Equitable Financing in Education Index by Country 2026
The UNESCO Equitable Financing in Education Index measures how strongly public financing arrangements direct education and social-protection resources towards disadvantaged learners. Scores range from 0 to 30 and reflect programme coverage, financial volume and equity-oriented design. The 2026 publication mainly assesses policies operating in 2025 or the latest year available.
EFE Index Statistics
The index evaluates financing arrangements rather than total education expenditure or measured education outcomes.
Distribution of Countries Across EFE Score Groups
Country shares are based on the four score groups reported by UNESCO in the 2026 EFE Index.
Share of Countries by Financing Group
Percentage of the 195-country assessment
Established systems form the largest group. Fewer than one in ten assessed countries reach the advanced score range.
Chart analysis
- 39% of countries fall within the established range of 13–18 points.
- 33% are classified as emerging, with scores from 7 to 12.
- Latent systems account for 20% of the assessed countries.
- Only 8% reach the advanced range of 19–30.
- Established and advanced systems together account for 47% of the country assessment.
- The percentages are published shares and may not convert into exact country counts because UNESCO reports rounded values.
EFE Score Classification Table
The groups describe the maturity and reach of equity-oriented financing mechanisms. They do not rank overall education quality.
| Order | EFE group | Minimum score | Maximum score | Country share | Financing profile | Reference year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Advanced | 19 | 30 | 8% | Education and social-protection mechanisms operate across several channels with high coverage, high financial volume or both. | 2025 or latest |
| 2 | Established | 13 | 18 | 39% | Several equity-oriented mechanisms are embedded in education financing and complementary support programmes. | 2025 or latest |
| 3 | Emerging | 7 | 12 | 33% | Multiple equity-oriented initiatives exist, but their reach, budget size or integration remains uneven. | 2025 or latest |
| 4 | Latent | 0 | 6 | 20% | Few assessed programmes have an explicit equity orientation, or the identified programmes have limited reach and financial volume. | 2025 or latest |
Table analysis
- The score bands cover the complete 0–30 index scale without overlap.
- The established group contains the largest share of countries at 39%.
- The advanced threshold begins at 19 points, equivalent to more than three-fifths of the maximum score.
- A latent classification can reflect missing mechanisms, low coverage, low financial volume or programmes without an explicit equity orientation.
- Countries with the same total score can rely on different combinations of school grants, household support, meals or intergovernmental transfers.
- The classification concerns financing design and effort, not observed equality in enrolment, completion or learning.
UNESCO publishes individual country values through its embedded EFE interactive visualisation and country financing profiles. The downloadable technical tables used for the verified comparisons on EducationMetrics.org report global shares, regional medians, income-group medians and scoring thresholds rather than a machine-readable country-score table. Numeric country values are not transcribed when an independently verifiable official value is unavailable.
Regional EFE Index Medians
Regional medians summarize the middle country score within each UNESCO reporting region.
Median EFE Score by Region
Median score on the 0–30 scale
The regional medians range from 7 in Oceania to 15 in Europe and Northern America.
Chart analysis
- Europe and Northern America records the highest regional median at 15.
- Latin America and the Caribbean and Eastern and South-eastern Asia both have a median of 14.
- Central and Southern Asia has a median of 11.
- Northern Africa and Western Asia and sub-Saharan Africa both record a median of 9.
- Oceania has the lowest published regional median at 7.
- The spread between the highest and lowest regional medians is 8 points.
| Median order | Region | Median score | Median score group | Gap from highest | Reference year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Europe and Northern America | 15 | Established | 0 | 2025 or latest |
| 2 | Eastern and South-eastern Asia | 14 | Established | 1 | 2025 or latest |
| 2 | Latin America and the Caribbean | 14 | Established | 1 | 2025 or latest |
| 4 | Central and Southern Asia | 11 | Emerging | 4 | 2025 or latest |
| 5 | Northern Africa and Western Asia | 9 | Emerging | 6 | 2025 or latest |
| 5 | Sub-Saharan Africa | 9 | Emerging | 6 | 2025 or latest |
| 7 | Oceania | 7 | Emerging | 8 | 2025 or latest |
Table analysis
- Three regions have medians within the established score band.
