fsd's financial education programme: evaluation and ... - FSD Kenya

FSD’S FINANCIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME: 

EVALUATION AND RECOMENDATIONS 

JULY 2013

By Gerda L Piprek and Ravi Ruparel 

This report was commissioned by FSD Kenya. The findings, interpretations and conclusions are those of 

the authors and do not necessarily represent those of FSD Kenya, its Trustees and partner 

development agencies. 

FSD Kenya 

Financial Sector Deepening 

The Kenya Financial Sector Deepening (FSD) programme was established in early 2005 to support the development of financial markets 

in Kenya as a means to stimulate wealth creation and reduce poverty. Working in partnership with the financial services industry, the 

programme’s goal is to expand access to financial services among lower income households and smaller enterprises. It operates as an 

independent trust under the supervision of professional trustees, KPMG Kenya, with policy guidance from a Programme Investment 

Committee (PIC). In addition to the Government of Kenya, funders include the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), 

the World Bank, the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), Agence Française de Développement (AFD) and the Bill and 

Melinda Gates Foundation. 

Government of Kenya 

THE WORLD BANK

FSD’S FINANCIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME: EVALUATION AND RECOMENDATIONS • i 

Table of Contents 

TABLES AND FIGURES 

ACRONYMS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Chapter 1 

BACKGROUND AND APPROACH 1 

1.1 Background 1 

1.2 Objectives of the project evaluation 1 

1.3 Logical framework 1 

1.4 Methodological approach 1 

1.5 Structure of the report 1 

Chapter 2 

PROJECT OVERVIEW AND EVALUATION 2 

2.1 Project design 2 

2.2 Project implementation 2 

2.3 Financial Education and Protection Partnership (FEPP) 2 

2.4 National financial education framework 4 

2.5 Financial literacy baseline 5 

2.6 Pilot projects 6 

2.7 Additional initiatives 11 

2.8 Roles and linkages 12 

2.9 Performance targets 12 

2.10 Specific questions in the ToR 12 

ii 

iii 

iv 

Chapter 3 

CONCLUSIONS 15 

3.1 Core outputs and other outcomes 15 

3.2 Programme design 15 

3.3 Execution 16 

Chapter 4 

RECOMMENDATIONS 17 

4.1 National level 17 

4.2 Within FSD 18 

Literature review 19 

ANNEXES 

Annex A: Terms of reference for financial education 20 

Annex B: Defining financial capability and consumer protection 23 

Annex C: Stakeholders consulted 26

ii • FSD’S FINANCIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME: EVALUATION AND RECOMENDATIONS 

TABLES & FIGURES 

TABLES 

Table 1: Components of a national financial education and 

consumer protection framework 

Table 2: FEPP - activities and achievements 3 

Table 3: Preliminary national framework - activities and achievements 5 

Table 4: Financial literacy baseline - activities and achievements 6 

Table 5: Pilot targets and actual achievements 8 

Table 6: Pilots - outputs, activities and achievements 10 

Table 7: Links - purpose and achievements 13 

Table 8: FinEd project targets 14 

Table 9: Logical framework 17 

Table 10: FinEd project targets 22 

vi 

FIGURES 

Figure : Financial capability and consumer protection 25

FSD’S FINANCIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME: EVALUATION AND RECOMENDATIONS • iii 

ACRONYMS 

CBK Central Bank of Kenya 

CP Consumer Protection 

FE Financial education 

FEF Financial Education Fund 

FEP Financial Education Partnership 

FEPP Financial Education and Consumer Protection Partnership 

FinAccess Financial Access Programme 

FinCap Financial capability 

FinEd Financial Education Programme (of the FSD) 

FinLit Financial Literacy 

FSD Financial Sector Deepening 

GoK Government of Kenya 

KBA Kenya Bankers Association 

KU Kenyatta University 

KUSSCO 

M&E 

MFI 

MFO 

MJ 

MoF 

MSME 

NGO 

PM 

PPP 

SACCO 

ToR 

ToT 

Kenya Union of Savings & Co-operative Societies 

Monitoring and evaluation 

Microfinance Institution 

Microfinance Opportunities 

Makutano Junction 

Ministry of Finance 

Micro, small and medium enterprise 

Non-Governmental Organization 

Project Manager 

Public Private Partnership 

Savings and Credit Cooperatives 

Terms of Reference 

Training-of-trainers

iv • FSD’S FINANCIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME: EVALUATION AND RECOMENDATIONS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

FinEd programme overview and evaluation 

In December 2008, the FSD launched the 2-year Financial Education. This 

programme was subsequently extended to December 2011. A dedicated 

Project Manager (PM) was appointed to manage the programme. 

The main aim of the programme was to ‘lay the foundations for a 

comprehensive and sustainable national programme of financial education 

in Kenya.’ The programme had four core outputs: (i) establishing a financial 

education partnership; (ii) developing a preliminary framework for financial 

education; (iii) establishing a financial literacy baseline; and (iv) piloting 

approaches to financial education. Consumer protection was later added to 

the programme and the FEP changed to a Financial Education and Consumer 

Protection Partnership (FEPP). Some additional outputs were also added, 

notably the execution of a Consumer Protection diagnostic. 

1. FEPP 

The FSD, through FinEd, provided secretarial services to the FEPP. The FEPP 

was instrumental in creating awareness of financial education (FE) in Kenya, 

although there were some challenges and shortcomings: 

• 

• 

• 

The implementation of the four pilots overshadowed the activities of the 

FEPP. 

Active members were mostly those who applied for grant funding for 

the implementation of pilots, rather than sector-level leaders. 

The FEPP was not institutionalised and there was no clear exit strategy 

for the FinEd as the Secretariat and consequently FEPP became dormant 

when the FinEd came to closure. 

Evaluation: partially achieved 

2. Preliminary national framework for FE 

A draft framework has been developed in consultation with the FEPP 

members. The framework was designed at the end of the FinEd programme, 

rather than at the outset. The framework has not been shared with or approved 

by stakeholders and its recommendations not yet implemented. At the time 

of evaluating the FinEd, there was no publicly available information on the 

development and implementation of such a framework. 


3. Financial literacy baseline 

The programme design envisaged using FinAccess as a tool to establish an FE 

baseline, by strengthening the FE section of FinAccess. A review of FinAccess 

2006 was undertaken to inform the FE questions in FinAccess 2008/9 (the 

baseline); and another review of the 2008/9 data was undertaken to further 

strengthen the FE component of the FinAccess 2010 (the end-line). The two 

sets of data from the Fin Access 20008/9 and 2010 yielded some valuable 

insights into levels of financial literacy, but fell short of a comprehensive 

assessment of the multiple dimensions of financial capability. 

Evaluation: under achieved. 

4. Pilots 

Four pilots were implemented, namely: (i) the public media programme 

Makutano Junction, implemented by Media-e; (ii) the Faulu pilot aimed at 

Faulu clients and communities in the selected Faulu branches; (iii) the Equity 

Group Foundation pilot aimed at the youth (primarily Kenyatta University 

students); and (iv) the Plan International programme targeted at Schools. 

The first two were large programmes and were primarily funded by DFID’s 

Financial Education Fund (FEF). The FinEd programme funded the M&E 

component. Three of the four used didactic models. 

The pilots experienced significant challenges, notably the short timeframe 

for implementation and the emphasis on M&E (which took almost as much 

time as the implementation). The findings on impact are mixed and the 

evaluation methods were inconsistent with some challenges of their own. 

The large minimum amount required by FEF (GBP250,000) crowded out the 

opportunity for testing smaller possibly more innovative approaches. 

The Media-e and Equity pilots achieved their targets in terms of persons 

reached while the other two pilots fell short of achieving their targets 

(although the targets appeared to be over-ambitious). The evaluations of the 

various pilots did not evidence a change in behaviour. This may partially have 

been as a result of the limited implementation time of the pilots. 

Three of the programmes have been replicated: Media-e has included FE 

into a new series with support from Women’s World Banking and a number 

of commercial Banks and Equity has significantly expanded its programme 

with funding from the MasterCard Foundation. Faulu, is now implementing a 

smaller adjusted version of the pilot with its own funds. 

Despite these challenges, the pilots succeeded in creating much awareness of 

FE among stakeholders in Kenya and beyond and several FE-related skills were 

developed among the programme implementers. 


Other observations: 

5. Consumer protection was largely dealt with as an add-on, and 

beyond the consumer protection diagnostic, little was done under the 

FinEd to further support or implement consumer protection. The pilots 

also did not incorporate components of consumer protection.

FSD’S FINANCIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME: EVALUATION AND RECOMENDATIONS • v 

6. A financial education curriculum has been developed at the end of the 

FinEd programme, but has not been disseminated. 

7. A FEPP website has been created – a great tool to support stakeholders 

in the implementation of FE and raising awareness and understanding of 

FE. However, it has not been updated since the FinEd closed. 

Conclusions 

The FinEd, through FEPP, played a key strategic role in the Kenyan market place 

and served to create awareness of financial education among stakeholders. 

The main challenges experienced with the FinEd programme relates to its 

design, rather than the execution. The main shortcomings of the design were: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The Scoping Study, which formed the basis for the programme design, 

fell far short of an in-depth diagnostic or situational analysis and the 

recommendations were very tactically focused (pilot implementation) 

rather than strategic. 

Consequently, there was a failure to recognise the need for developing 

a national roadmap or strategy at the outset of the programme. The 

need for an explicit stakeholder strategy and for institutionalising the 

organisational framework also remained unrecognised. 

No clear consumer strategy was developed upfront, based on demandside 

research informing the content and priority market segments. 

Rather, the pilots appeared to have been supply-driven and focussed on 

testing tactical execution. 

Within the FSD, the FinEd was implemented separately from other 

initiatives and not aligned with the FSD strategic vision. 

Recommendations 

The FSD should implement a FinEd II. This should be done through a twotiered 

approach. In brief: 

On national level: 

• 

• 

• 

Assume the role of catalyst and facilitator, not coordinator and main 

funder. 

Assist the GoK in conducting a diagnostic and developing a roadmap 

for implementing FE and CP on national level, including an explicit 

stakeholder strategy and institutionalising the coordination of FE and CP 

outside the FSD. 

Provide only light funding, preferably to the benefit of the market 

(rather than individual programmes), such as funding the diagnostic, 

development of a national-level M&E framework and a baseline. 

Table 1 demonstrates the elements of such a national framework (also 

see Annex B for relationship between financial capability and consumer 

protection). 

Within the FSD: 

• 

• 

• 

Provide cross-cutting support to FSD projects on FE/CP. 

Leverage the support of the FSD knowledge theme in designing and 

implementing an M&E framework on national and FSD level. 

Disseminate the deliverables from the FinEd / FEPP (lessons learnt from 

the pilots and the curricula developed) and place on FEPP website. The 

proposed stakeholder workshop to be called by the Council/ Governor 

of the CBK could provide a great forum to formally ‘close’ the FEPP, 

disseminate the relevant information, and introduce the new FE/ CP 

Council.

vi • FSD’S FINANCIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME: EVALUATION AND RECOMENDATIONS 

Table 1: Components of a national financial education and consumer protection framework 

National organisational structure framework • Governance structure 

• Implementation/ coordination structure 

• Stakeholder strategy – consult, inform, implement 

• Funding 

Policy and regulatory framework • Financial education (optional) 

• Consumer protection (several Acts and regulations may be affected) 

Consumer strategy 

M&E Framework 

1. Programme objective: 

• Awareness 

• Knowledge and skills 

• Behavioural modification 

• Programme R&D 

2. Programme implementation 

• Target market 

• Channel 

• Frequency 

• M&E 

• National level: FinCap Baseline – track over time 

• Programme level: develop as integral part of each programme 

Source: Marketworx Africa (2008)

FSD’S FINANCIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME: EVALUATION AND RECOMENDATIONS • 1 

Chapter 1 

BACKGROUND AND APPROACH 

1.1 Background 

In 2008, the Ministry of Finance mooted the formation of a Financial Education 

Partnership (FEP) in the form of a Public Private Partnerships (PPP). It was 

to complement the Financial Access Programme and FinAcces in contributing 

towards achieving Vision 2030. The Financial Sector Deepening Kenya (FSD) 

endeavoured to help lay the foundations for the development of a national 

financial education (FE) programme and assumed the role of Secretariat for 

the FEP. 

