
A theory of change is a one-page map of how and why your charity’s activities are expected to lead to the difference you want to make. The best way to understand one is to see it done well, so this page works through two complete, annotated examples — one small charity and one medium-sized — with call-outs explaining why each part works. Both are illustrative and fictional; the point is the structure and the thinking, not the numbers.
From accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2026, the Charities SORP asks charities to report on their impact in a dedicated section of the Trustees’ Annual Report. (Source: GOV.UK, 31 October 2025.) A theory of change is the simplest way to show how your activities lead to that impact — which is why funders increasingly ask for one, and why it is worth getting right.
How to read these examples
Each example lays out the same chain: the inputs a charity puts in, the activities it runs, the outputs those produce, the outcomes (changes for people) that follow, and the longer-term impact — plus the assumptions that have to hold true for one step to lead to the next. Read down the chain and it should feel logical: if we do this, then that should follow, because of these assumptions. The call-outs marked “Why this works” point out the choices that make each theory of change credible rather than wishful.
These two charities are deliberately different — a tiny, volunteer-led befriending service and a larger, staffed employment charity — to show that the same structure works at any size. Do not copy their outcomes or figures; your theory of change should describe your own work, beneficiaries and assumptions. Use them instead as a model for the shape of the thinking: work backwards from the change you want, keep the chain logical, and be honest about what has to be true for it to hold.
Illustrative example 1: Oakvale Befriending — a small charity (~£50,000 income)
Oakvale Befriending is a fictional small charity that tackles loneliness among older people in one town. Its theory of change is that regular, trusted one-to-one contact from trained volunteers reduces older people’s loneliness, improves their wellbeing and confidence, and helps them reconnect with their community — so that over time they live more connected, healthier lives.
The problem: In Oakvale, many older people live alone with little regular contact, and chronic loneliness harms both their wellbeing and their physical health.
| Component | Oakvale Befriending |
|---|---|
| Inputs | A part-time coordinator (0.6 FTE); 25 trained volunteer befrienders; ~£48,000 a year from local grants and donations; partnerships with the GP surgery, library and two care homes. |
| Activities | Recruit, train (DBS-checked) and match volunteer befrienders; weekly home visits; a daily phone-befriending line; a monthly group social at the library. |
| Outputs | 60 older people befriended a year; around 3,000 befriending contacts; 25 volunteers trained and supported; 11 monthly socials held. |
| Outcomes | Short-term: people feel less lonely and more listened to. Medium-term: improved wellbeing; more confidence to leave the house; reconnection to friends, family and local activities. |
| Longer-term impact | Older people in Oakvale live more connected, independent and healthier lives, with less avoidable pressure on health and social care. |
| Key assumptions | Enough volunteers can be recruited and kept; matching pairs people well; the GP surgery and community refer those most isolated; and regular, trusted contact genuinely reduces loneliness for this group. |
Measuring it: Oakvale could measure the loneliness outcome with a short validated scale (for example the ONS4 personal wellbeing questions, or a recognised loneliness measure) at the start of befriending and again after six months, alongside a couple of short case studies. That is proportionate for a charity this size — two or three indicators, a baseline and a follow-up — and it turns the theory of change directly into a measurement plan.
Illustrative example 2: Brightway Futures — a medium charity (~£520,000 income)
Brightway Futures is a fictional medium-sized charity that helps young adults aged 18 to 25 who are not in education, employment or training move towards lasting work. Its theory of change is that combining employability skills, real work experience, mentoring and wraparound support builds young people’s confidence and skills, gets them into work or training, and helps them stay there — so that they build independent, secure futures.
The problem: In its city, many young adults who are not in education, employment or training face several barriers at once — low confidence, few qualifications, weak professional networks, and unmet needs such as mental health or housing.
| Component | Brightway Futures |
|---|---|
| Inputs | Eight staff (coaches, an employer-links lead, support workers); a training centre; a network of local employers; ~£520,000 a year from trusts, a local-authority contract and donations. |
| Activities | A 12-week employability programme (skills, CV and interview practice); supported work placements; one-to-one mentoring; and wraparound support (mental-health signposting, benefits and housing advice). |
| Outputs | 200 young people supported a year; 150 completing the programme; 120 work placements; 8 employer partners engaged. |
| Outcomes | Short-term: increased confidence, employability skills and qualifications. Medium-term: moving into work, education or training. Longer-term outcome: still in work six months on. |
| Longer-term impact | Young people build lasting careers and independence, and the city sees less long-term youth unemployment and its associated costs. |
| Key assumptions | Local employers will offer genuine placements; participants engage and stay with the programme; the local labour market has entry-level jobs; and wraparound support removes enough of the barriers for skills training to work. |
Measuring it: Brightway could use a “distance travelled” tool to capture the confidence and skills outcomes at the start and end of the programme, and track destinations (work, education or training) at three and six months. It would report outputs too — completions and placements — but lead with the outcomes, and be honest about who it lost touch with, rather than only counting those who succeeded.
Common mistakes to avoid
Most weak theories of change share the same few faults: they describe activity instead of change, they skip the assumptions, they claim impact the charity cannot evidence, and they sprawl over several pages until no one can follow the logic. The two examples above avoid each of these, and so can yours.
The most common mistake is confusing outputs with outcomes — writing “we will run 40 sessions” where a funder wants to know what changes as a result. The fix is to ask, of every line, “and so what changes for people?”. The second is leaving out the assumptions: a theory of change with no assumptions looks tidy but hides the very risks a funder wants to see you have considered. The third is overclaiming — presenting a modest, real outcome as sweeping societal impact you could never prove, when it is far more convincing to claim less and evidence it. The fourth is length: if your theory of change runs to several pages, it has quietly become an operations manual, and the thread from activity to impact is lost. Keep it to a page, keep it honest, and keep the logic visible.
How to write your own theory of change
Build yours by working backwards from the change you want to see. Start with the long-term impact, then ask what outcomes would have to happen for it to occur, what outputs would produce those outcomes, and what activities and inputs would deliver them — naming the assumptions at every link. Keep it to a single page, in plain language, and test it with your staff, volunteers and the people you support.
A quick way to sharpen a draft is to test each outcome’s wording against a simple ladder. “We deliver employability workshops” describes an activity; “participants gain the confidence and skills to apply for work” describes an outcome; “participants are still in work six months later” describes a lasting outcome, close to real impact. Push each line as far up that ladder as you can honestly evidence, and both your theory of change and the funding case built on it become markedly stronger.
Once it is written, your theory of change tells you what to measure: the outcomes in it are exactly the things to track, and the assumptions are the things to check. Use the theory of change template to draft your own, see the full method in the Impact Measurement Handbook, and read the underlying ideas in the theory of change, outcomes, outputs and impact glossary entries. When you come to write a funding bid, a clear theory of change also makes the case far easier to argue — see the Complete Guide to Grant Funding.
Last reviewed: July 2026 · Reviewed by Ivan Siyanko. Both examples are illustrative and fictional.