Who Owns the Theory of Change?

Policy evaluations in the UK have increasingly espoused a ‘Theories of Change’ (ToC) approach, drawing on North American experiences. Features of ToC include the expectation that all affected stakeholders will be involved in developing, agreeing, monitoring and evaluating a relevant theory for the proposed intervention, and the assumption that widespread stakeholder involvement will extend ownership of the intervention to achieve ‘total ownership’ and also improve attribution. Drawing on the experiences of three English evaluations (Health Action Zones, New Deal for Communities and Local Strategic Partnerships), this article examines the possibilities and limitations associated with the achievement of ‘total ownership’. Analysis reveals some important differences between the English and North American contexts and leads to the development of alternative models of ownership including ‘elite’,‘evaluator’,‘principal’ or ‘community’ ownership. The article concludes that if these models are more realistic than ‘total ownership’ in the English policy environment then this has implications for the appropriate application of ToC.

[1]  R. Moore,et al.  Evidence-based policy-making , 2006, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[2]  Mhairi Mackenzie,et al.  Promoting Social Change: The Experience of Health Action Zones in England , 2005, Journal of Social Policy.

[3]  Kings Fund Building Knowledge About Complex Community-Based Initiatives , 2005 .

[4]  M. Barnes,et al.  The development of collaborative capacity in health action zones , 2004 .

[5]  David Wilson,et al.  Unravelling Control Freakery: Redefining Central-Local Government Relations , 2003 .

[6]  S. Macintyre Evidence based policy making , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  Sally Macintyre Impact on health inequalities still needs to be assessed , 2003 .

[8]  Beth C. Weitzman,et al.  Integrating a Comparison Group Design into a Theory of Change Evaluation: The Case of the Urban Health Initiative: , 2002 .

[9]  Marian Barnes,et al.  Building Collaborative Capacity through `Theories of Change' , 2002 .

[10]  Mary Godfrey,et al.  What Works: Evidence‐based Policy and Practice in Public Services , 2001 .

[11]  H. Sullivan,et al.  Modernisation, Democratisation and Community Governance , 2001 .

[12]  Janet Newman,et al.  Modernizing Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society , 2001 .

[13]  M. Barnes,et al.  Building capacity for collaboration: Context, strategy and capacity. Initial findings from the strategic level analysis of HAZs , 2001 .

[14]  H. Sullivan,et al.  Doing 'joined-up' evaluation in community based regeneration , 2001 .

[15]  Mike Campbell,et al.  NEW DEAL FOR COMMUNITIES; NATIONAL EVALUATION , 2001 .

[16]  Ken Judge Testing Evaluation to the Limits: The Case of English Health Action Zones , 2000, Journal of health services research & policy.

[17]  James P. Connell and Anne C. Kubisch Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects, and Problems , 1998 .

[18]  R. Rhodes Understanding governance : policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability , 1997 .

[19]  B. Peters,et al.  Shouldn't Row, Can't Steer: , 1997 .

[20]  M. S. de Vries,et al.  -- [Review of: D.M. Fetterman, S.J. Kaftarian (1997) Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self Assessment and Accountability] , 1997 .

[21]  David M. Fetterman,et al.  Empowerment evaluation : knowledge and tools for self-assessment & accountability , 1996 .

[22]  R. Hollister,et al.  Problems in the Evaluation of Community-Wide Initiatives , 1995 .

[23]  M. Bradford,et al.  An evaluation of Urban Policy , 1995 .

[24]  Huw Thomas,et al.  Urban policy evaluation : challenge and change , 1995 .

[25]  Jmw Stewart Between Whitehall and Town Hall. The Realignment of Urban Regeneration Policy in England , 1994 .

[26]  Brian Robson,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy , 1994 .

[27]  R. Leach The learning curve , 1992 .

[28]  Huey-tsyh Chen Theory-driven evaluations , 1990 .

[29]  Marvin F. Wideen,et al.  The role of the evaluator , 1986 .

[30]  J. G. Griffith Central departments and local authorities , 1967 .