The FSD commissioned a financial education scoping study to ensure that 

a strongly demand-driven approach was taken in developing such an FE 

framework. The culmination of the scoping exercise was a workshop for 

all stakeholders to review the findings, sketch a framework for a national 

programme and confirm participants’ interest in and commitment to moving 

forward. 

Based on the findings and recommendations of the scoping study and 

workshop, a Project Appraisal Report (PAR) was developed in 2008. This 

provided the guidelines for a two-year Financial Education (FinEd) programme 

which was then implemented from September 2008 to December 2010. The 

purpose of the programme was to ‘lay the foundations for a comprehensive 

and sustainable national programme of financial education in Kenya.’ The 

project was subsequently extended to March 2012. 

The project had four key output areas. These were: 

• 

• 

• 

Establishing the Financial Education Partnership (FEP) 

Providing support for the development of a preliminary framework for a 

national financial education program 

Establishing a financial literacy baseline 

• Supporting pilot delivery projects 

Subsequent to the design of the project, the demand arose from government 

to develop a framework for consumer protection in the financial services 

sector. The FSD therefore supported the implementation of a diagnostic 

study – including demand-side research - which produced evidence-based 

recommendations to the authorities. 

1.2 Objectives of the project evaluation 

The aim of this evaluation is to ‘rigorously evaluate the progress made in the 

FSD’s financial education project against its objectives, and produce evidencebased 

recommendations for future work.’ The objectives of the evaluation are 

to assess: (1) the strategic relevance of the various project components to the 

overall project objective; (2) the quality of work (effectiveness and efficiency); 

and (3) evidence of impact. 

Two specific issues to be addressed are: 

• 

Progress made towards establishing a national framework. 

Assess: (1) the degree of engagement by stakeholders; (2) the credibility 

of the emerging framework; (3) the prospects for mobilizing resources; 

and (4) the potential to deliver real results. 

• Pilot delivery projects. Evaluate: (1) the target markets reached; 

(2) delivery cost per person; (3) evidence of impact; and (4) potential 

scalability of the channel. 

• 

The Terms of Reference are attached as Annex A. 

1.3 Logical framework 

The evaluation considers the FinEd programme in terms of: 

• 

• 

• 

Achievements against own project goals and objectives 

Strategic relevance in Kenya 

Strategic fit within FSD 

1.4 Methodological approach 

The evaluation comprised a desktop review of several project-related documents 

and interviews with multiple stakeholders, including the FSD Project Manager 

(Fin Ed PM), FSD theme heads, FEPP members, the implementers of the four 

pilot programmes and several other stakeholders in government and the 

financial sector. A list of stakeholders interviewed is included in Annex C. 

1.5 Structure of the report 

Section 2 of the document provides an overview and evaluation of the FinEd 

programme, its various components and additional initiatives implemented. 

The conclusions and recommendations are presented in Section 3.

2 • FSD’S FINANCIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME: EVALUATION AND RECOMENDATIONS 

Chapter 2 

PROJECT OVERVIEW AND EVALUATION 

2.1 Project Design 

The FSD Financial Education (FinEd) programme began in December 2008. 

Within the FSD, financial capability resides under the Formal Financial theme, 

although there is also a ‘financial education’ component under the Direct 

Poverty theme. The team which runs the Knowledge Generation Theme is 

responsible for research to support financial education initiatives, and in 

particular, for developing a national baseline. 

The FinEd Project Appraisal report (PAR) indicates that the purpose of the 

FinEd programme was to ”lay the foundations for a comprehensive and 

sustainable national programme of financial education in Kenya.” The vision 

of a financially literate Kenya is to make financial education available at all 

socio-economic levels. The objectives of the national programme were to: 

(i) improve Kenyans’ financial management practices; (ii) foster effective use 

of financial services; and (iii) advance consumer protection in the financial 

marketplace. 

The PAR recognised that realising the FinEd vision and achieving its objectives 

would require an enabling policy, a legal and regulatory framework and a 

multi-faceted approach to delivery. Three primary delivery channels were 

identified: (i) the formal educational system; (ii) mass media; and (iii) faceto-face 

interaction, which was to be sponsored by the financial sector itself. 

The intention was that the financial sector should expand its outreach by 

partnering with other civil society organisations. 

The project had four outputs, each with several activities. These outputs were: 

1. Establishing a financial education partnership (FEP) 

2. Developing a preliminary national framework for financial education 

3. Establishing a financial literacy baseline 

4. Piloting potentially viable approaches to financial education 

In addition, a number of activities were added in the course of the programme. 

These included: 

5. A consumer protection diagnostic 

6. Training of public sector organisations to deliver financial education 

7. Study into branchless banking and financial capability 

8. Creation of a financial education website 

9. Development of a financial education curriculum 

2.2 Project Implementation 

A dedicated Project Manager (PM) was appointed. The programme was 

intended to run until December 2010. The pilot projects were launched in 

2008 and were intended to run until 2010. 

The project was then extended to December 2011, to allow for completion 

of pilots, and then again to March 2012 to allow for completion of the pilot 

evaluations. 

2.3 Financial Education and Protection Partnership 

(FEPP) 

2.3.1 Overview 

The Financial Education Partnership (FEP) was set up in 2008 with the 

intention of providing a neutral body which could coordinate financial 

education-related activities in the private and public sector. Key responsibilities 

were: “to cultivate a vision for the programme, market financial education to 

stakeholders, research financial education resources, and define a policy 

agenda for consumer protection.” Its first goal was to agree a basic framework 

to guide the development of a national financial education programme. 

The FEP was later renamed as the Financial Education and Consumer Protection 

Partnership (FEPP). A task force was established to drive the FEPP and the FSD 

provided secretarial services through the FinEd programme. The Governor of 

the Central Bank of Kenya became the “Champion” of FEPP. Initially there was 

much interest and membership soared further after the FEPP put out a call for 

proposals for FE pilots. However, once only four pilots were selected to receive 

support from the FinEd through the FEPP, some participants lost interest. Over 

time, the FEPP became more pilot-focussed and participation in the FEPP 

dwindled. 

A final FEPP Workshop was held in Naivasha in December 2010. This was 

well attended by several institutions and four working groups were formed: 

Consumer Education, Consumer Protection, Financial Education Policy, 

Research, Monitoring and Evaluation. No follow-up meeting was ever called 

as the Fin Ed programme was coming to an end in December 2011. 

However, during 2011, after FinEd was extended, the FinEd PM further evolved 

several of the concepts discussed at the last FEP workshop. These included a 

proposed national framework, consumer strategy and curriculum. 

Also, there were no further FEPP meetings after the Naivasha workshop 

at which to discuss or distribute these concepts, as no more funding was 

available.


2.3.2 Evaluation 

The FEPP was instrumental in placing financial education on the national 

agenda in Kenya (and beyond). The FinEd excelled in providing secretarial 

services to the FEPP, technical assistance to the pilot initiatives and in advancing 

the deliverables from the last FEPP workshop. 

However, the FEPP had several structural shortcomings: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The active members were mainly those who applied for grant funding 

under the FEPP – while at the same time being FEPP members who in 

theory had to judge the applications. These roles need to be divorced in a 

true ‘neutral’ national structure. 

Membership appeared to be voluntary (largely pilot-driven) rather than 

strategic. 

The four pilots overshadowed the agenda and the activities of the FEPP 

became increasingly implementation-oriented - until the final Naivasha 

workshop. 

Stakeholders perceived the FEPP as an FSD-driven initiative and no real 

ownership of the FEPP was taken by the Kenyan stakeholders. Most 

stakeholders interviewed in the course of the evaluation seemed unaware 

that the FSD had an underlying programme with a limited timeframe, 

which was merely providing support and secretarial services to the FEPP. 

The FinEd PM became synonymous with the FEPP and indeed with any 

FE-related activities in Kenya. 

The FEPP therefore came to an end when the FinEd programme closed. 

While the FEPP may have been seen as a temporary structure, the FinEd 

design document did not make provision for transformation of the FEPP into 

a permanent structure owned by Kenyan stakeholders. Actually, a conscious 

decision was made in the design of the FinEd not to create a national entity at 

the outset. At the Naivasha workshop, a proposed structure was discussed and 

tabled, but as there were no follow-up FEPP meetings and the FinEd closed, 

this proposed structure was never moved forward. 

The outcome of the FEPP is not dissimilar to that which transpired in Ghana. In 

this instance, the FE initiative was also largely donor driven and funded, with 

the result that when the underlying donor programme came to an end, the 

national initiative also came to an end. It was only resurrected when a new 

donor programme was introduced. 

In conclusion, the FEPP was instrumental in creating awareness of FE and, to a 

lesser extent, consumer protection. Most of its planned activities were effectively 

executed. However, it assumed the form of a broad forum with a loosely defined 

task force rather than that of long-term sustainable unit providing strategic 

direction. 

Table 2: FEPP activities and achievements 

Outputs Activities Achievements 

1. Identification of a representative stakeholder group with willingness to 

take responsibility for driving the programme forward 

Partially achieved – but no sustainability in approach 

Financial education 

partnership (FEP) 

established by private 

and public sector 

stakeholders 

Overall: partially 

achieved, but with 

no sustainability 

2. Reach a consensus on an effective operating approach for the 

stakeholder partnership 

Achieved 

3. Secure preliminary institutional commitment from critical public and 

private sector stakeholders 

Achieved 

4. Agree terms of reference for FEP and ensure effective and representative 

governance 

Achieved 

5. Establish secretariat services to provide support to work of partnership Achieved 

6. Engage critical stakeholder institutions in Government to establish route 

to mainstreaming FEP activities within national policy development 

and implementation 

7. Review evidence from Kenya and international experience on potential 

priority objectives for financial education 

8. FEP to reach agreement on the preliminary priority objectives and 

market segments for financial education in Kenya and criteria for 

selection of pilot projects to be supported 

Some key stakeholders engaged, but FEP activities not 

mainstreamed in policy developments 

Unclear what priorities referred to (e.g. for the FEPP or 

for Consumer strategy or for policy?) 

Pilot projects selected - achieved 

Segments proposed in consumer strategy, although not 

distributed to FEPP members – partially achieved


2.4 National financial education framework 


The PAR describes the preliminary framework in terms of activities rather than 

outputs. These are detailed in Table 4. The development of the preliminary 

framework was the last action point on the FinEd implementation plan. The 

rationale being as follows: ”… development of this framework needs to be 

underpinned by actual work on the ground on the nuts and bolts of financial 

education (curriculum design and delivery, teacher and facilitator training, public 

campaigns) to inform, motivate and inspire the public/private participants in 

the partnership. Such pilot projects will ‘feed’ the programme from the bottom 

while the actors at the top create space for financial education in their respective 

spheres. Pilots will be sought addressing each of the three primary delivery 

channels identified.” 

The outcome was that the FEPP only dealt with the framework at the Naivasha 

Workshop, right at the end of the FinEd programme (December 2010). A 

proposed framework and consumer strategy was developed following this 

workshop, but to date this has not been shared as the FEPP forum became 

inactive after the workshop. 


