We care about your privacy
About a year ago, I wrapped up a project that involved a deep dive into social and behaviour change (SBC) frameworks being used across the international development space. At the time, we were trying to make sense of all the different approaches floating around: some old, some new, many rebranded, and almost all claiming to be “evidence-based.” The goal was to build a clearer picture of what was actually out there, how these frameworks were being used, and whether they were truly grounded in behavioural science.
Fast forward to now, and the context has changed dramatically. With USAID, the largest global supporter of SBC, now shut down, the future of this work feels uncertain. While I didn’t work directly on USAID-funded programmes myself, the agency had a massive influence on the field. It helped legitimise SBC as an area of serious technical work, invested in tools and guidance, and encouraged other donors to follow suit. So now, I find myself returning to that earlier research with a different lens: how do we preserve what has been learned? And more importantly, what’s actually worth keeping?
As part of the review, we analysed 26 frameworks used by a cross-section of organisations—international NGOs like Save the Children and FHI360, global institutions like UNICEF, academic leaders including Johns Hopkins and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and consultancies such as the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) and Ideas42. Each framework was reviewed using six criteria: number of steps, theoretical grounding, presence of defined techniques, thematic focus, and a short summary of its application.
What stood out immediately was the surface-level diversity paired with a surprising amount of similarity beneath. Most frameworks followed a predictable structure, something along the lines of “understand, define, design, test, scale”, but were packaged differently. Some had three broad steps; others extended to seven or more. Almost all referenced the socio-ecological model (SEM), either explicitly or implicitly, and most described some form of participatory process.
Where the real difference emerged was in the level of theoretical depth. Many of the NGO-led frameworks were practical and easy to use, but often lacked clarity around how change was expected to happen. The academic models (such as Intervention Mapping, Behaviour Centred Design, and the Behaviour Change Wheel) were much stronger in this regard. They explicitly linked behavioural determinants to specific change techniques and offered clearer guidance on intervention design.
This gap matters. According to Intervention Mapping, an intervention only works when (1) it targets a determinant that actually predicts behaviour, (2) it applies a method that can shift that determinant, and (3) the method is implemented in a way that respects its behavioural “parameters for effectiveness.” Without this thinking built in, frameworks risk becoming checklists rather than design tools.
It’s not surprising that most SBC frameworks originated in the health sector. Behavioural science has deep roots in public health, and donor funding has long prioritised areas like family planning, HIV prevention, immunisation, and nutrition. But there is movement beyond this.
Organisations like Save the Children have adapted their ABCDE framework for use in education, protection, and livelihoods. UNICEF is investing more in applied behavioural science and treating it as a cross-sector capability rather than a health-specific one. These shifts are encouraging, but we’re still at the early stages of what broader SBC integration might look like.
And here, we can also learn a lot from consultancies. Groups like Ideas42, BIT, and Irrational Labs have taken behavioural science well beyond health into sectors like digital finance, education, governance, and climate. Their frameworks are usually sector-agnostic. This level of flexibility, grounded in clear behavioural thinking, is something we can take inspiration from. Especially now, as organisations face shrinking resources and need tools that can stretch across contexts.
One of the most concerning findings from our review was how few frameworks provide specific guidance on how to design an intervention once you’ve diagnosed a behavioural issue. Of the 26 frameworks we analysed, only six defined behaviour change tactics in any detail.
This is a big gap. Identifying a barrier, say, low self-confidence or negative social norms, is only half the job. You then need a way to address it. If confidence is low, you need techniques like guided practice, modelling, or verbal persuasion to build self-efficacy. If social norms are the issue, interventions might involve peer comparison or public commitments. Without guidance on this, there’s a risk of choosing methods based on convenience rather than effectiveness.
Some frameworks are better here. UNICEF’s Behavioural Drivers Model and its list of SBC implementing strategies provide decent direction. Intervention Mapping goes even deeper, using theory to guide method selection. ActionAid’s application of the Theory and Technique Tool is another good example. These frameworks help you translate theory into practice, which is exactly what’s needed now.
The closure of USAID marks a significant shift in the SBC ecosystem. But it’s also an opportunity. This moment invites us to reflect on what we’ve lost, but on what we want to keep.
We don’t need to start from scratch. The last two decades have produced frameworks, tools, and guidance that can still serve us well. But we need to be more selective and strategic about what we carry forward. We need frameworks that are:
• Grounded in theory,
• Flexible across sectors,
• Practical in guiding intervention design,
• And useful to real implementers working in diverse contexts.
If SBC is to remain relevant and impactful, we need to protect the foundations of what makes it effective. That means resisting the urge to jump on the next trend or simplify for simplicity’s sake. It means investing in tools that connect insight to action and barriers to behaviour change techniques. It means treating behaviour change as the complex, dynamic process it is.
I’m looking forward to contributing to a more resilient, evidence-driven SBC practice for the future.