- Four regions have medians within the emerging band.
- No regional median reaches the advanced threshold of 19.
- No regional median falls within the latent range of 0–6.
- Latin America considered separately has a reported median of approximately 16, while the Caribbean median is 9; their combined reporting region has a median of 14.
- Regional medians can conceal wide differences between countries within the same region.
Income Group Differences in Equity-Oriented Financing
UNESCO reports both the median EFE score and the share of countries with established or advanced financing arrangements.
Median EFE Score by Income Group
World Bank income groups used in the UNESCO comparison
The median rises across the four income groups, from 6 in low-income countries to 14 in high-income countries.
Chart analysis
- The low-income median is 6, the upper boundary of the latent group.
- The lower-middle-income median is 10, within the emerging range.
- The upper-middle-income median is 13, the first point in the established range.
- The high-income median is 14.
- The difference between the low-income and high-income medians is 8 points.
- The index does not treat national income as part of the score; the relationship is descriptive.
| Median order | Income group | Median score | Median score group | Established or advanced | Gap from high-income median | Reference year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | High income | 14 | Established | 58% | 0 | 2025 or latest |
| 2 | Upper-middle income | 13 | Established | 55% | 1 | 2025 or latest |
| 3 | Lower-middle income | 10 | Emerging | 43% | 4 | 2025 or latest |
| 4 | Low income | 6 | Latent | 12% | 8 | 2025 or latest |
Table analysis
- 58% of high-income countries have established or advanced financing arrangements.
- The corresponding share is 55% among upper-middle-income countries.
- Lower-middle-income countries record a share of 43%.
- Only 12% of low-income countries reach the established or advanced groups.
- The gap between the low-income and high-income shares is 46 percentage points.
- The upper-middle-income and high-income medians differ by only one point.
- Income-group results do not establish that income alone determines the design of education financing.
Five Financing Mechanisms Assessed by the EFE Index
Each mechanism can contribute up to 6 points through separate assessments of beneficiary coverage and financial volume.
Subnational transfers
Transfers from central government to regional, provincial or local authorities are assessed for needs-based distribution and equalization criteria.
School transfers
Funding formulas, grants and additional allocations are assessed for whether they direct more resources to disadvantaged schools.
Student and family support
Education-budget programmes include scholarships, fee waivers, transport, learning materials and direct cash or in-kind assistance.
School meals
Free or subsidized meals are assessed through their reach among school-age children and their share of public expenditure.
Social-protection transfers
Household grants and cash transfers financed outside the education budget are included when education participation forms part of the programme design.
Prevalence of Selected Equity-Oriented Programmes
Share of countries with identified programme types
School meal programmes are the most widely identified mechanism. Programme presence alone does not determine the EFE score.
Chart analysis
- School meal programmes are identified in 84% of countries.
- 76% redistribute resources towards disadvantaged schools.
- Education-linked social-protection policies are identified in 73% of countries.
- Education ministries provide student or family support in 62% of countries.
- The spread across the four reported programme shares is 22 percentage points.
- Programme prevalence does not show programme size, beneficiary reach or budget intensity.
| Mechanism | Financing channel | Primary recipient | Equity test | Reported prevalence | Maximum points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Transfers to subnational governments | Regional or local government | Fiscal equalization, poverty, rurality, remoteness or other needs-based criteria | No single global rate published | 6 |
| 2 | Transfers directly to schools | Schools serving disadvantaged populations | Additional funding linked to school or learner disadvantage | 76% | 6 |
| 3 | Education-budget transfers to students and families | Learners and households | Eligibility linked to poverty, location, disability or another disadvantage | 62% | 6 |
| 4 | School meal programmes | School-age children | Universal or targeted access combined with programme expenditure | 84% | 6 |
| 5 | Social-protection transfers linked to education | Households with school-age children | Education-linked cash or in-kind support for disadvantaged households | 73% | 6 |
Table analysis
- All five mechanisms have the same maximum contribution of 6 points.
