Policy Research Working Paper 10752
Refugee Education Financing:
Key Facts and Findings
Insights into the Financing of Refugee Education
in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Robert Hopper
Poverty and Equity Global Practice
April 2024
Policy Research Working Paper 10752
Abstract
This paper, along with its accompanying data, provides the trends and patterns in refugee education financing, existing
first comprehensive analysis on financing for refugee edu- financing gaps, and potential biases in financing allocations.
cation in low- and middle-income countries. By compiling These findings are explored in the 10 facts and findings
and scrutinizing data on host government financing, foreign outlined in this paper, and summarized in Box 1 below. It
aid contributions, and philanthropic giving, a consolidated is hoped that this dataset and analysis will help to improve
and quantified overview of all major sources of financing the understanding of financing for refugee education in low-
for refugee education in low- and middle-income coun- and middle-income countries and inform future discussion
tries is produced. This data is then analyzed to reveal key and debate on refugee education financing.
This paper is a product of the Poverty and Equity Global Practice. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to
provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy
Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp. The author may be contacted
at rhopper1@worldbank.org.
The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development
issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the
names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those
of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and
its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
Produced by the Research Support Team
Refugee Education Financing: Key Facts
and Findings
Insights into the Financing of Refugee Education in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Robert Hopper
JEL classification: I220 Educational Finance; F350 Foreign Aid, I250 Education and Economic
Development; F220 International Migration
Keywords: refugees, refugee education, education financing, ODA, inclusive education
Box 1: Key facts and findings on refugee education
1. Refugees are overwhelmingly hosted in low- and middle-income countries (LICs and
MICs).
2. Africa and the Middle East have historically hosted the most refugees, but new and
increasing crises are dramatically altering the geography of displacement.
3. Refugee enrollment rates are markedly lower than host country enrollment rates in
most LICs and MICs, but not everywhere.
4. Host country governments are unable to finance inclusive refugee education in the
majority of large host LICs and MICs.
5. Philanthropic financing does not finance inclusive refugee education in LICs and MICs.
6. Offi cial development assistance (ODA) for refugee education is dominated by
development finance, in marked contrast to all other ODA for refugee situations.
7. Over 80 percent of ODA for refugee education comes from just 5 donor countries.
8. ODA allocations for refugee education are distributed unevenly across income groups
and regions.
9. ODA for refugee education is skewed toward specific countries, with financing
exceeding the costs of inclusive refugee education in some countries.
10. ODA for refugee education in LICs and MICs is primarily allocated to Syrian refugees.
Acknowledgments
This paper was produced by the World Bank’s Poverty and Equity Global Practice in close
collaboration with the UNHCR. The core team was composed of Johannes Hoogeveen and
Robbie Hopper from the World Bank, and Becky Telford from UNHCR. Special thanks go to all
World Bank and UNHCR regional and country teams that were engaged in this work; without
their invaluable contributions, this paper would not have been possible. The team is also
especially grateful to the assistance provided by Dina Abu-Ghaida, Xavier Devictor, Peter
Holland and Karishma Silva, as well as other members of the World Bank Fragility, Conflict
and Violence Group and Education Global Practice teams that contributed to this work. Further
thanks go to Laura Savage, IEFG; Jens Hesemann and Emile Boral-Rolland, OECD; Cirenia
Chavez, UNHCR; Lorenzo Moncada, WFP; and Alexandros Nikos, who provided invaluable
insights.
This paper was financed by the Forced Displacement Trust Fund (MDTF). The MDTF is a
World Bank administered global trust fund, intended to promote development responses that
support sustainable solutions to forced displacement. The team gratefully acknowledges their
support of this work.
Any questions or feedback on this paper may be directed to rhopper1@worldbank.org
2
Introduction
Data on financing for refugee education is notoriously elusive. The fragility and instability of
refugee situations, combined with a lack of disaggregation in donor and government reporting,
make tracking refugee financing, particularly at scale, extremely challenging. As a result,
efforts to quantify this information have been partial to date, leading to a lack of detailed
analysis of financing for refugee situations.
