Theory of Change

The Core Problem

The peace field lacks a unified theory of change.

Thousands of organizations pursue peace through different interventions—mediation, education, trauma healing, economic development, disarmament—but no framework shows how these connect.

Each organization has its own theory of change, but there's no theory of change for peace itself.

This is why billions in funding produce fragmented results. It's why local successes don't scale.

It's why progress remains reversible.

IGP's Contribution

We don't implement peace programs.

We develop the overarching theory of change that shows how all peace programs contribute to peace.

Our sentience-based framework maps the complete global causal chain:

  • Which activities produce which outputs

  • How those outputs create specific peace conditions

  • How those conditions combine to constitute peace

  • How local interventions scale to global impact

This isn't another theory of change. It's THE theory of change for the entire field of global peace work—the framework that shows how everyone's work fits together.

How Transformation Happens:

We provide the framework → Organizations see where they fit → Natural coordination emerges → Efforts compound → Peace becomes measurable → Lasting change becomes possible

This isn't top-down coordination.

When organizations understand how their specific outputs contribute to shared outcomes, they naturally:

  • Identify gaps and overlaps in the field

  • Form strategic partnerships

  • Align their metrics

  • Build on each other's work

  • Measure collective progress

Our Transformation Pathway

  • Open book with a silhouette of a person's face on the left page and a textured pattern on the right page, set against a dark background.

    Phase 1: Conceptual Infrastructure

    We develop the sentience-based framework that defines peace and its component conditions through rigorous research and cross-cultural validation.

  • A glowing incandescent light bulb next to three small triangle-shaped objects pointing to the right, and four various hand tools including a flathead screwdriver, open-end wrench, hammer, and pliers on a wooden surface.

    Phase 2: Organizational Clarity

    Peace organizations use our framework to understand exactly where their work fits in the larger architecture of peace—how their specific outputs contribute to shared outcomes.

  • Audience of diverse adults seated in a dark conference room, attentively watching a presentation.

    Phase 3: Natural Coordination

    When organizations see how their efforts connect, coordination emerges naturally. Groups addressing trauma recognize their link to those building economic systems. Educators see how their work enables what mediators do.

  • Flags of various countries surrounding the United Nations headquarters building.

    Phase 4: Cumulative Progress

    Instead of duplicated or contradictory efforts, interventions build on each other. Progress in one area strengthens work in another. The field moves from fragmentation to symphony.

  • A classroom filled with students sitting at desks, paying attention to a teacher at the front. The teacher is standing near a whiteboard, and a digital screen is visible behind him. There are colorful posters and educational materials on the walls.

    Phase 5: Measurable Peace

    With clear definitions of peace conditions, we can finally measure real progress—not just reduction in violence but active cultivation of flourishing.

The GPS Analogy

Before GPS, travellers moved in isolation. GPS didn't coordinate them—it provided the common reference system that let them coordinate themselves. The Institute for Global Peacecraft is building the GPS for peace work. We don't direct traffic; we provide the conceptual infrastructure, the map, that lets everyone navigate effectively.

What Success Looks Like

  • Organizations articulate clearer theories of change using shared language

  • Previously isolated peace-related sectors discover their interdependence

  • Funders allocate resources based on systemic understanding

  • Local interventions consciously contribute to global conditions

  • The field measures progress toward peace, not just away from violence

Why This Approach

Adding another implementation organization wouldn't address the structural problem.

The field doesn't need more players—it needs the infrastructure that lets everyone play in harmony.

IGP provides that infrastructure.

Read our research