- The index includes spending from both education budgets and social-protection budgets.
- School grants and student support measure different funding routes even when both target the same disadvantaged population.
- School meals may be universal or targeted; the scoring thresholds reward broad reach for this mechanism.
- Transfers to subnational governments are not applicable in every national financing system.
- When the first mechanism does not apply, UNESCO normalizes the other four mechanisms so the total maximum remains 30.
How the 0–30 EFE Score Is Calculated
Coverage and financial volume receive separate scores for each financing mechanism.
Mechanism score = coverage score + volume score
Coverage contributes 0–3 points. Financial volume contributes 0–3 points. Each mechanism therefore contributes 0–6 points, producing a maximum total of 30.
| Component | Level | Points | Interpretation | Maximum per mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage | No qualifying programme | 0 | No identified programme or no explicit equity orientation | 6 |
| Coverage | Low | 1 | Coverage falls within the mechanism-specific low band | 6 |
| Coverage | Medium | 2 | Coverage falls within the mechanism-specific medium band | 6 |
| Coverage | High | 3 | Coverage falls within the mechanism-specific high band | 6 |
| Financial volume | No qualifying programme | 0 | No identified equity-oriented expenditure | 6 |
| Financial volume | Low | 1 | Spending falls within the mechanism-specific low band | 6 |
| Financial volume | Medium | 2 | Spending falls within the mechanism-specific medium band | 6 |
| Financial volume | High | 3 | Spending falls within the mechanism-specific high band | 6 |
Table analysis
- A programme can receive different scores for coverage and financial volume.
- High coverage with low expenditure can produce a lower mechanism score than high ratings on both dimensions.
- A programme without a stated equity orientation receives 0 points, even when it reaches many learners.
- The total EFE score is the sum of five equally weighted mechanism scores.
- A country can reach the same total through different combinations of coverage and expenditure ratings.
Coverage and Financial Volume Thresholds
The thresholds vary because targeted grants, universal meals and intergovernmental transfers serve different populations and use different expenditure denominators.
| Mechanism | Financing channel | Dimension | Low: 1 point | Medium: 2 points | High: 3 points | Measurement base |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Subnational transfers | Coverage | <50% | 50%–80% | >80% | Share of the school-age population covered by assessed subnational financing |
| 1 | Subnational transfers | Financial volume | <5% of public education spending, or equalization based only on fiscal disparity | 5% to below 10%, or equalization also reflects poverty or rurality | ≥10%, or equalization combines fiscal disparity with the full assessed set of equity criteria | Public education expenditure or qualitative equalization criteria |
| 2 | School transfers | Coverage | <2% or >50% | 2% to below 10%, or 25%–50% | 10% to below 25% | Share of schools or school-age learners reached by the targeted programme |
| 2 | School transfers | Financial volume | <2% | 2% to below 10% | ≥10% | Public education expenditure |
| 3 | Student and family support | Coverage | <2% or >50% | 2% to below 10%, or 25%–50% | 10% to below 25% | Share of school-age learners or households reached by targeted education support |
| 3 | Student and family support | Financial volume | <2% | 2% to below 10% | ≥10% | Public education expenditure |
| 4 | School meals | Coverage | <50% | 50% to below 80% | ≥80% | Share of primary-school-age children covered |
| 4 | School meals | Financial volume | <0.5% in low- and middle-income countries; <0.2% in high-income countries | 0.5% to below 1% in low- and middle-income countries; 0.2% to below 0.6% in high-income countries | ≥1% in low- and middle-income countries; ≥0.6% in high-income countries | Total public expenditure |
| 5 | Social-protection transfers | Coverage | <5% | 5% to below 15% | ≥15% | Share of the school-age population covered |
| 5 | Social-protection transfers | Financial volume | <0.5% | 0.5% to below 1% | ≥1% | Total public expenditure |
Table analysis
- School meals and social-protection transfers receive higher coverage ratings as they reach a larger share of the eligible population.
- Targeted school and student transfers use a different pattern: the highest coverage rating is assigned around the 10%–25% band.