This paper, and its accompanying dataset, overcome this deficit by producing the first
comprehensive dataset and paper on financing for refugee education in low- and middle-
income countries (LICs and MICs). By collating and analyzing publicly available data, surveying
key refugee education donors, and working closely with host country governments and
international organizations, all major sources of financing for refugee education in LICs and
MICs are collated and quantified for the first time. This paper then analyzes this data to
produce 10 key facts and findings on refugee education financing for LICs and MICs.
Literature Review
Diffi culties in tracking donor and host government financing to refugee situations have led to a
dearth of publications on refugee education financing. As emphasized by Marcus et al. (2023),
a “lack of disaggregation in global aid reporting systems by source, sector (subsectors), or type
of crisis (e.g., internal displacement, refugee) limits analysis of funding on refugee inclusion
[while] data on domestic expenditure in major refugee-hosting countries are often unavailable
internationally” , hindering understanding and analysis (Marcus et al., 2023). These data
challenges extend to the philanthropy sector, another significant source of refugee education
financing, with many major foundations and funds electing not to publish their financing
allocations, either by sector, country, or region (OECD, 2021; ECW , 2019).
The lack of information on refugee education financing in LICs and MICs has created a scarcity
of literature in this area. Yet data on financing for refugee situations has improved dramatically
in recent years. Most notably, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) surveyed Development Assistance Committee members, participants, observers and
partners on their financing for refugee situations in 2018, 2020 and 2023 (OECD, 2021, 2023).
The second, and final, of these surveys asked donors to disaggregate their financing for refugee
situations by sector, representing the first time that data on sector-level ODA for refugee
situations had been collected at scale, allowing the OECD to produce the first sector-specific
estimates of ODA for refugee education in LICs and MICs (Hesemann et al., 2023). Hesemann
et al. (2023) found education to be the third largest sector recipient of ODA for refugee
situations in 2021, receiving US$ 2.3 billion, or 8% of total ODA for refugee situations in LICs
and MICs. While this estimate is imperfect, and is improved upon in this paper’s analysis,
Hesemann et al.’s work (2023) contributed significantly to improving transparency and the
quality of data and analysis on financing for refugee situations.
Much like ODA for refugee education, information on host government financing for refugee
situations in LICs and MICs is scarce. Financing data on refugee education is neither publicly,
nor internally, available for many LIC and MIC governments, with budget allocations seldom
3
disaggregated by refugee status. As such, reports exploring host country financing for refugee
education are scarce, with only a handful of countries publishing data on financing for refugee
education (e.g. Colombia) (Burde et al., 2022).
Literature on philanthropic financing for refugee education is also limited. In 2019, Education
Cannot Wait (ECW), a global fund for education in emergencies, produced the most recent and
comprehensive estimate of philanthropic financing for ‘education in emergencies’ (EiE) to date.
ECW estimated the philanthropic sector’s financing of refugee education by using the grant-
aggregator Candid and examining individual foundations’ online grant databases where
available (ECW , 2019). Due to a lack of publicly available data on philanthropic financing, the
organization used its relationships with major grant makers to establish financing estimates
for all major philanthropic financers. ECW reported that the philanthropic sector provided US$
294.5 million to EiE between 2008-2016, averaging US$ 33 million a year over this period, or
5.4 percent of total foundation grant making to countries in emergencies (ECW , 2019). Since
this publication, no similar studies have been conducted or planned by ECW or any other
organization, leading to a dearth of literature on philanthropic financing for refugee education.
Methodology
As outlined above, the challenges involved in tracking and disaggregating financing for refugee
situations have led to a lack of publicly available data and literature on global financing for
refugee education. This paper, and its accompanying dataset, help to fill this gap through
collecting, collating, and scrutinizing both primary and secondary data to produce the first
comprehensive dataset and analysis of refugee education financing to low- and middle-income
countries. The sources of this data, and the methods used to collect them, are discussed in
detail below.
Refugee population, enrollment, and costing data
The costs of refugee education used in this paper and its accompanying dataset refer to the
costs of inclusive education provision: i.e. the cost of educating refugees through the national
education system of their current host countries. The costs of pre-primary, primary and
secondary education are estimated using the methodology outlined in The Global Cost of
Inclusive Refugee Education – 2023 Update (World Bank & UNHCR, 2023), which focused on
the fiscal costs of education.
All refugee population numbers used in this paper are taken from the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) Refugee Population Statistics Database (UNHCR, n.d.).
