`Theories of Change' has proved a popular approach for both evaluators and commissioners of complex social programmes, but the ways in which theories of change (ToC) evaluations have been implemented show considerable variation. This article draws on the ongoing work of the National Evaluation of the Children's Fund (NECF) and argues that the literature which discusses the ToC approach has neglected the process by which theories of change are constructed by stakeholders (and the implications of this for evaluation), while consistently describing such theories as `underdeveloped'. The authors argue that programme theory evaluations have relied on a process that emphasizes the importance of obtaining clarity at the outset, but that the detail of such theories and their implementation can only be obtained over time. An alternative approach is outlined, which the authors argue allows for a better understanding of programme theory, and hence knowledge and learning, to emerge.
Auspos, P. and A. Kubisch (2004) `Building Knowledge about Community Change: A Summary of the Companion Report from the Aspen Institute', in A. Coote, J. Allen and D. Woodhead Finding out What Works. London : Kings Fund .
2.
Barnes, M. , E. Matka and H. Sullivan (2003a) ` Evidence, Understanding and Complexity: Evaluation in Non-Linear Systems ', Evaluation9(3): 263—82 .
3.
Barnes, M. , H. Sullivan and E. Matka (2003b) The Development of Collaborative Capacity in Health Action Zones: A Final Report from the National Evaluation. Birmingham: University of Birmingham .
4.
Barnes, M. , L. Bauld , M. Benzeval , K. Judge , M. Mackenzie and H. Sullivan (2005) Building Capacity for Health Equity. London: Routledge .
5.
Barnes, M. , R. Evans , G. Plumridge and A. McCabe (2006) Preventative Services for Disabled Children: A Final Report of the National Evaluation of the Children's Fund. London: DfES .
6.
Beirens, H. , P. Mason , N. Spicer , N. Hughes and R. Hek (2006) Preventative Services for Asylum Seeking Children: A Final Report of the National Evaluation of the Children's Fund. London: DfES .
Children and Young People's Unit (2001) Children's Fund Guidance. London: DfES .
9.
Children and Young People's Unit and the Youth Justice Board (2002) Use of Children's Fund Partnership Funding for Crime Prevention Activities Jointly Agreed with Youth Offending Teams: Guidance. London: CYPU and YJB .
10.
Connell, J.P. and A.C. Kubisch (1998) `Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects, and Problems ', in K. Fulbright-Anderson , A. C. Kubrisch and J. P. Connell (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol. 2, Theory, Measurement and Analysis. Washington, DC : Aspen Institute .
11.
Connell, J.P. , J.L. Aber and G. Walker (1995) `How do Urban Communities Affect Youth? Using Social Science Research to Inform the Design and Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives', in J. P. Connell , A. C. Kubisch , L. B. Schorr and C. H. Weiss (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol. 2, Theory, Measurement and Analysis, pp. 93 — 126. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute .
12.
Coote, A. , J. Allen and D. Woodhead (2004) Finding out What Works. London : Kings Fund .
13.
Cotterill, L. (2002)` Developing Capacity for Theory-BasedEvaluation', in L. Bauld and K. Judge (eds) Learning from Health Action Zones . Chichester : Aeneas Press.
14.
Craig, G. and J. Manthorpe (1999) ` Unequal Partners? Local Government and Reorganization and the Voluntary Sector ', Social Policy and Administration33(1): 55—72 .
15.
Davies, H. , S. Nutley and P. Smith (2000) What Works?Bristol: Policy Press .
16.
Edwards, A. , M. Barnes , I. Plewis et al. (2006) Working to Prevent the Social Exclusion of Children and Young People: Final Lessons from the National Evaluations of the Children's Fund. London: DfES .
17.
Gambone, M.A. , A.M. Klem , W.P. Moore and J.A. Summers (2001) ` First Things First: Creating the Conditions and Capacity for Community-Wide Reform in an Urban School District ', paper given at the 2nd international seminar sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation and the King's Fund, `Finding out What Works: Evaluating Community Based Action for Promoting Positive Outcomes for Individuals, Families and Neighbourhoods', Harrison Conference Center, Long Island, New York, USA, 30 Jan.—1 Feb.
18.
Jacobs, B. , S. Mulroy and C. Sime (2002)`Theories of Change and Community Involvement in North Staffordshire Health Action Zone', in L. Bauld and K. Judge (eds) Learning from Health Action Zones. Chichester: Aeneas Press .
19.
Judge, K. (2000) ` Testing Evaluation to the Limits: The Case of English Health Action Zones ', Journal of Health Services Research and Policy5(1): 1-3 .
20.
Mason, P. (2005)` Visual Imagesin Applied Research: Lessons from Experience ', Qualitative Research5(3): 235—346 .
21.
Mason, P. , K. Morris and P. Smith (2005) ` A Complex Solution to a Complicated Problem? Early Messages from the Evaluation of the Children's Fund Prevention Programme ', Children and Society19: 131-43 .
22.
Mason, P. , G. Plumridge , M. Barnes , H. Beirens and K. Broughton (2006) Preventative Services for Gypsy/Traveller Children: A Final Report of the National Evaluation of the Children's Fund. London: DfES .
23.
Milligan, S. , C. Coulton , P. York and R. Register (1998) `Implementing a Theory of Change in the Cleveland Community-Building Initiative: A Case Study', in K. Fulbright-Anderson , A. C. Kubisch and J. P. Connell (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol. 2, Theory, Measurement and Analysis . Washington, DC: Aspen Institute .
24.
Morris, K. , S. Warren , R. Hek , P. Mason and G. Plumridge (2006) Preventative Services for Black and Minority Ethnic Children: A Final Report of the National Evaluation of the Children's Fund . London: DfES .
25.
Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (1997) RealisticEvaluation. London : SAGE .
26.
Percy-Smith, J. and I. Sanderson (1992) Understanding Local Needs. London: IPPR .
27.
Prior, D. and A. Paris (2004) Preventing Children's Involvement in Crime: Review of the Evidence. Birmingham: NECF (www.ne-cf.org).
28.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003) New Deal for Communities: The National Evaluation: Annual Report 2002—3, Neighbourhood Renewal Unit. London: ODPM .
29.
Sullivan, H. and Stewart, M. (2006) ` Who Owns the Theory of Change? ', Evaluation12(2): 179—99 .
30.
Sullivan, H. , M. Barnes and E. Matka (2002) ` Building Collaborative Capacity through Theories of Change: Early Lessons from the Evaluation of Health Action Zones in England ', Evaluation8(2): 205—26 .
31.
Weiss, C. (1995)` Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evalu-ation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families', in J. P. Connell , A. C. Kubisch , L. B. Schorr and C. H. Weiss (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods and Contexts. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute .
32.
Weiss, C. (1997) ` Theory-Based Evaluation: Past, Present, and Future ', New Directions for Evaluation76 (Winter): 41—55 .
33.
Weiss, C. (2000) ` Which Links in Which Theories Shall We Evaluate? ', New Directions for Evaluation87 (Fall): 35—45 .
