Impact

The medium term impact survey produced the structured evidence base that the World Bank and the National Treasury required to make the next phase decisions on KMRC. Headline questions on PML behavioural change, borrower outcomes, and KMRC institutional performance were answered with defensible quantitative analysis and the qualitative depth to interpret the numbers responsibly.

Beyond the headline findings, the evaluation produced a granular view of where the impact pathway works and where it slows down. PML segments where refinancing is converting into longer tenor and more affordable products were identified separately from segments where transmission is weaker. Borrower household characteristics that are most strongly associated with successful mortgage take up were named. KMRC's internal performance metrics were benchmarked against the assumptions made at capitalisation.

For KMRC itself, the survey is more than an external evaluation. It is the diagnostic that lets the institution see where its operational model is most effective and where it needs to evolve. For the World Bank and the National Treasury, the survey is the evidence that supports continued investment in the model and informs the next round of housing finance policy.

Key Takeaways

Refinancing institutions need impact evidence the level above lending data

KMRC's impact does not live in its own balance sheet. It lives in the behaviour of the Primary Mortgage Lenders it refinances and in the outcomes of the households those PMLs serve. An evaluation that stops at KMRC's own performance metrics misses the institution's actual purpose. The medium term impact survey was designed to look one and two steps beyond KMRC, which is where the impact case has to be made.

Mixed methods are not optional in financial sector evaluations

The macro level numbers on mortgage market expansion are necessary but not sufficient. The micro level borrower outcomes are necessary but not sufficient. The institutional behavioural change in PMLs is necessary but not sufficient. The KMRC evaluation integrated all three because each tier answered questions the others could not. Financial sector institutions are easier to over evaluate at one level and under evaluate across the whole impact pathway. The integrated design is what avoided that trap.

Statistician led design protects the credibility of the findings

Impact evaluations are read more critically than implementation reports. The methodology has to be defensible to financial sector specialists, World Bank evaluation peers, and the National Treasury. Bringing statistical design and analysis into the evaluation from the outset, rather than as a post hoc validation step, is what gives the findings the standing they need to drive policy and investment decisions.

PPPs and refinancing vehicles require evaluation infrastructure built in, not bolted on

KMRC was conceived as a vehicle that would need periodic, independent evidence on its impact. Programmes that build evaluation infrastructure into the institution's operating model from the start produce more usable evidence than programmes that commission evaluations as one off events. The KMRC medium term impact survey is best read as one node in the continuing evaluation architecture the institution requires, not as a one off output. Designing future PPPs of this type around that assumption from day one would compound their evidence base over time.

Sector: Financial Services, Housing Finance, Impact Evaluation | Funder: World Bank / National Treasury | Geography: Kenya, National | ACAL Role: Lead Impact Evaluation Firm | Contract Value: KES 29.9 million