Several elements of the framework remain unclear. These include its intended 

goals or components; what is meant by ‘scenarios for achievement of vision’; 

and how the pilots would have informed the development of a national level 

framework. A framework should guide a programme, not the other way 

around. 

Ideally, the need and rationale for an FE strategy or framework should be 

established (demand and supply-side analyses), before a national framework 

for financial education is developed, so that an FE programme is not simply 

introduced for its own sake. Several questions should be answered first: do 

we need financial education? Is this a national priority? Why? Do we need a 

national framework? What should this entail? The answers to these questions 

should then guide the development of a strategic framework. 

Such a framework should be developed in future to guide the ensuing process. 

At the least it should comprise, in order: 

(1) The proposed organisational structure (including functions such as 

providing or outsourcing technical assistance, information warehouse 

and dissemination, a stakeholder strategy and a funding strategy) 

(2) Policy implications and recommendations 

(3) A consumer strategy 

(4) Implementation plans for all of the above 

(5) An M&E framework for all of the above. 

While the FinEd covered most of the above components, it did so in the wrong 

order: the focus of the FinEd was very much on the pilots (tactics under 

component 5 above) and the development of the framework at the end of 

the programme, rather than the other way around. It also takes a long time to 

develop and implement such a framework, and this should be the starting and 

not the end point of an FE programme. 

The outcome in Kenya was that there was no-one to develop or establish the 

framework. While it could be argued that the stakeholders in Kenya should 

have assumed this role, the reality is that everyone was looking towards the 

FSD to do so, as it has been playing the central role in FE in Kenya until then. 

As there is no framework in place – other than a brief draft PowerPoint 

presentation - we cannot comment on any dimension of the framework as 

requested in the ToR. Furthermore, the draft framework seems to focus on FE 

only, with little consideration to Consumer Protection (CP). 

In conclusion, this absence of a national framework and of an 

institutionalised entity to become the champion, facilitator and 

coordinator of FE and CP in Kenya, underlies the limited strategic impact 

of the FinEd. It also explains why there has been no continuation of a 

national FE programme in Kenya post FinEd. 

2.5 Financial literacy baseline 


In terms of the Project Appraisal Report, FinAccess was viewed as the most 

suitable mechanism for conducting a financial literacy baseline. The intention 

was to include some relevant questions into FinAccess 2008 and again 

in FinAccess 2010 to track progress. However, FinAccess 2008 ran behind 

schedule and became FinAcess 2009, while FinAccess 2010 will now be 

FinAccess 2012/3. 

In 2008, FEPP commissioned consultants to review FinAccess 2006 and develop 

an initial framework for establishing a baseline by adding additional questions 

into FinAccess 2009 (initially 2008). A different set of consultants was then 

appointed to assist the FinEd PM in analysing the findings of FinAccess 2009, 

to set an initial baseline based on this data and develop recommendations for 

further refining the framework for FinAccess 2012 (initially 2009). 


The 2009 baseline analyses yielded some valuable insights. However, it fell 

short of a true baseline as there was not sufficient data collected to establish 

strong indicators. Also, the statistical analyses were limited to cross-tabulation, 

and interrogative statistical data analyses methods were not used (e.g. 

regression or discriminant analyses).


Table 3: Preliminary national framework - activities and achievements 

Output Activities Achievements 

Preliminary framework 

developed for a national 

financial education 

programme 

Partially achieved 

1. FEP to establish preliminary long-term vision for financial education 

in Kenya and develop scenarios for achievement of vision, identifying 

intermediate goals 

2. FEP to critically review relevance of proposed pilot projects to identified 

potential development scenarios 

3. Identify potential policy, legal and regulatory changes to support longterm 

vision though FEP 

4. Review evidence from pilot work on impact and sustainability against 

identified scenarios and discuss in FEP 

5. FEP to propose key elements of a national financial education strategy 

based on evidence produced through research and pilot activities 

6. Fully document results and framework to guide the development of a 

national financial education programme 

Partially achieved – developed at end of FinEd, not 

disseminated or agreed by stakeholders 

Activity unclear/ not achieved 


Unclear/ not achieved 





Shortcomings in the 2009 FinAccess were identified and several additional 

questions proposed for inclusion in FinAccess 2012. The focus of the proposed 

additional questions was on increasing financial inclusion, rather than 

financial capability: “These new questions are adapted for use in Kenya’s 

developing economy, where access to and experience with formal financial 

services remains limited for many. They try to capture a comprehensive picture of 

financial capability while providing more detailed data on the issue that matters 

most from a policy position: Are Kenyan consumers prepared to take advantage 

of the opportunities offered by an expanding access frontier?” 

While the increased use of financial products and services and adoption of 

new technologies may well be an outcome of increased financial capability, 

this should not be the main goal of financial education: increased financial 

capability should reside under the agenda of consumer protection 

and market stability, rather than increased product uptake. When 

the focus of a financial education programme is on the latter, financial 

education is often confused with marketing and product manual information 

or training. 

From a review of the FinAccess 2012 questionnaire, it appears as though 

some of the recommendations and questions proposed by the baseline team 

were incorporated in the draft 2012 questionnaire. However, not all proposed 

changes and questions were included. We largely agree that those proposed 

questions not included in FinAccess 2012 are not appropriate, and should 

therefore not be considered for inclusion in future either. 

Furthermore, the FinAccess 2012 section headed ‘financial literacy’ seems 

to be pretty much the same as that in the financial literacy sections of the 

original FinScopes, dating back a couple of years. At this time there was limited 

understanding of the concepts of financial literacy/ capability and the focus 

was still very much on the narrower concept of literacy as opposed to capability. 

The data on financial capability following FinAccess 2012, may therefore still 

be limited and not allow for the development of a strong baseline. 

While FinAccess can be adjusted to yield much stronger data on financial 

capability than is currently the case, it is doubtful that FinAccess - with its 

already crowded agenda - could be a substitute for a dedicated financial 

capability baseline: FinAccess is intended as a financial “usage and awareness 

survey” (commonly purported as measuring access, while actually measuring 

usage). It is not intended as a financial capability baseline, or as a consumer 

protection diagnostic - or any other type of survey. It has been observed in 

many countries that the end result of incorporating so many different agendas 

into FinScope (FinAccess) is that few aspects are measured well. In addition, 

the questionnaire takes an inordinate amount of time to administer. 

A separate FinCap baseline will yield more in-depth results, while not clouding 

FinAccess. This is the approach which has been adopted by several countries 

of late, notably Tanzania, Rwanda and Namibia. In the case of Namibia, with 

assistance from FinMark Trust, the Government attempted an expanded FinCap 

agenda imbedded in the FinScope. However, this has not yielded the desired 

results and the Namibian Government has now opted for implementing a 

separate FinCap baseline survey. Mozambique may follow suit.


Table 4: Financial literacy baseline - activities and achievements 

Outputs Activities Achievements 

1. Review approaches to measuring financial literacy, 

Achieved 

identifying relevant lessons for Kenya 

Financial literacy baseline 

established 

Under achieved 

2. Review questionnaire and data from existing FinAccess 

2006 study and propose relevant changes for FinAccess 

2008 

3. Commission analysis of findings from FinAccess 2008 

and publish base-line report on financial literacy in 

Kenya 

4. Review results from FinAccess 2008 and propose relevant 

changes for FinAccess 2010 while maintaining timeseries 

comparability 

Partially achieved – FinAccess 2008 yielded improved data, 

but still not strong baseline data for FinCap FinAccess 2010 

Achieved- but still not strong baseline data 

Partially achieved – not all recommendations relevant/ 

appropriate; FinAccess 2012 crowded and unlikely it will yield 

strong baseline data. 

In conclusion, the FinEd programme completed the activities of undertaking 

the various reviews of FinAccess and putting forward recommended changes 

to be incorporated in FinAccess. However, these recommendations were not all 

relevant and key issues were missed out. As such, FinAccess still does not reflect 

the minimum requirements of a financial capability baseline. 

Furthermore, the delays in implementing FinAccess (outside the control of the 

FinEd PM), meant that the required data was not available in 2008 and 2010 

as input into refining the proposed consumer strategy. This is an opportunity 

missed. 

2.6 Pilot projects 


The FinEd programme supported the piloting of four financial education 

projects as per the design in the PAR. The project design stated that: “the 

development of this framework needs to be underpinned by actual work on 

the ground on the nuts and bolts of financial education (curriculum design and 

delivery, teacher and facilitator training, public campaigns) to inform, motivate 

and inspire the public/private participants in the partnership. Such pilot projects 

will ‘feed’ the programme from the bottom while the actors at the top create space 

for financial education in their respective spheres.” The PAR further stated that” 

in keeping with the overall project aim of ensuring that the approach is driven by 

stakeholders, the FEP task-force will take a lead in identifying and selecting pilot 

projects for support. The FEP-TF will work by consensus to maximise the sense of 

collective responsibility for the programme developed and activities supported.” 

At this time, the DFID-funded Financial Education Fund (FEF) was launched, 

calling for proposals for financial education programmes with a minimum 

budget of GBP 250,000. The FinEd team agreed to co-fund some pilots with 

FEF and the FinEd Task Force invited proposals from the market. The intention 

was that proposals would be screened by the FinEd Task Force and the top 

proposals would be sent to FEF for consideration. A total of 23 proposals 

were received and four were selected for submission to FEF. These four were 

Media-e, Faulu, Equity Bank and Plan. The proposals and their sponsors went 

through a long screening process including pre-evaluation and mandatory 

training in M&E in South Africa. 

Two proposals – Media-e and Faulu – survived the process and obtained FEF 

funding for design and implementation, supplemented with funding from the 

FSD for evaluation. Equity Bank and Plan were unsuccessful and subsequently 

submitted scaled down proposals to the FinEd programme. Both were 

approved and received funding from FinEd only. The four pilot projects are 

described briefly below and in greater detail in Annex C. 

Media-e 

Media-e is an NGO that focuses on social/development communication. It 

applied for funding to incorporate financial education in its local TV drama 

series known as Makutano Junction, aired on Citizen TV. Makutano Junction is 

a popular soap opera that has been running since 2006. It is funded primarily 

by donors such as DFID and the UN, and some commercial companies. The 

financial education content featured in eight episodes and focused on four 

main themes: Budgeting, Banking Services, Savings, Investment and Debt


Management. These were broadcasted from January 2010. Viewers were 

further engaged through SMS messages and could request leaflets with 

financial education content through the post office. Media-e also worked with 

Faulu Kenya by supplying DVDs with clips from the Makutano Junction Series 

to augment Faulu’s financial education training materials. 

The target was to reach over 6 million viewers in predominantly rural areas 

and to change the knowledge/ skills and attitudes of at least 20% of those 

reached. 

Faulu 

The objective of the Faulu programme was to provide financial education 

to 70,000 beneficiaries: 50,000 Faulu Kenya clients and 20,000 people 

in communities surrounding the selected Faulu pilot branches. These 

beneficiaries were to be trained by 500 community-based trainers (CBTs) and 

trainers from Faulu Advisory Services. 

The target market for Faulu was largely peri-urban and the pilot was undertaken 

in the Western and Coastal Regions of Kenya. Training was provided to clients 

in a classroom setting. It comprised four modules: Debt Management, Savings, 

Investments and Budgeting. As per the FEF grant conditions, trainers were 

initially only allowed to educate clients about financial education and services 

without referring to Faulu products. This requirement was later relaxed. 

