Even before Covid-19 swept through the world, 129 million girls were out of school. Now, many millions more have experienced a hiatus in learning due to the crisis. Tragically, for some this will represent the end of their education altogether.

Along with school closures, the pandemic has brought a dramatic impact to public finances around the world.

Determining how to make every cent of education funding work towards gender equality is more important than ever. To do so we need to carefully assess the gendered implications of financing, and the cost and effectiveness of the programs being financed.

The unprecedented disruption to education has also been widely recognized as an opportunity to change the status quo and introduce new, gender-responsive measures to transform education systems.

Two-thirds of low- and lower-middle-income countries, where data is available, have cut their education budgets since the onset of the pandemic. How can we ensure that education budgets continue to respond to the needs of girls and boys?

The Spending Better for Gender Equality in Education research, a joint initiative from the UN Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI) and Malala Fund, highlights two promising, yet underutilized tools to allocate resources equitably, effectively and efficiently for the education of girls and boys: gender-responsive public expenditure management, and cost effectiveness analysis.

Gender-responsive public expenditure management

Recognition of the different effects of education spending on girls and boys is the foundation of gender-responsive public expenditure management (GRPEM), explored in the report. Spending must be oriented to redress imbalances, improving gender-sensitivity in how funds are allocated and accounted for.

There are some myths about GRPEM, and it is worth saying what it is not to dispense with these myths. It is not an analysis of budget lines exclusively dedicated to women and girls, an advocacy tool to allocate more funds to these budget lines, nor a proposal to separate all budget lines by gender.

GRPEM is carried out by applying a series of steps and tools at each stage of the budget cycle. At the preparation stage, we assess the different effects of education spending on girls and boys, and then reorient spending to redress imbalances, thus improving the gender responsiveness in how funds are allocated.

At the budget discussion stage, key constituencies have their voices heard to ensure gender equality remains a priority in the budget. Finally, at the budget execution stage, public expenditure is deployed and tracked with gender awareness, generating information to improve the use of funds and lessons for the new cycle to start.

Cost-effectiveness analysis

Cost effectiveness analysis compares the expected outcome of a program with its cost. Incorporating cost-effectiveness also enables government and civil society to make choices anchored on evidence on which programs and interventions to support in the context of limited resources. For example, cost – effectiveness analysis can shed light into program alternatives that are likely to yield higher increases in enrollment for a given budget.

Cost-effectiveness is a relevant analysis for developing country partners and development partners alike, with meaningful value in leveraging and extending the existing evidence base on cost-effectiveness of programs focused on girls’ education.

Cost-effectiveness is not a static ratio and can prove especially useful when considering the scaling of pilot programs needed to respond to the current crisis, for example around providing catch-up classes or psychosocial support for girls.

Need for increased coordination of national and aid processes

The paper by UNGEI and Malala Fund provides important recommendations for the different actors supporting better financing for gender equality in education. Leveraging reform environments to raise the issue of GRPEM and cost-effectiveness can increase the odds of success for these initiatives, so can supporting local champions on gender equality who can carry these initiatives forward on the ground.

Both GRPEM and cost-effectiveness analysis highlight the importance of linking technical and financial support from development partners with local resources.

For country partners useful first steps include:

• Assessing the gendered incidence of past budgets as you prepare to enter the new budget cycle,
• considering the potential cost-effectiveness of progressively bringing promising pilot programs to scale and
• building robust sex-disaggregated education data that supports both GRPEM and cost-effectiveness.

GPE’s commitment to gender equality, and its central role in our new operating model, is an opportunity for all actors in the sector at a global and national level to work together towards gender responsiveness of sector financing.

To ensure all girls and boys enjoy equal education opportunities, we are hardwiring gender equality into our operating model to ensure that GPE’s processes, grants, monitoring and learning, and dialogue advance gender equality. The conclusions from this report highlight the importance of mainstreaming a gender equality focus in the development and use of rigorous evidence, as well as into the planning and domestic financing dialogue.

We hope the leaders making learning alternatives a reality for the most marginalized girls and boys find the tools and principles in the paper useful, while we call for all actors to keep their focus on gender equality in education during this challenging time.