This chapter maps recent media literacy interventions from all over the world to the theory of change, to capture the evidence of the consequences of media literacy. Media literacy has positive consequences when people contribute to more positive and healthy behavioural norms in the media and information environment, or they make media for positive change. Either way, they understand better the consequences of media representations and practices and how to make media themselves to make a positive contribution, so they become more motivated to act as positive peers in the media, information and data ecosystem, to be safe online themselves but also to help to keep others safe and healthy. With this mindset, people challenge the negative or harmful uses of media literacy by others and care about the negative consequences of a lack of diversity or bias in the media ecosystem, including on their health and the health of others. They feel more exercised by the unhealthy consequences of unverified content and information and data exploitation and motivated to encourage others to be more mindful. They avoid sharing unverified content, information and data, and they help others who are negatively impacted by online harms, misinformation or exploitative media representations to speak out. Over time, as media literate people with these values, we are able to join together to oblige media practitioners, policy makers and institutions to respond to more media literate publics by taking more responsibility for the consequences of diversity or bias and to engage with more media literate audiences and users in their practices with a focus on positive change and a healthy communication ecosystem for social cohesion. A single sentence describes the media literacy interventions which this exercise identified as consequentially impactful—to show how we make a difference, to capture the hope. Following this, the concluding sections assesses the findings, draw conclusions and makes recommendations for how the global field can build on what we have found. These findings account for the quantity of interventions which map across to each of the four theory of change elements—access, awareness, capability and consequences. They also capture the nature of evidence and the critical threshold between latent potential and manifest change. The conclusions drawn loop back to the book’s situating of media literacy as dynamic, eco-centric and epistemologically unsettled so that these recommendations motivate media literacy to increase equity and further social justice. Finally, the book ends by explaining how to use the theory of change to design and evaluate media literacy interventions. Wherever media literacy is being developed, applied, used to solve a problem, help people, to improve a situation or to make things better in society, this framework can help to more precisely identify the specific kinds of change a project intends to deliver. Depending on where you are in your media literacy work, this might be about designing a completely new intervention, refining or extending something, or using this framework to evaluate change in new ways. The guidance here is about using this theory of change not only to do media literacy better, but to make a difference with media literacy, to make a difference to lives, in the pursuit of social justice, for the redressing of inequalities, to listen to other voices and act for both human rights now and for eco-centric, equitable futures. Readers can, therefore, use this theory for change, through dynamic media literacy work.