The original grant period was 17 months from 1 August 2009 to 31 December 

2010. The revised grant period was 31 months. 

Equity 

The objective was to pilot a programme to increase financial knowledge 

and skills among youths, equip them with knowledge and skills to prepare 

short and long term financial plans and to expose them to available financial 

services. The project was implemented by the Equity Group Foundation in 

association with Kenyatta University (KU) and Microfinance Opportunities 

(MFO). The activities involved: (i) development of a curriculum by MFO; (ii) 

training of Master Trainers (MT) by MFO; (iii) the training of student trainers by 

MT; (iv) the training of KU students; and (v) the training of off-campus youth 

by KU students. 

The target was to reach 8,000 youth during the project period, but no impact 

target was set. 

The original grant period was 15.5 months from 15 June 2010 to 30th 

September 2011, but this was revised to 21.5 months. 

Plan 

The project was dubbed ‘Laying the foundations of entrepreneurship among 

children’. The project aimed to reach 148 schools in Kisumu and Budalangi 

regions of Western Kenya. Its targets were: (i) training 145 teachers from 

participating schools; (ii) 14 500 pupils; and (iii) opening 145 savings 

accounts. 

Five teachers at Bondo Teacher Training College received training-of-trainers 

(ToT), and in turn were expected to train 145 teachers from participating 

schools. The project intended to deliver key financial education messages and 

develop skills for earning, saving and investing money among children aged 

between 6 and 14 years. The project also supported the creation of Aflatoun 

clubs and encouraged children to set up micro-enterprises in order to generate 

cash to save. 

The main project partner was Childsave Kenya who undertook the bulk of the 

work on the ground. The project had several objects: 

• 

• 

• 

Plan intended working in partnership with Post Bank Kenya to ensure 

that children were able to access banking services specially developed 

for children. 

It aimed at entrenching financial education in the teacher training 

programmes, as well as in primary school co-curriculum activities. 

It intended working with the Ministry of Education in order to anchor 

financial education in the national education policy. 

The original grant period was 13 months from 1 December 2009 to 31 

December 2010. The revised grant period was 28 months. 


The evaluation team’s observations are provided below. It should be noted 

that the quality of the baselines and end-lines varied considerably and made 

uniform assessment of the projects impossible. 

Media-e: 

The project performance largely met its stated purpose and the targeted reach 

was achieved. The key implementation challenge noted by Media-e was that 

the FEF/FinEd contribution came late in the process. Also, greater involvement 

by FSD on development of content would have been welcome. Other key 

points are: 

• 

• 

The evidence of impact is mixed. The project showed improvement in 

knowledge in the areas of budgeting, banking and saving. However, 

there is insufficient information to conclude that there were real changes 

in behaviour. 

The target market segment for Makutano Junction is largely rural (70%) 

and 75% of the viewership of Citizen TV is in the lower socio-economic 

classes (C2, D, E). We therefore conclude that the intended target market 

was reached.


Table 5: Pilot targets and actual achievements 

Performance against key targets: 1 

Project Indicator Target Actual 

Number of Kenyans reached through broadcast 6m 7.2m 

Mediae Number of SMS queries received and responded to 8,000 

% of viewers changing knowledge/skills/attitudes 20% 10% 

Number of people receiving training 70,000 48,306 

Faulu Number of community based trainers certified 500 625 

% increase in audience knowledge from training 50%


model: frontline staff (Development Finance Professionals) now provide 

training to group members over an 8-12 week period. This training 

includes two broad topics: Entrepreneurship and Financial Education. 

Faulu has found that this model works better, especially with groups, 

and it is also a more cost effective model than the classroom training 

conducted under the pilot. 

Equity 

The project performance largely met its stated purpose. Equity met its key 

performance target of numbers of youth trained. The main challenges for 

the training of KU students were the large size of classes and master trainers 

not being satisfied with their training allowance. The key challenge for the 

training of outside youth was that the student coaches were not trained on 

group mobilization skills. Other key points are: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The evidence of impact is hard to assess. The monitoring system was 

borrowed from previous activities of Equity Group Foundation and did 

not reflect the uniqueness of training. No pre- or post-test tools were 

used to measure change in knowledge, skills and attitudes. Furthermore, 

as there was no baseline, the end-line focused on questions such as 

whether the participants remembered the training modules – which is 

not a measure of impact. 

The target market segment for this project was a mix of urban and rural 

youth. Of the youth trained, 35% were KU students and therefore urban. 

Of the remaining 65%, it is not evident how many were urban or rural. 

The cost per person of the Equity project was USD$27.3 per person 

trained (including trainers). 

The model is replicable and scalable. Equity Bank has expanded it to 

other universities and other banks are introducing similar models. 

Plan 

The project performance did not meet its stated purpose. Plan did not meet its 

key performance target of number of students trained and while the pilot target 

was 148 schools, it was implemented in only 80 schools. The key challenges 

were: (i) the short implementation time, because of delayed commencement 

of training; and (ii) a dysfunctional project structure and fractious relationship 

among the project partners. (iii) The project also suffered from trying to do 

too much (training of teachers, training of students, Aflatoun clubs, child-led 

microenterprise development, opening of savings accounts, and influencing 

national education curriculum). 

Other key points are: 

• The evidence of impact is limited: the project succeeded in introducing 

Aflatoun savings clubs and curriculum in schools, but the learning did 

not go much beyond the club members and focal teachers. The project 

achieved very little in other areas and financial education was in no way 

entrenched within the educational system. 

• The target market segment for the Plan pilot was primary school students 

in government and informal schools, primarily in rural areas. 

• The cost per person of the Plan project was $20 per student ($19.5 if 

trainers are included). 

The model is not replicable, scalable or sustainable without significant donor 

support and also without being done at scale in order to bring costs down. 

Plan is keen to continue this type of activity, perhaps with a limited focus on 

supporting the creation of Aflatoun clubs. They have included the activity in 

their new strategic plan. However, this is not one of the core areas for Plan and 

no budget has been committed. 

The main conclusions regarding the pilot projects are: 

• Effect on market: the pilots served to create much awareness of financial 

education among stakeholders. Several institutions benefited from skills 

development in the design and delivery of financial education. 

• Additionality and replicability: the mere fact that these pilots were 

implemented with huge donor support means that these programmes 

are not replicable by any of the implementers without similar support. 

Equity may be one exception in terms of replicability, as they have the 

internal resources to implement their own programme, but then that 

raises the question of ‘additionality’: it appears as though this programme 

may well have been implemented without the support from Fin Ed. 

• Size of projects: the large minimum amounts required by FEF meant 

that small possibly more effective and efficient programmes were not 

considered. 

• Implementation time: the implementation time for the projects was too 

short. Because the FSD funding ran only until December 2010, the grants 

could not go beyond that date. Subsequently, the grant periods ranged 

from 15 to 17 months. Given start-up lags, the effective implementation 

times were only about a year. The grants were subsequently extended, 

but primarily to allow the evaluation to be undertaken. For pilots of this 

nature to be successful, a minimum time of around three years would 

be required. 

• 

Models: three of the four pilots followed didactic models. These models 

were of the first approaches used in financial education globally. While 

they may be the most suitable approach in some circumstances, they are 

also known to be extremely expensive with limited outreach and low 

frequency (mostly a once-off). It is therefore unclear why these tried and 

tested approaches (with known limitations) formed the basis of three of 

the four pilots though they were useful in creating interest in FE.


Targets and impact: 

• The targets for the four pilots were all set in terms of quantity (number 

of people reached). Some were unrealistic given the time available, 

particularly that of Plan. Chasing quantity then also often lead to poor 

execution. 

• Notably, no consideration was given to frequency of reach (a critical 

component of any communication campaign). An effective financial 

literacy approach would have as an output one or more of the following: 

creating awareness, improving knowledge, transferring skills, influencing 

attitudes, and ultimately changing behaviour. It is near impossible to 

transfer knowledge or skills with a single exposure (the typical didactic 

model) and even more so to influence attitudes and behaviour with 

once-off exposure. Improving financial capability is a long term on-going 

process, requiring multiple exposures and reinforcement over time. 

• 

It is also known that attitudes and behaviour tend to revert back (without 

continuous exposure/reinforcement). A proper evaluation of programmes 

will require revisiting the target market after a period of time to assess 

whether or not the impact of the programme has been lasting. 

• 

• 

Consumer strategy: while research was undertaken around the individual 

programmes, it remains unclear on what basis these pilots were selected, 

as there was no high-level national consumer strategy or demand-side 

data/baseline to inform the selection of these pilots. It therefore appears 

as though these were supply rather than demand-driven – a major 

strategic oversight. Pilots are in essence a tactic and should stem from 

a carefully crafted strategy and demand-side research, not the other 

way around. It appears as though this excessive focus on pilots and lack 

of strategic focus stem from the Scoping Exercise. This set the basis for 

the programme design and was further reinforced by the DFID-funded 

Financial Education Fund (FEF) that was launched around the same time 

as the FinEd. 

Content: there has been limited sharing of the content of these pilots 

(apart from between Faulu and Media-e). As the pilots were co-funded 

and seemingly customised on an institutional level, it is doubtful that 

there will be any sharing of the content and materials in future. Ironically, 

it seems that there was no formal sharing of lessons learnt following 

the pilots. The pilots (primarily the M&E) ran over time and were only 

Table 6: Pilots - outputs, activities and achievements 

Output Activities Achievements 

Potentially viable 

approaches for the 

delivery of financial 

education piloted 

Overall: partially 

achieved 

1. Review international and Kenyan experience on ways to deliver financial 

education addressing priorities, encompassing lessons from other 

sectors 

2. Identify potential for pilot projects and champions across the range of 

potential delivery channels addressing priority market segments with 

potential for scale-up and sustainability 

3. Support the development of a pilot research protocol to cover key 

partners, overall objectives, timetables, location/logistics/materials, 

content, quantifiable targets and education methodology 

4. Undertake market research with target markets to identify needs and 

establish base-line knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours/practices 

Unclear whether this was undertaken 

Underachieved: limited channels; no process of 

identifying market segments or prioritising these – 

supply-driven approach in selection of pilots 

Achieved 

Achieved 

5. Support the development of relevant content/curricula for pilot projects Achieved 

6. Undertake training of relevant staff in pilot institutions Achieved 

7. Develop relevant materials for implementation 

8. Implement pilot activity with regular monitoring of performance and 

sharing of experience between pilot activities 

9. Undertake follow-up survey to evaluate based on changes in 

knowledge, skills, attitudes and practices of target markets 

Achieved – although quality and relevance of material 

not known 

Achieved 

Underachieved – methodological problems; timeline 

exceeded


• 

completed during the no-cost extension – at which stage the FEPP was 

no longer functional. 

Monitoring and evaluation: this varied in design and quality among 

the projects. For Media-e and Faulu the M&E framework and partner 

was identified in the grant agreement and undertook both the baseline 

and end-line. For Plan, the M&E partner was not identified in the grant 

agreement and was selected later by Plan. One organization did both the 

baseline and end line. For Equity the M&E framework and partner was 

not identified in the grant agreement and different firms did the baseline 

and end-line. 

2.7 Additional initiatives 

2.7.1 Consumer protection diagnostic 

A Consumer Protection Diagnostic was commissioned by the FSD in 2010, with 

the final report published in January 2011. The study comprised a demandside 

survey and qualitative research, as well as a review of the regulatory 

framework of the various sub-sectors and some supply-side practices. The 

findings of the study demonstrated the close link between financial education 

and consumer protection and detailed various demand-side issues that should 

be addressed in a financial education programme in future. Recommendations 

were also tabled on an improved Consumer Protection regulatory framework. 