- Coverage above 50% receives a low rating for targeted school and student transfers because very broad eligibility may indicate weaker targeting intensity.
- School-transfer and student-support expenditure receive the highest volume rating at 10% or more of public education spending.
- School meal expenditure thresholds differ by national income group.
- The high school-meal volume threshold is 1% of public expenditure in low- and middle-income countries and 0.6% in high-income countries.
- Social-protection transfers reach the high volume band at 1% of total public expenditure.
- The thresholds are classification boundaries derived from the distribution of observed programmes; they are not universal spending targets.
School grants and education-budget support are assessed as targeted mechanisms. Coverage concentrated among a defined disadvantaged population may indicate stronger targeting than a programme extending to most learners without differentiated eligibility. School meals and social-protection transfers are treated differently because broad population reach is central to their function.
Disadvantage Criteria Used in Financing Programmes
UNESCO records which dimensions of disadvantage are used to allocate resources or establish programme eligibility.
| Order | Disadvantage criterion | Financing mechanism | Programmes using criterion | Allocation level | Reference year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Poverty | Social-protection transfers to households | 92% | Household | 2025 or latest |
| 2 | Geography | Transfers to subnational governments | 79% | Region or local authority | 2025 or latest |
| 3 | Poverty | Education-budget student and family support | 71% | Learner or household | 2025 or latest |
| 4 | Disability or special educational needs | Transfers directly to schools | 58% | School | 2025 or latest |
| 5 | Geography | Transfers directly to schools | 51% | School | 2025 or latest |
| 6 | Disability or special educational needs | Transfers to subnational governments | 39% | Region or local authority | 2025 or latest |
| 7 | Disability or special educational needs | Education-budget student and family support | 38% | Learner or household | 2025 or latest |
Table analysis
- Poverty is used by 92% of assessed social-protection transfer programmes.
- Geography is used by 79% of assessed subnational transfer arrangements.
- Poverty appears in 71% of education-budget student and family support programmes.
- Disability or special educational needs appear most often in school-transfer programmes, at 58%.
- Geographic targeting is more common in subnational transfers than in school transfers, a difference of 28 percentage points.
- Disability targeting is reported in 39% of subnational arrangements and 38% of student or family support programmes.
- Refugee status, ethnicity, language and gender may also appear in programme criteria, but the technical summary does not publish a comparable percentage for every mechanism.
Policy Development from 2000 to 2025
The EFE Index was introduced in 2026, so no historical series of total EFE country scores exists. UNESCO’s policy mapping documents how the underlying programme types expanded between 2000 and 2025.
| Mechanism | Financing channel | Reported direction, 2000–2025 | Latest reported prevalence | Historical pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Subnational transfers | Expanded | More than half use a subnational channel; an exact EFE-wide percentage is not reported | Adoption rose over the period, with a stronger increase during the late 2000s. |
| 2 | Support for disadvantaged schools | Fastest expansion among the mapped mechanisms | 76% | Needs-based school grants and differentiated funding formulas became more common. |
| 3 | Education-budget student and family support | Rose sharply | 62% | Scholarships, fee support, transport and household assistance expanded from a lower starting level. |
| 4 | School meals | Expanded from a high starting level | 84% | School meals remained the most widespread programme type across the mapped period. |
| 5 | Education-linked social-protection transfers | Expanded | 73% | Many programmes predate recent education-finance reforms and operate through social-protection institutions. |
Trend analysis
- The underlying financing mechanisms became more common between 2000 and 2025.
- Support directed to disadvantaged schools records the fastest reported expansion.
- School meals remained the most prevalent programme type, reaching 84% in the latest policy mapping.
- Education-linked social-protection programmes reached 73%.
- The historical evidence tracks programme adoption rather than annual EFE scores.
- No 10-year or 20-year EFE score change is calculated because the composite index did not exist as a historical country series.
Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence Rules
UNESCO uses qualitative programme information when comparable beneficiary or expenditure figures are unavailable.
| Order | Evidence basis | Observed information | Assigned level | Points | Application |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Quantitative | Value falls within the published low threshold | Low | 1 | Coverage or financial volume |
| 2 | Quantitative | Value falls within the published medium threshold | Medium | 2 | Coverage or financial volume |
| 3 | Quantitative | Value falls within the published high threshold | High | 3 | Coverage or financial volume |
| 4 | Qualitative | Programme targets 0–1 assessed disadvantage dimensions | Low | 1 | Used when comparable quantitative evidence is unavailable |
| 5 | Qualitative | Programme targets 2–3 assessed disadvantage dimensions | Medium | 2 | Used when comparable quantitative evidence is unavailable |
| 6 | Qualitative | Programme targets at least 4 assessed disadvantage dimensions | High | 3 | Used when comparable quantitative evidence is unavailable |
| 7 | Qualitative | Programme is universal | Treated as covering all assessed dimensions | High treatment where the qualitative rule applies | Universal programme assessment |
Table analysis
- Quantitative evidence is classified using mechanism-specific beneficiary and expenditure thresholds.
- Qualitative classification is used when comparable numerical evidence cannot be obtained.
- A programme targeting four or more assessed disadvantage dimensions receives a high qualitative classification.
- Universal programmes are treated as covering all assessed disadvantage dimensions under the qualitative rule.
- Country scores can therefore combine quantitative and qualitative evidence.
- Equal total scores do not necessarily have equal underlying data precision.
Interpretation of Country Scores
The total score should be read together with the mechanisms, evidence basis and national financing structure.
Equal scores can reflect different systems
One country may rely on school grants and meals, while another reaches the same score through household transfers and student support.
Total spending is not measured
A country can spend a large share of national income on education without directing a large share of that expenditure through the assessed equity-oriented mechanisms.
Programme presence is only one element
The existence of a scholarship, meal or cash-transfer programme does not produce a high score unless its coverage and financial volume also meet the relevant thresholds.
Coverage has mechanism-specific meaning
Broad coverage is rewarded for meals and social protection. Targeted school and student transfers receive their highest coverage rating within a narrower population band.
National structures affect comparability
Centralized and decentralized systems move resources through different channels. Reweighting preserves the 30-point maximum when subnational transfers do not apply.
Policy design is not an outcome measure
The score does not establish whether gaps in attendance, completion, attainment or learning have narrowed.
What a high EFE score indicates
A high score indicates that several assessed financing mechanisms have a stated equity orientation and receive stronger ratings for beneficiary reach, financial volume or both.
What a high EFE score does not establish
The index does not measure targeting accuracy, programme delivery, leakage, cost-effectiveness, teaching quality, learner outcomes or the causal effect of financing policies.
Source and Methodology
UNESCO PEER: Financing for equity in primary and secondary education
2026 Global Education Monitoring Report
2025 or the latest year available for the assessed programme
195 national education and social-protection systems
Composite score from 0 to 30
Five mechanisms with a maximum of 6 points each
Beneficiary coverage and financial volume
Qualitative classification based on the number of disadvantage dimensions targeted
Published medians rather than page-level averages
Published medians and country shares using World Bank income classifications
Scores are displayed as reported. Published country shares are rounded percentages.
Policy adoption from 2000 to 2025; no retrospective composite EFE score series
The index first identifies the largest equity-oriented programme associated with each financing mechanism. Coverage and financial volume are rated low, medium or high and assigned 1, 2 or 3 points. A mechanism receives 0 when no qualifying programme is identified or when the programme has no explicit equity orientation. The two dimensions are added to produce a mechanism score from 0 to 6. The five mechanism scores produce a total from 0 to 30. Where transfers to subnational governments do not apply, the remaining mechanisms are normalized to preserve the same maximum. Regional and income-group values shown in the tables are UNESCO-published medians, not calculations produced by EducationMetrics.org.
The EFE Index measures the stated equity orientation, coverage and financial volume of selected financing mechanisms. It is not a ranking of education quality, total education spending, learning performance or equality of outcomes. Country comparisons may also reflect differences in administrative structure, programme documentation, data availability and the use of quantitative or qualitative evidence.