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

4 • FSD’S FINANCIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME: EVALUATION AND RECOMENDATIONS
2.4 National financial education framework
2.4.1 Overview
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.
2.4.2 Evaluation
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
2.5.1 Overview
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).
2.5.2 Evaluation
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).