The Ministry of Finance is currently developing a proposed policy framework 

for addressing the findings and recommendations of the study. However, 

little has been done on the educational side with regards to CP, as the FinEd 

programme was already in the process of wrapping up when the findings of 

the study were published. Two aspects which received limited attention in the 

CP diagnostic are the different redress mechanisms, such as voluntary and 

statutory ombudsmen, and consumer tribunals. The need for a fluid redress 

framework from micro to sub-sector and ultimately sector level was not 

sufficiently emphasised. Nor was there an assessment of the judicial system, 

and whether there are (effective) small claims courts or commercial courts in 

place. 

2.7.2 Study into branchless banking and financial capability 

This study was commissioned jointly for FSD and CGAP and implemented 

by Bankable Frontier Associates. Its objective was to investigate the idea of 

reverse causality between branchless banking and financial capability with an 

in-depth ethnographic style of field research. The expected output of the study 

was a publication in the form of a brief. 

The results of the study were published in the FSD Insight No. 2 of December 2010 

titled “Financial Capability and the Poor – Are we missing the mark?” One of the 

key conclusions of the study was that: The concept of financial capability developed 

and applied to middle income households in advanced economies cannot merely be 

downsized for low income households in developing ones. The cash flows of the 

poor are not just smaller, they are fundamentally different in nature, and that has a 

profound ripple effect on salient financial management decisions.“ 

The study went on to highlight three potential policy implications: 

• 

• 

• 

Because experience and testing markets are core to building financial 

capability as well as improving financial inclusion, one cannot rely on 

financial education alone to build consumer protection. Education prior 

to the introduction of formal services may not be absorbed without use. 

Accessible redress mechanisms and simple, transparent communications 

about costs and terms of new services can build trust and help retain 

clients even after a bad experience. 

Commitment features in financial products are a core way to build 

inclusion into the formal financial market. 

The study made a strong link between financial capability and financial 

inclusion. And as required in the scope of work, the study was “… provocative, 

challenging the assumptions and current orthodoxies in financial education.” 

It appears as though the study was expected to inform the design of the next 

FSD financial education programme. However, it seems that because of the 

delays in its completion, the results have not been put to full use. 

2.7.3 Training of public sector organisations to deliver 


The project supported two training programmes for public sector organisations. 

The first was a three day master training of trainers (ToT) programme conducted 

by Microfinance Opportunities. There were 24 participants from fifteen 

different organizations, both public and private. They included, among others, 

regulators, financial service provider associations, government ministries, local 

authorities and public hospitals. The training was held in July 2010. 

The second was an exercise in adaptation of training materials, held with the 

same group of participants in October 2010. 

A report was produced on the adaptation exercise. It appears that this session 

was part of an objective to enhance financial education through the public 

sector. The session was used both as a ToT and as an adaptation exercise for 

financial education learning sessions or modules. 

A total of six financial education learning sessions or modules were also 

developed. They covered the following topics: savings for youth, savings 

for retirement, consumer protection, debt management, bank services, and 

budgeting. The modules were adapted from the Global Financial Education 

Programme.


The evaluation team was informed that these modules had not been reviewed 

within FSD and as such had not been disseminated to the organizations that 

took part in the adaptation. It would therefore seem that the action plan 

developed by the group at the second workshop was never implemented. 

2.7.4 Development of a financial education curriculum 

It appears that two sets of curricula were developed: 

• 

modules adapted for the pilots by Faulu and Equity 

• public sector modules (discussed above) 

The evaluation team is of the opinion that a significant opportunity to 

disseminate the material widely was lost. Even now, two years later, there 

would be considerable merit in making the modules available to a wide range 

of potential users – such as financial service providers, educational institutions 

and NGOs. 

2.7.5 Creation of a financial education website 

A FEPP website was created as a communication and dissemination tool 

(www.fepkenya.org). It is very informative, although there is little reference 

to CP. 

As no-one has been driving the FEPP since January 2011, it is now somewhat 

dated. This is symptomatic of the absence of a national-level institutionalised 

body to take ownership of FE and CP in Kenya. Ideally the ownership of this 

website should be shifted away from the FSD and placed with a national 

secretariat/ unit. 

In the interim, the FSD should place the following on the website: the outcomes 

of the Naivasha workshop and materials subsequently developed (such as the 

curricula); progress made with CP; and an indication that Phase 1 of the FinEd 

programme has been closed and that the FSD is considering its next steps. In 

future, the website could further evolve to include more pragmatic technical 

advice (‘how to’) and content. It could also be expanded to include more links 

to other relevant sites. 

2.8 Roles and Links 

The FinEd set out to build several links with key players in the market, both 

government and private sector. While most of these stakeholders participated 

in the FEPP and some were involved in the pilots, limited lasting links were 

built. As stated previously, ownership of the FEPP then also vested with the 

FSD/FinEd and not with these stakeholders. Perhaps the intent was never to 

transfer ownership, as the purpose of the links (as described in Table 7) was 

primarily participation – not leading. 

The most important outcome of the FinEd/FEPP was probably to raise 

awareness on the issue of financial education. The Central Bank of Kenya has 

subsequently introduced a financial education working group at the Regulators 

Forum. 

2.9 Performance targets 

The FinEd project targets are presented in Table 8. While these were partially 

achieved in terms of the programme implementation (1-4), the targets for 

the stated objectives are, as with the pilots, essentially focused on reach 

(quantitative). The targets do not consider frequency, quality or content of 

messaging. In essence, the targets do not reflect the complexities of financial 

education, the need for a targeted approach and repetition of multiple 

different messages. Different types of measures are required to assess 

different types of projects and activities and in future a more realistic and 

practical M&E framework should be developed for a FinEd II and for its various 

components (such as specific programmes). There is much expertise in the 

market on monitoring and evaluating programmes, including media-based 

programmes. 

2.10 Specific questions in the ToR 

• 

Is there any evidence that conventional didactic models really result in 

behaviour change? 

The educational system is proof of both the effectiveness and limitations of 

didactic models. However, the application of didactic models is limited in the 

domain of financial education. The starting point of a national FinEd programme 

should also not be the channel and form, but the target market, followed by 

the messaging and only then should the appropriate channel(s) be decided on. 

I.e. a detailed media plan (above-, through- and below-the-line) should be 

developed to serve the target market and content, not the other way around. 

• 

Would a focus on improving the quality and relevance of services 

provided by financial institutions produce greater impact? 

More customer-centric products and improved service delivery should definitely 

improve product uptake, but this is not a function of FE, and FE should not be 

measured through product uptake – marketing should. 

• 

How scalable are current approaches – is a national vision for financial 

education realistic in Kenya at the current time? 

A national vision is certainly an option for Kenya, but would require starting at 

the beginning, i.e. by developing a national framework. The pilots are tactics and 

should not be confused with a national vision. 

• 

How important is consumer protection and to what extent is this best 

achieved through improving awareness/caution among consumers or 

through regulatory oversight and enforcement?


Table 7: Links - purpose and achievements 

Links Purpose Achievement 

Central Bank of Kenya 

Ministry of Finance 

Ministry of Education 

Financial institutions 

–banks/KBA/KIB 

Financial institutions – 

MFIs/AMFI and SACCOs/ 

KUSSCO 

Community based 

organisations (CBOs) 

Media 

Ensure participation of CBK as leading financial regulatory 

agency with responsibilities for financial market development 

and specific interest in consumer protection. 

Establish connection with Government policy formulation on 

financial education for which the Ministry of Finance is likely 

to have lead responsibility. 

Explore potential delivery channel for financial education 

through formal education system and explore policy issues 

arising. 

Represent key private sector stakeholders in financial education 

and will need to be involved to explore and develop delivery 

of financial education through the banking sub-sector. Some 

banks are already involved in financial education initiatives. 

The MFI and SACCO sub-sectors offer a potentially highly 

effective delivery channel for financial education and a number 

of institutions have already developed programmes. 

Channel to reach large numbers of those who are currently 

either only informally served or not financially included at all. 

The delivery costs are potentially relatively low through this 

channel. Furthermore these organisations offer an important 

route through which the interests of prospective users of 

financial education programme can be represented. 

Mass communication of financial education messages. 

A strong link is needed (rather than simply purchasing 

advertising space) to explore options for providing the media 

with editorial content which can both strengthen the impact 

and reduce the delivery cost. 

Partially achieved. 

Underachieved. A review of relevant policies and the need for 

implementing policies relating to FE, should have been undertaken. 

Such policies may affect various Ministries, so a high-level interministerial 

task group would have been required. 

Underachieved. 

Underachieved. The KBA was involved with the FEP, but no sectorlevel 

programme was implemented. 

Underachieved. 

Not achieved. 


The Media-e pilot was viewed as highly successful. 

No evidence of other media initiatives (e.g. editorial, radio talk shows, 

multi-media campaign). 

As demonstrated by the Consumer Protection Diagnostic, consumer protection 

is extremely important in the Kenyan market place. One cannot have a tradeoff 

between relevance of an adequate regulatory and redress framework, and 

creating awareness among consumers of their rights, responsibilities and redress 

options: both are required to optimise consumer protection, redress, market 

development and stability. 

The FSD should divorce itself from the leadership role in the national programme 

and merely play the role of catalyst and (low profile) facilitator. 

The FSD’s programme support can then be focussed on lower income consumers. 

Technical assistance to external programmes can be provided on an ad hoc 

basis. 

• 

Is a narrow focus on lower income consumers tenable while still building 

a national programme? Does the FEPP have a long-term role in building 

a national programme? Where can FSD most effectively play a role in 

stimulating a market-based approach to improving financial capability? 

The FSD can also initiate, fund and support initiatives such as a policy review, the 

development of a national framework (which should include a policy review) or 

a FinCap baseline.


Table 8: FinEd project targets 

Objective/ 

Output 

Objective 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Targets Qtr 2 Qtr 4 Qtr 6 Qtr 8 

Groundwork established for a national financial education programme 

% of Kenyan adult population reached (cumulative) 15% 15% 25% 

% increase in audience knowledge of key messages 50% 50% 50% 

% of audience indicating changed financial practices 10% 10% 10% 

Number of people receiving financial literacy training 100 5,000 5,100 

% trained changing knowledge, skills attitudes 50% 50% 50% 

% trained changing financial practices/behaviours 25% 25% 25% 

Financial education partnership (FEP) established by private and public sector stakeholders 

FEP established 

ü 

Number of FEP meetings (cumulative) 2 4 6 8 

Financial literacy baseline established 

Baseline report from FinAccess 2008 

ü 

Revisions for FinAccess 2010 developed 

ü 

Potentially viable approaches for the delivery of financial education piloted 

Pilot projects active (planning/underway) 3 4 4 0 

Pilot project fully completed and evaluated (cumulative) 1 1 5 

Projects fully meeting targeted objectives 3 

Preliminary framework established for a national financial education programme 

Initial vision established 

ü 

Key enabling environment issues identified 

ü 

National programme framework document developed 

ü 

Furthermore, the FSD can play a key role as catalyst and in facilitating initiatives 

which would have wide outreach, such as embedding financial education in the 

educational system. 

• 

How can stakeholders be more effectively engaged in the future – what 

are the incentives to ensure that key players remain involved? 

Firstly, the appropriate organisational structure for coordinating FE and CP should 

be put into place. Secondly, a stakeholder strategy should be developed as part 

of the broader national framework, and a compelling case built for stakeholder 

involvement. 

• How do we synergise existing work within the various themes in FSD? 

As discussed in Section 9.1: the FSD should adopt a matrix approach with FE/ 

CP, policy and research as cross-cutting, and with their first priority to serve the 

internal markets/ theme areas already identified. 

• How do we align with Vision 2030? 

This is a strategic question on FSD level and not on FE/CP level.


