How much funding is the Education Sector forecast to receive in 2022?
Funding to the Education sector forecast to be between $608m and $906m in 2022. Our central estimate is $798m. For reference, the Education sector received $646m last year.
This forecast is based on our 95% probability range. In other words, we are 95% sure that funding will be between $608m and $906m. Below are the other forecast ranges for the Education sector. As we become less sure about our forecast, the range narrows. So for example, we think there’s a 50% probability that funding will be between $737m and $852m.
But we need to put this into context. What does the forecast mean in terms of reaching the funding that is required for the sector (also known as the funding requirement)? The total funding requirement globally is determined by how much is needed in each context. Given that we don’t have the information yet we have projected the funding required for 2022 and compared that to the funding forecast. If you hover over the donut below you’ll be able to see the chances of reaching 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the funding that is required.
We think that it’s likely that Education will receive at least 25% of their funding requirement. Reaching this milestone was the norm for the sector between 2016 and 2020, but the sector dipped slightly below this threshold last year at 23%.
How does the 2022 forecast compare to previous years?
The forecast has Education receiving 20% to 29% of the current funding requirement. This would echo the funding received last year, where only 23% of the funding requirement was met. However, before this, the Education Sector received 41% of their funding requirement on average. The percentage received didn’t particularly change too much until last year when the funding requirement exploded to $2.9bn. This was the primary factor behind the worst funding gap in recent years.
To put it bluntly, our graph shows that in each year that passes more children are in need of education and will not be accessing it. The funding gap in 2021 is more than twice that of the funding gap in 2020.
The huge increase in the funding requirement in 2021 is reflective of greater visibility of Education funding requirements in Refugee Response Plans (RRPs). Previously, funding in RRPs was included in a catch-all ‘Multi-sector’ bucket, but not in 2021 where funding requirements were classified as ‘Education’ and other sectors. And therefore, the funding requirement in 2021 better reflects the complete picture of Education funding requirements compared to previous years.
On the face of it this may be disappointing. However, this is balanced with the trend in funding received to the sector in recent years. Since 2016, funding has increased from $230m to $646m in 2021. This is an acceleration in funding that is not matched by many other sectors.
Yet, with the funding gap increasing in the last three years, that means Education is already in a real humanitarian recession. In this story, we’ve defined a real humanitarian recession as two consecutive years of a growing funding gap. Education has already experienced two years of a growing funding gap. So what are the odds of the sector staying in recession?
We think that it’s likely (3 in 4 chance) that the Education sector will experience real growth this year. These probabilities should change, however, throughout the year as more data becomes available and our forecasts adjust accordingly.
How does the 2022 forecast compare to other sectors?
Despite a potentially growing gap between funding received and funding required, Education is on course to rank as the 5th highest sector for funding received. We’re only 43% sure of this as there are other sectors in a similar range, such as WASH, and Protection.
The current state of things
By the end of June 2022, funding to the Education sector ($317m) is above levels of any previous year. This is slightly unexpected – especially as there is a huge jump in funding in May 2022. Could this be a front-loading of funding by donors given the crisis in Ukraine? Or does this reflect a higher equilibrium of funding for the sector.
Throughout the course of 2021, Education funding was higher than previous years at all points during the year. The most fascinating thing about the 2021 funding level is that it starts off at $118m already in the ‘pre-year’ period. Starting the year far above the position of previous years isn’t something that had been observed in other sectors either. Could it be that there was education funding that had been intended for 2020 but couldn’t be used due to COVID-19 restrictions?
We can’t say for sure, but the data provides a hint in this direction. Of the $118m that was already logged before the year began in 2021, 83% of the funding had a budget year of 2020. Compare this to 2020 when of the $28m that was logged before that year, only 20% of funding was tagged as having a budget year of the previous year.
And it’s not just this signal in the ‘pre-year’ period that is fascinating. The story of funding to the Education Sector in 2020 and 2021 is particularly interesting. Whilst you may have thought there would be a noticeable ‘COVID slump’ in funding as funds are reallocated to efforts to fight the pandemic, or governments and donors may have tightened their purse strings as a result of the general economic climate, this doesn’t appear to be the case for Education. Funding in 2020 beat previous years and 2021 could yet still be the largest year on record for Education funding.
Features of the Education Sector in 2021
The average Education response only received 25% of what was required in 2021. This sounds quite bad, but this percentage is around average when we compare it to other sectors. Of the 42 Education responses in 2021, 10 of these were able to meet 50% of their funding requirement, including Mozambique (128%), Honduras Flash Appeal (122%), and the Kenya Flash Appeal (121%) which all surpassed the 100% mark.
However, at the other end of the spectrum, 8 contexts didn’t even reach 10% of what was required. These included two non-HRP plans, including the Haiti Flash Appeal and an “other” plan (Northern Ethiopia).
This begs the question: why are some contexts more funded than others? Is it just year-on-year variation, donor preferences, underreporting, or something else? We’ll explore this in more detail in the future in our Stories section. We’re also currently working on an “Equity Index” to measure the extent to which funding across a sector is unequal – stay tuned!
The Education sector is diverse, with no one donor dominating the sector. The largest donors are: ECHO (34%); UNICEF (9%), the Governments of the USA (8%), the World Bank (7%), followed by the Governments of Germany (6%), Norway (4%), and Japan (4%). These eight donors collectively contribute 71% of funding. Another 67 donors contribute the remaining 29%.
There are two implications to this apparent diversity in funding sources. Firstly, the lack of reliance on a few donors, and the sheer number of sources of funding for Education, hints towards a sector that is resilient to external shocks. If one donor suffers a short-term shock to funding, there are enough sources of funding for the sector as a whole not to suffer. The extreme scenario can be seen in 2020 when you might expect all actors to suffer from an external shock due to COVID (each to varying extents). Even despite this ‘Act of God‘, the Education sector posted it’s best year ever in absolute terms, receiving $551m, and meeting 39% of it’s funding requirement (above 2016 levels). This suggests a sector that’s sufficiently diverse enough to be resilient to shocks. We’ve published a story about this here.
The second implication of this is that power is distributed, and no one donor dominates the sector. We can calculate the market concentration using the Herfindahl Hirschman Index. Though definitions differ, on a scale of 0 to 10,000, a sector is unconcentrated and competitive with a score under 1,500. The Education Sector has a score of 1,422, indicating an unconcentrated sector. A plurality of perspectives is good in terms of limiting the power of any one actor, enabling a diversity of thought, and increasing competition between programme models, which should all in theory be best for beneficiaries.
In terms of those receiving the funding, UNICEF is unsurprisingly the biggest recipient of funding (47% of total funding), followed by WFP (21%). Whilst it is difficult to know what the WFP funding was for exactly, the description of funding in part relates to school feeding and nutrition programmes. This is then followed by Save the Children (7%), NRC (5%), and UNRWA (4%).
Last year’s forecast can’t yet be judged against what the reality was as the 2021 numbers aren’t ‘final’ yet, despite it being 2022 already. It varies year-to-year, but there is still a non-trivial amount of funding that is logged after the end of the year. Therefore, we can’t really judge last year’s forecast until some point later in 2022. It’s at this point that we’ll do a post-mortem on our 2021 forecasts and see how well we did.
The usual health warning: FTS doesn’t capture everything. It is a platform that relies on voluntary reporting by organisations. But it is the most comprehensive source of data for humanitarian funding.
To find out methodology and sources for other things on this page which aren’t the forecast, click here.