Chapter 3 

CONCLUSIONS 

The FinEd programme has partially achieved its four core planned outputs. 

There were shortcomings in the design of the programme and some challenges 

in its execution. These findings are summarised below: 

3.1 Core outputs and other outcomes 

Core outputs: 

• FEPP: the FEPP was established, but the structure was not 

institutionalised and as such came to an end when the FinEd came to an 

end – partially achieved. 

• Develop a preliminary framework for a national FE 

programme: a draft framework was developed at the end of the FinEd 

programme, but was not disseminated, approved or implemented – 

partially-achieved. 

• Establish a financial literacy baseline: both FinAccess 2006 

and 2008 were reviewed and recommendations put forward for 

strengthening FinAccess with respect to financial capability. However, 

the recommendations and the final FinAccess 2012 still do not capture 

financial capability well and it is doubtful that it will be possible to 

establish a comprehensive baseline following FinAccess 2012 – under 

achieved. 

• Piloting potentially viable approaches to FE: four pilots were 

implemented and there were some lessons learnt, although these were 

not disseminated. While some pilots achieved their targets, others did 

not – partially achieved. 

Additional outputs: 

• Conduct a consumer protection diagnostic: completed with 

recommendations – achieved. 

• Study into branchless banking and financial capability: 

implemented – achieved 

• Create an FE website: completed, but now dated as no party has 

taken responsibility for it post the FEPP – achieved 

• Training of public sector organisations to deliver FE: 

implemented – achieved. 

• Development of FE Curriculum: completed, but not disseminated 

– partially achieved. 

Other outcomes: 

• 

• 

The FinEd programme created much awareness around FE in the 

marketplace 

Several skills relating to FE were developed in the market place 

3.2 Programme design 

The shortcomings of the FinEd relate mostly to its design and in particular its 

strategic approach. There was little in the line of published best practise at the 

time of this initiative. 

The challenges and short comings of the programme design are summarised 

as follows: 

• Firstly, the case was not built for why FE was required in Kenya and what 

should be the overall direction of FE. The MFO Scoping Study – which by 

and large seemed to inform the programme design - was limited in its 

vision and the recommendations emphasised tactical execution, rather 

than putting in place a strategic framework as a starting point. The FinEd 

and FEPP consequently assumed a very tactical nature focussing on pilot 

implementation rather than setting the strategic direction. 

• The composition and role of the FEPP were not strategic in nature, 

but followed the pilot-driven approach set by the Scoping Study. The 

outcome was that: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Active members of the FEPP were mostly representatives of the 

pilot programmes who participated by default, not design. 

Despite the CBK governor being the champion of FE, no real 

ownership of the FEPP was taken by the market, as the FEPP was 

largely perceived by stakeholders as an FSD creation. 

Most critically, the outcome of the above was that the FEPP was 

not institutionalised and as such ceased when the FinEd came to a 

closure and no longer provided secretarial services to the FEPP. 

Beyond the formation of the FEPP, there was no explicit stakeholder 

strategy forthcoming from the Scoping Study/FinEd programme design. 

Such a strategy is required to educate and inform stakeholders, get their 

buy-in and support, and co-op implementation support. 

Understanding and positioning of FE in the market: 

• It appears that the focus of FE under the FinEd was on increased 

financial inclusion/ product uptake, which is moving very closely 

to the domain of marketing. This view comes through particularly 

strongly in the review of FinAccess 2008. What is missed is the 

broader role of FE as a component of CP, market development and 

market stability (see Annex B). 

• Several stakeholders (particularly financial service providers) appear 

to perceive FE as being in the competitive domain rather than the 

public domain. This may be due to a lack of understanding of FE 

(to be addressed in an implicit stakeholder strategy). However, it 

also appears to be an unintended consequence of the pilot-driven 

nature of the FinEd (the outcome of the MFO Scoping Study) which 

resulted in stakeholders competing for funds.


• 

• 

• 

• 

Consumer protection seemed to be an add-on and received little 

attention beyond the diagnostic. 

The FSD/ FinEd played too central a role in FE and the FEPP in particular: 

it assumed the role of coordinator, funder and technical expert – 

rather than just that of catalyst and facilitator with some light funding 

(preferably on market level, not for individual programmes). 

The programme targets are difficult to understand, but are primarily 

quantitative and rather over-ambitious. It is not clear through what 

mechanisms these various targets would have been measured, as there 

is no clear link between these targets and the FE questions/ variables 

in the FinAccess. Also, the timing of the FinEd and FinAccess was not 

aligned. 

The FinEd was implemented separately from other activities within the 

FDSK and was not integrated in other FSD projects. FE and CP should by 

and large be a cross-cutting theme and should be considered in other 

FSD Theme areas and projects. 

3.3 Execution 

• 

• 

The pilots played a major role in creating awareness of FE and much 

technical skill was also developed in the process. The main observations 

relating to the pilots are as follows: 

The pilots were not based on any pre-determined (demand-side) market 

need or assessment, but appeared to be essentially supply-driven. The 

design of the pilots was strongly influenced by the FEF. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Three of the four pilots used didactic models, known as being highly 

costly with limited outreach and very low frequency (repeat). As such, 

there was also limited learning with respect to the use of various 

distribution models/channels – one of the main objectives of the pilots. 

The implementation time for the pilots was too short for the size of the 

programmes and to make a real lasting impact on the market. The pilot 

implementation also appeared to be over-shadowed by the M&E, which 

took almost as long as the actual programme implementation. 

The pilots are not replicable or scalable without large external funding 

support. 

Lessons learnt were compiled at the end of the FinEd, but have not been 

disseminated – the main objective of the pilots. 

Consumer protection: the diagnostic was completed, but no clear 

roadmap developed for the next steps. The FE pilots also did not seem to 

incorporate much relating to CP. 

Project execution and timeline: time overruns were experienced with the pilots 

and the FinAccess also ran late - although the latter was not in the ambit of the 

FinEd programme.


Chapter 4 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The overall broad recommendation of the evaluation team is that the FSD 

should continue with a FinEd II. There is strong interest in FE and CP in the 

market. The CP diagnostic and baseline/FinAccess reviews point to the need 

for national FE and CP frameworks and a continuation of the work started 

under the FinEd. The FSD could play an important role in supporting the 

further development of an FE/CP roadmap and strategy, but its role should 

be different this time. A two-tiered approach is recommended: (i) supporting 

the development of a national strategy and structure; and (ii) supporting the 

theme areas within the FSD. 

4.1 National level 

The proposed FinEd II should play the role of catalyst and facilitator in the 

marketplace, rather than coordinator, implementer and funder. Its focus should 

be on supporting the development of a roadmap towards the development of 

a national strategy or framework. The latter should include the frameworks 

for an interim and permanent structure, which can then assume the role of 

coordinator and implementer. Table 9 below demonstrates the elements of 

such a national framework (also see Annex B for definitions of and relationship 

between FE and CP). 

• 

• 

Firstly, the FSD should approach the CBK/ MoF and recommend setting 

up an interim structure (FE/ CP Council) to assume the role previously 

played by the FEPP. An option would be to expand the mandate of the 

existing FE committee of the regulators forum to take the role of guiding 

the development of a national strategy until a permanent structure is in 

place. 

The FSD could assist the FE/CP Council in commissioning the 

development of a national framework and could also fund such a 

process. The development of such a framework will require an in-depth 

diagnostic, incorporating a review of relevant policies, updated scoping 

and demand-side analyses (FinAccess 2012/3). Deliverables must, at 

a minimum, include a proposal for a national structure, stakeholder 

strategy, high-level consumer strategy and M&E framework. The 

outcomes of the FinEd can be used as a starting point so that the entire 

process does not start from scratch. The team/Consultants conducting 

the diagnostic must ideally report to the proposed Council which 

must be put in place first before progressing with the diagnostic. 

Table 9: Logical framework 

Components of a national FinEd and consumer protection framework 

National organisational structure framework • Governance structure 

• Implementation/ coordination structure 

• Stakeholder strategy 

• Funding 

Policy and regulatory framework • Financial education 

• Consumer protection 

Consumer strategy 

M&E Framework 

1. Programme objective: 

• Awareness 

• Knowledge and skills 

• Behavioural modification 

• Programme R&D 

2. Programme implementation 

• Target market 

• Channel 

• Frequency 

• M&E 

• National level: FinCap Baseline – track over time 

• Programme level: develop as integral part of each programme 

Source: Marketworx Africa (2008)


• 

• 

• 

• 

To kick-start the process, the Council could call a stakeholder workshop 

on behalf of the Governor of the CBK to announce the process to 

stakeholders. 

A much stronger focus on CP will be required than was the case with the 

FEPP. 

The FSD can provide technical and funding support in the development 

and implementation of the framework, but must not be seen as the 

driver of the process. 

The FSD can also play the interim role of ‘information warehouse’ and 

update the www.fepkenya.org website. The function of managing 

the website must eventually become one of the responsibilities of the 

proposed permanent structure. 

4.2 Within the FSD 

The focus of the FinEd was essentially external to the FSD with much emphasis 

on pilots. In hindsight, the FinEd probably needed an additional dimension, 

namely to support the programmes already identified as a priority within the 

FSD. 

• 

all FSD projects built into the design of Fin Ed II, there would be greater 

consistency of approach and possible synergy across programmes. This 

approach would also allow FSD to pilot test FE/CP approaches – within 

the context of a FSD managed project. It appears that there could be 

significant opportunities to provide such support to projects such as 

GP2/HSNP, Savings Groups and Credit Information. 

Leveraging the support of the FSD Knowledge team: The FSD knowledge 

theme area and team has expanded considerably since the design of Fin 

Ed. Within the design of Fin Ed II there is an opportunity to define how 

the knowledge team can help the FE/CP efforts both at the national level 

and within FSD. 

For the moment, the first action point for the FSD must be to disseminate 

the deliverables from the FinEd/FEPP. These include the lessons learnt from 

the pilots and curricula developed, which can immediately be placed on the 

website. The proposed stakeholder workshop to be called by the Council/ 

Governor of the CBK, may then also provide a great forum to both formally 

close the FEPP, disseminate the relevant information, and introduce the new 

FE/CP Council. 

The design of the Fin Ed II should include two important considerations: 

• 

Providing cross-cutting support to FSD projects: FSD projects are 

implemented under three theme areas: Future Financial Systems, Direct 

Poverty Impact and Inclusive Growth. Some of these projects already 

have a small FE component built into the project. By having support for


Literature review 

Consumer Protection Diagnostic Study, Kenya. January 2011. Ministry of 

Finance, FSD Kenya, CGAPP, FEPP. 

Equity Foundation: Financial Education Project Proposal. December 2008. 

Equity Foundation: Financial Education and Training Program for Kenyan Youth: 

End of Project Evaluation. March 2012 

FAULU Financial Education Project: Project Evaluation Report. December 2011. 

FAULU Financial Education Quarterly Narrative Report. July-September 2011. 

FEF Project Application: Plan 

FEPP: Minutes and taskforce meetings 

FEPP: Proposed FCP project intervention areas. 

FEPP: Proposed framework and communication strategy. 

Financial Education in Kenya: Scoping Exercise. Nelson, C., Wambugu, A. on 

behalf of the FSD Kenya. 1008. 

FinAcess 2009, final questionnaire 

FinAccess 2012, draft questionnaire 

Financial Capability in Kenya: Preliminary Findings from FinAccess 2009 

FSD Kenya: Financial Education Project Appraisal Report 

FSD Kenya: Financial Education Project Concept Note for Financial Capabilities 

for the Poor Porject. December 2011. 

FSD Kenya: Strategy 2011-15 

Financial Literacy Scoping Study and Strategy Study FinMark Trust 2004. Piprek, 

G.L., Coetzee, G., Dlamini, P. 

Financial Literacy Framework, Tanzania. Piprek, G.L. Commissioned by the 

Bank of Tanzania, 2010. 

Financial Literacy Strategy for SMEs, 2009. Piprek, G.L. Commissioned by 

Chemonics on behalf of the USAid Financial Sector Programme in South 

Africa. 

FinAccess Kenya, 2009 

FinAcess 2012 draft questionnaire. 

G20 High-level principles on financial consumer protection. October 2011 

Increasing Financial Capability: A Case Study of the Use of Entertainment 

Education for Financial Capability. February 2012. 

Preliminary Findings from FinAccess 2009. Collins, D., Zollmann, J., Maina, B.


Annex A 

Terms of Reference for Financial 

Education - end of project evaluation 

FINANCIAL EDUCATION: END OF PROJECT EVALUATION 

1. BACKGROUND 

Over the last 3 years, FSD Kenya has supported a financial education project 

the objective of which is “to establish the foundations for a comprehensive and 

sustainable national programme of financial education in Kenya. The vision 

for a financially literate Kenya encompasses all socio-economic levels and 

calls for a national programme which aims to: (i) improve Kenyans’ personal 

financial management practices, (ii) foster effective use of financial services 

and (iii) advance consumer protection in the financial marketplace. 

To achieve these goals requires an enabling policy, legal and regulatory 

framework and a multi-faceted approach to delivery. Recognising the shared 

responsibility for achieving the vision, a public-private partnership approach 

was adopted and a taskforce established in 2009 with the responsibility 

of driving the project. The Financial Education and Consumer Protection 

Partnership (FEPP) is composed of members from across the public and 

private sectors. A smaller group was selected to form a taskforce to guide 

activities. FSD Kenya has been providing the secretariat function through a 

full-time project manager. 

Prior to project implementation, a scoping study was undertaken on financial 

education in Kenya that established the basic content which consumers 

should know to successfully understand and make informed decisions 

about their personal finances. The concepts included building basic skills 

for earning, spending, saving, borrowing and investing. Some work has 

also been undertaken on consumer protection and transparency including a 

diagnostic study that identifies key consumer protection issues facing Kenyans 

as they access financial services. Analysis of the FinAccess 2009 data has also 

been undertaken to establish the knowledge and skill gaps of Kenyans in 

management of their personal finances. 

To reach consumers, a range of delivery channels were selected for pilot work 

with the aim of establishing practically which approaches would work best 

to influence positive behaviour change. The four channels selected were: (i) 

primary schools (ii) the university system, (ii) mass media through television 

and (iv) directly through formal financial sector providers. These four pilot 

projects have now been completed and the end line surveys conducted to 

establish their effectiveness. 

Subsequent to the initial design of the project, the demand arose from 

government to develop a new framework for consumer protection in the 

financial services sector. The project led the development of a diagnostic 

study which produced evidence based recommendations to the authorities. 

The project was also strongly linked with two other projects on consumer 

information which had been established by FSD earlier. Both involved 

partnerships with the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK). The first entailed creating 

and publishing a new index to measure the costs of financial services to 

consumers, while the second looked at options for improving transparency 

in the presentation of interest rate measures. Both are strongly relevant to the 

overall objective of FSD’s financial education work. 

2. OBJECTIVES 

To rigorously evaluate the progress made in FSD’s financial education project 

against its objective and produce evidence based recommendations for future 

work. 

3. SCOPE OF WORK 

3.1 Review current global thinking and practice on 


Financial education has attracted growing interest across both developing 

and developed economies. Although there has been a consensus that the 

subject is an important one - in which there is a strong public policy interest 

- there has been rather less agreement on how it can be achieved. It will be 

an important background to the evaluation to undertake desk research to gain 

a clear understanding of the range of current financial education initiatives 

globally, evidence of impact, new thinking and any emerging international 

good practices. 

3.2 Review all financial education project documents 

There is a significant amount of background material which needs to be 

reviewed. Relevant reports include: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

FSD project appraisal review (PAR) 

Project scoping study 

Project plan 

Project monitoring sheets 

Minutes of the taskforce meetings 

Pilot project documentation 

Consumer protection diagnostic report 

Financial education curriculum 

Definition of a standard measure for consumer interest rates in Kenya 

3.3 Review financial literacy baseline analysis 

An analysis was undertaken of FinAccess data to better understand financial 

literacy in Kenya. This identified three broad categories across the Kenyan 

population: (i) the struggling excluded, (ii) the disciplined planner and (iii) 

the engaged elite. Different strategies were proposed to address the financial 

education needs of these categories. Recommendations were also made for


improving our understanding through future rounds of the FinAccess Retail 

demand side survey. This work should be reviewed and its value in guiding 

future strategy assessed. 

3.4 Review pilot delivery projects 

The pilot delivery projects were a key part of the project. Four projects were 

financed in collaboration with DFID’s Financial Education Fund (FEF): 

i. Mediae – Makutano Junction – television soap opera; 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

Faulu Kenya – direct client training by a deposit taking micro-finance 

institutions on financial education training of community based trainers 

Equity Bank Foundation – training of youth through university student 

trainers 

Plan Kenya – primary school curriculum testing. 

A comprehensive review of each of these pilot projects is required, drawing 

on the evaluations and impact assessment already undertaken. The aim of 

this component was to test the efficacy of these diverse channels in building 

financial literacy and improving financial management practices. In addition 

to examining the evidence of impact, the review should look at which market 

segments were reached, the current delivery costs per person reached and the 

potential scalability of the channel. 

3.5 Assess progress towards developing a national 

framework 

Recognizing that no single player, government or private sector, would be able 

to tackle the challenges of improving financial literacy, the project sought to 

encourage the development of a national framework for financial education. 

An assessment is required of the progress made towards developing a national 

framework for building financial literacy. Factors which need to be considered 

include the degree of engagement by stakeholders and the credibility of the 

emerging framework measuring in terms of the vision, the prospects for 

mobilizing the required resources and the potential to deliver real results. 

3.6 Review additional work undertaken by the project 

A number of initiatives were undertaken which had not been anticipated in 

the original plan. These included: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

an extensive consumer protection diagnostic exercise 

training of public sector organisations to deliver financial education 

study of branchless banking and financial capability 

creation of a financial education website 

development of a financial education curriculum. 

Each of these should be reviewed, assessing the strategic relevance to the 

overall objective, the quality of the work and the evidence of impact. 

3.7 Assess the impact of the FEPP 

The FEPP was established to drive a nationwide ? and undertake key informant 

interviews with a selected number of stakeholders including: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

FEPP Taskforce members 

Wider FEPP members 

Governor of the CBK as national financial education champion 

FSD’s former project manager for financial education. 

3.8 Recommendations 

Drawing on the evidence of what has worked and not worked in this project 

together with new thinking and evidence from elsewhere in the world on 

financial education, recommendations should be made for FSD’s future 

engagement in this field. Strategically, FSD’s emphasis in future work will be 

on building the financial capabilities of the poor – i.e.: ensuring that impact 

reaches those on the lowest incomes. Among the key questions which this 

review should seek to address are: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Is there any evidence that conventional didactic models really result in 

behaviour change? 

Would a focus on improving the quality and relevance of services 

provided by financial institutions produce greater impact? 

How scalable are current approaches – is a national vision for financial 

education realistic in Kenya at the current time? 

How important is consumer protection and to what extent is this best 

achieved through improving awareness/caution among consumers or 

through regulatory oversight and enforcement? 

Do we need to change our models if we are serious about improving the 

financial lives of people on lower incomes in Kenya? 

Is a narrow focus on lower income consumers tenable while still building 

a national programme? 

Does the FEPP have a long-term role in building a national programme? 

How can stakeholders be more effectively engaged in the future – what 

are the incentives to ensure that key players remain involved? 

Where can FSD most effectively play a role in stimulating a market-based 

approach to improving financial capability? 

How do we synergise existing work within the various themes in FSD? 

How do we align with Vision 2030?


4. CONDUCT OF THE WORK 

The project evaluation will be undertaken in close consultation with the Head 

of Future Financial Systems at FSD Kenya. The consultant will provided with 

full access to all the project reports. Some of these will need to be provided 

on a confidential basis and will be provided on a non-disclosure basis and will 

need to be returned at the conclusion of the exercise. To gain access to the pilot 

project implementation teams needed for consultation, the consultants must 

present a structured approach and agree on dates and times for consultation. 

Support in contacting the partner institutions will be provided by FSD. The 

consultant is expected to respond to these terms of reference with a clear 

budget and work plan. Initial findings will be presented to FSD for comment 

prior to final delivery of the final report. 

5. OUTCOMES AND DELIVERABLES 

The overall desired outcome from this exercise is more effective work by FSD 

Kenya in improving the financial lives of low income households. 

There are four major deliverables required: 

(i) An initial report responding to the terms of reference detailing the 

proposed methodology and timetable for the assignment. 

(ii) A presentation of major findings to be made to the FSD Kenya project 

team. 

(iii) An internal report to FSD Kenya detailing all findings. This should be 

presented with an executive summary (max 2 pages), a main section 

(max 20 pages), references and necessary supporting analysis and 

material in annexes. 

(iv) A standard FSD project completion report in the format attached 

(annex A) 

The copyright for all material prepared under this terms of reference will 

pass to FSD Kenya. It is FSD’s practice to publish the reports it commissions 

in its own house style. There is therefore no requirement for material to be 

extensively formatted beyond that required to indicate how material should 

be logically presented in the final report. All final reports should be presented 

in an electronic format allowing the text and graphics to be manipulated in 

preparation for publication. Where a final report is presented in a portable 

document format (pdf) generated from another format (such as Microsoft 

Word) it should be accompanied by the original file from which it is 

generated. All representations of graphic material (tables, figures, drawings, 

charts, graphs and photographs) must be able to be reproduced at high print 

resolution. Tables, figures, drawings, charts, graphs should be provided in 

Microsoft Excel or Adobe Illustrator format. Photographs must be provided 

in high-resolution JPG images set to minimum of 300 dots per inch (dpi). 

Any technical questions regarding these requirements should be addressed to 

FSD’s Communications Officer. 

6. REQUIREMENTS 

Mandatory requirements 

Table 10: FinEd project targets 

Strong understanding of financial education issues/literature 

Broad understanding of the Kenyan financial sector 

Track record in undertaking similar assignments/reviews of a similar 

nature 

Ability to work independently and deliver against deadlines


Annex B 

Defining financial capability 

and consumer protection 

Consumer protection 3 

Consumer protection refers to the plethora of prudential and market conduct 

regulations which have as aim the stability of the sector and encouragement 

of fair and transparent practices by all types of financial service providers. It 

also refers to voluntary institutional or sector-level practices relating to issues 

such as fair pricing, truth in lending and transparent client communication. 

Consumer protection also encompasses consumer redress. This refers to an 

independent mechanism or set of mechanisms through which consumers 

can lodge complaints, incidences of unfair treatment or possible irregularities 

experienced in the market place. The intention is to have a framework in 

place which will minimise the use of the courts, as these are costly and time 

consuming to both parties and generally place the consumer – with limited 

resources and legal know-how – at a disadvantage. Such a consumer redress 

framework generally starts with (objective) consumer complaints procedures 

on institutional level, which may then be escalated by the consumer to a subsector 

or sector ombudsmen and/ or a consumer tribunal. 

A comprehensive consumer protection and redress framework will therefore 

aim at establishing a seamless process which deals with issues on a macro (e.g. 

general policies related to consumer protection and redress across all sectors; 

an efficient legal system); meso- (sector and sub-sector level policies as well 

as sub-sector initiatives from the private sector); and micro/institutional level. 

For example, an Ombudsmen Act may be required on macro level, to enable 

the establishment of one or more ombudsmen who deal with the financial 

(and other) sectors. 

Such a consumer protection and redress framework will naturally also have to 

work closely with any financial education initiative, as part of the latter would 

be to educate people on these mechanisms, and make them aware of their 

rights and responsibilities. An educated public will also be more assertive 

and prone to report irregularities in the market place. Financial education is 

therefore a pro-active manner in which to help safeguard the public against 

unfair treatment. 

In 2011, the G20, together with the OECD and the Financial Stability Board 

(FSB) developed a set of ten principles of financial consumer protection 4 . An 

excerpt is presented below: 

1. Legal and supervisory framework: “Financial consumer protection 

should be an integral part of the legal, regulatory and supervisory framework 

and (these) should reflect the diversity of national circumstances and 

global market regulatory developments… Relevant non-governmental 

3 Adapted from: National Financial Literacy and Consumer Protection Framework for Lesotho. 2011. 

Piprek, Gerda, L. – Marketworx Africa. 

4 G20 High-level Principles on Financial Consumer Protection, OECD, October 2011. www.oecd.org 

stakeholders should be consulted when policies related to financial 

consumer protection and education are developed.” 

2. Role of oversight bodies: “There should be oversight bodies (dedicated 

or not) explicitly responsible for financial consumer protection with the 

necessary authority to fulfil their mandates. They require …. operational 

independence and appropriate governance; accountability for their activities; 

adequate powers …. and clear and consistent regulatory processes.” 

3. Equitable and fair treatment of consumer: “All financial consumers 

should be treated equitably, honestly and fairly at all stages of their 

relationship with financial service providers. Treating customers fairly 

should be an integral part of good governance and corporate culture of all 

financial service providers and authorised agents. Special attention should 

be dedicated to the needs of vulnerable groups.” 

4. Disclosure and transparency: “Financial service providers and 

authorised agents should provide consumers with key information that 

informs the consumer of the fundamental benefits, risks and terms of 

the product. They should also provide information on conflicts of interest 

associated with the authorised agent through which the product is 

sold…….. Appropriate information should be provided at all stages of 

the relationship with the customer ….” 

5. Financial education and awareness. “Financial education and 

awareness should be promoted by all relevant stakeholders and clear 

information on consumer protection, rights and responsibilities should 

be readily accessible by consumers…. Financial education should be 

encouraged as part of a wider financial consumer protection and education 

strategy.” 

6. Responsible business conduct of financial service providers and 

authorised agents: “Financial service providers and authorised agents 

should have as an objective to work in the best interest of their customers and 

be responsible for upholding financial consumer protection. ….Financial 

service providers should assess the related financial capabilities, situation 

and needs of their customers before agreeing to provide them with a 

product, advice or service ….The remuneration structure for staff of both 

financial service providers and authorised agents should be designed 

to encourage responsible business conduct, fair treatment and to avoid 

conflicts of interest.” 

7. Protection of consumer assets against fraud. “Relevant 

information, control and protection mechanisms should appropriately and 

with a high degree of certainty protect customers’ deposits, savings and 

other similar financial assets, including against fraud, misappropriation or 

other misuses. 

8. Protection of consumer data and privacy. “Consumers’ financial 

and personal information should be protected through appropriate control 

and protection mechanisms. These mechanisms should define the purposes


for which the data may be collected, processed, held, used and disclosed 

(especially to third parties). The mechanisms should also acknowledge the 

rights of consumers to be informed about data-sharing, to access data and 

obtain the prompt correction and/ or deletion of inaccurate or unlawfully 

collected or processed data.” 

9. Complaints handling and redress. “Jurisdictions should ensure that 

consumers have access to adequate complaints handling and redress 

mechanisms that are accessible, affordable, independent, fair, accountable, 

timely and efficient. Such mechanisms should not impose unreasonable 

cost, delays or burdens on consumers. ….. Financial service providers and 

authorised agents should have in place mechanisms for complaint handling 

and redress. Recourse to an independent redress process should be available 

to address complaints that are not efficiently resolved via the financial service 

providers and authorised agents’ internal dispute resolution mechanisms. 

At a minimum, aggregate information with respect to complaints and their 

resolution should be made public.” 

10. Competition. “Nationally and internationally competitive markets 

should be promoted in order to provide consumers with greater choice 

amongst financial services and create competitive pressure on providers 

to offer competitive products, enhance innovation and maintain high 

service quality. Consumers should be able to search, compare and, 

where appropriate, switch between products and providers easily and at 

reasonable and disclosed costs.” 

Financial education and capability 5 

Financial literacy relates to an individual’s knowledge of financial concepts 

and products. However, knowledge is not sufficient and an individual also 

needs the required skills to apply this knowledge. Furthermore, an individual’s 

value system and attitudes impact on how and whether knowledge and skills 

are translated into action (behaviour). So a complicated set of factors are at 

play that impact on both an individual’s learning (internalising a message) 

and his/her behaviour. These include previous learning, personality, cultural 

influences, value system and current financial context. Financial education 

focused on behavioural modification is therefore required to create a positive 

pre-disposition among consumers for the message to be ‘heard’ and acted 

on. 

The term financial capability is therefore preferred to financial literacy 

as it better reflects the complementary components of knowledge, skills, 

confidence, a positive predisposition and ultimately, a change of behaviour. 

Financial capability can be defined as: “The ability of an individual to act with 

confidence in making the optimal choices in the management of his/her 

money matters.” 

5 Adapted from: Financial Literacy Framework for Tanzania. 2010. Piprek, Gerda, L. - Marketworx Africa. 

Financial education is the broad term reflecting all activities aimed at 

transferring knowledge and skills and influencing behaviour. Financial 

education can take various forms and a combination of these and different 

channels should be included in a consumer strategy, depending on the needs 

of the target audience and the strategic objectives: 

• Awareness of product and institutional types, rights and responsibilities, 

recourse options, changes in the market place and where to turn for 

advice or assistance when in financial distress. 

• Broad-based/generic financial education focused on developing 

general financial management and planning skills such as budgeting, 

cash flow management and retirement planning. This is required on an 

on-going basis throughout an individual’s lifetime. 

• Discrete or event-specific financial education which is product 

category specific, such as informing/ educating consumers on how to 

purchase a vehicle using hire-purchase or a house through a mortgage 

loan. It is generally required on an as needed basis through a person’s life 

and will change with a person’s life stage. 

• Behavioural change: focused on influencing values, beliefs, attitudes 

and perceptions. 

• Financial and money advice: this stands somewhat apart from what 

is generally termed as financial education: money advice is provided for 

free, but financial advice is paid for or tied to a sale. If tied to the sale of 

a product, this is generally not viewed as financial education at all, but 

rather sales or marketing. 

From the above, it follows that financial education is not a once-off, but requires 

lifelong intervention. The Life Stage Approach 6 to financial education (Figure 

1) was introduced in 2004 7 and provides a framework for the development of 

a financial education strategy on a national level. It takes into consideration 

the life cycle of consumers and underscores the importance of early learning. 

Relevance of financial capability and relationship to consumer 

protection 

The attention of governments and practitioners in the development and 

support of financial sectors has historically been focused primarily on the 

enabling environment (legal, regulatory and policy) and on the supply side. 

Only in the past decade has the importance of financial capability among 

consumers been recognised. 

6 Adapted from: Financial Literacy Scoping Study and Strategy Study FinMark Trust 2004, page 42. 

Piprek, G.L., Coetzee, G., Dlamini, P. – ECIAfrica. 

7 Ibid.


Financial institutions and markets are becoming increasingly complex 

with a greater variety of financial service providers and products and more 

sophisticated and aggressive marketing by suppliers. Financial capability (or 

the lack thereof) among individuals and in societies manifests on several 

levels: 8 

Consumers 

• 

• 

• 

Financially capable consumers make better decisions in managing and 

growing their assets and are less susceptible to unscrupulous suppliers 

of financial services. 

Financial distress can have a major negative emotional impact on families 

and households and thus on people’s productivity in the work place. 

Financial education can play a vital role in consumer protection by 

enabling consumers to make better informed decisions and be better 

able to identify fraudulent practices. Financial education is one of the 

three components of consumer protection, along with an appropriate 

legal and regulatory framework and consumer recourse options (see 

Figure 1). None is currently well-developed in Tanzania. 

Markets 

• 

Institutional level: improved financial capability can result in an increase 

in the uptake of appropriate products, a decrease in product cancellations, 

a reduction in the risk for institutions and improved repayment rates. 

• 

• 

Financially capable consumers can also guide financial service providers 

in the development of better tailored products. 

Sector level: financially capable consumers play a developmental and 

monitoring role in the industry by encouraging competition and helping 

to weed out unscrupulous financial service providers. This will lead to an 

overall stronger financial sector. 

Macro-level: strong financial sectors and consumers capable of 

managing, protecting and growing their assets will ultimately support 

overall macro-economic stability and growth. 

The benefits of financial education are therefore far reaching, although they 

may only be realised at a national level after a substantial period of time 

following the implementation of a focused financial education programme. 

Financial capability has multiple dimensions and relates to issues such as 

values and behaviour, which are not influenced overnight or through a singular 

intervention. There is more on this in the next section. 

The benefits of financial education to society have the potential to reach far 

beyond the specific individuals targeted. This will happen when financial 

education is in the public domain and governments, the private sector and 

civic society all have a role to play in supporting and promoting both financial 

education and capability. 

Figure : Financial capability and consumer protection 

A. Three 

Legal and 

regulatory 

environment 

Consumer 

recourse 

Finance 

B. Individual/hh: 

C. Institutional 

E. Macro 

D. Financial sector 

• Fin 

Source: Tanzanian National Financial Literacy Framework. 2010. Piprek, G.L. 

8 Adapted from: Financial Literacy Scoping Study and Strategy Study FinMark Trust 2004, page 42. 

Piprek, G.L., Coetzee, G., Dlamini, P. – ECIAfrica.


Annex C 

Stakeholders consulteD 

Fin Ed Evaluation – Persons Interviewed 

Pilots 

1. Jackie Nyaga, Faulu 

2. Edith Kamau, Equity Group Foundation 

3. Samuel Musyoki, Plan International 

4. David Campbell, Media-e 

5. Angela Wambugu, Microsave 

FEPP Task force members 

6. Nkirote Mworia, Insurance Regulatory Authority 

7. Jane Ikunyua, Deposit Protection Fund 

8. Reuben Chepng’ar, Central Bank of Kenya 

9. Ezra Anyango, Ministry of Finance 

10. Christopher Yegon, Ministry of Higher Education 

11. Phyllis Wangwe, National Bank of Kenya 

12. John Njoroge, SwissContact 

13. Caroline Karanja, AMFI 

Other stakeholders 

14. George Omino, Ministry of Finance 

15. Isaac Awuondo, Commercial Bank of Africa 

16. Nuru Mugambi, Kenya Bankers Association 

FSD staff 

17. David Ferrand 

18. Victor Malu 

19. Bilha Maina 

20. Felistus Mbole 

21. James Kashangaki 

22. Amrik Heyer 

23. Ravindra Ramrattan 

24. Moses Ochieng

info@fsdkenya.org • www.fsdkenya.org 

FSD Kenya is an independent Trust established to support the development of inclusive financial markets in Kenya 

5th floor, KMA Centre • Junction of Chyulu Road and Mara Road, Upper Hill • PO Box 11353, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya 

T +254 (20) 2923000 • C +254 (724) 319706, (735) 319706

fsd's financial education programme: evaluation and ... - FSD Kenya

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?