‘Refugee’ is defined in this paper as those categorized by the UNHCR as either ‘refugees’,
‘asylum seekers’, or ‘other people in need of international protection’. The UNHCR presents
demographic data by age categories only. In order to estimate the school-age refugee
population in each host country, this paper and its accompanying dataset assume that all
refugees aged 5-11 years are uniformly distributed across one year of pre-primary education
and six years of primary education, and that refugees aged 12-17 years represent the standard
4
secondary school-age population in each host country.1 These population estimates are then
combined with refugee gross enrollment rates (GERs), compiled by UNHCR (2023c), to
estimate the refugee population accessing education in each country. Host country GERs are
taken from UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics, which provides national GERs for primary and
secondary education only (UNESCO, n.d.).
Financing data
The financing data presented in this paper is based on offi cial, publicly available data where
possible. To improve the quality of data on financing for refugee education, the authors have
provided more detailed estimates on all major sources of education financing through either
collecting new primary data or re-examining existing data to produce more accurate financing
information. The methods used to produce these estimates are explained below.
(i) Bilateral and multilateral ODA for refugee education
The analysis of ODA presented in this paper is based on data from the OECD’s 2023 Ad hoc
Survey on Development Finance for Refugee Situations in Low- and Middle-Income Countries,
2020-21.2 Unlike its predecessors, the 2020-21 refugee financing survey captured ODA by
area/sector, making it possible to estimate ODA for refugee education for the first time.
However, the OECD’s classification only allows financing to be categorized into one area/sector,
limiting the accuracy of its sector level analysis. As such, this paper presents new estimates for
refugee education financing for all LICs and MICs by reviewing the descriptors in each line of
ODA to ensure that all financing for education purposes are categorized as such. For example,
in several instances financing was classified in the OECD dataset as ‘emergency response’, but
was used entirely for education purposes, and as such should be incorporated into refugee
education financing estimates. To ensure that all education financing was captured in this
paper and the accompanying dataset, ‘education identifiers’3 were used to detect potential
misallocations. Each potential misallocation was then reviewed in detail, with only financing
allocated entirely for education purposes categorized as 'education' financing.4
It should be noted that the OECD’s dataset records development finance for refugee situations
in LICs and MICs. It thus provides estimates of DAC members’ and non-DAC providers’ ODA
contributions to both refugees and host communities in the refugee-hosting recipient
countries. As such the ODA recorded in this dataset is likely to inflate financing for refugee
1 For countries where data on refugee populations by age were not available, it was assumed that the number of primary and
secondary school-age refugees in these countries were equal to 19 percent and 13 percent, respectively, of the total refugee
populations of these countries, in line with the averages in all other LICs and MICs.
2 This survey, issued in March 2023, captures the financing data of 43 bilateral donors (31 DAC countries and 12 non-DAC
countries), 6 multilateral development banks and 14 UN agencies (core contributions) for the financial year 2020-21.
Recipients of offi cial assistance are recorded as the first implementing partner only to avoid duplication.
3 The 'education identifier' searched the 'Short description', 'Project title', 'Purpose name' and 'Sector name' variables of the
OECD dataset for the key words ‘education’, ‘school’, ‘teach’, and ‘classroom’. If any of these key words were identified, then
each allocation’s descriptives were reviewed to determine whether financing was for refugee education, with only financing
that was allocated entirely for education purposes included as such. Categories of spending captured include direct
expenditure on education provision, such as teacher salaries and textbooks, as well as indirect sources of financing for
education, such as School Feeding Programmes and Cash Transfers for Education.
4 A lack of comprehensive information on education financing by level of education prevented more detailed analysis, with all
ODA for refugee education analyzed in this paper with no disaggregation by education level possible.
5
education as some ODA allocation to refugee situations will benefit both hosts and refugees
alike. Furthermore, while ODA financing provides annual financing estimates, some financing
will be capital expenditures with long term benefits. As such, the benefits of ODA allocations
may be realized over many years, but categorized as financing in just one year.
(ii) Host country government financing of refugee education
To mitigate the lack of publicly available information on host government financing for refugee
education, primary data collection was conducted for this report. This was achieved through
extensive engagement with government, non-government, and international organizations
working in the 25 largest refugee hosting LICs and MICs. These efforts yielded estimates on
host government financing for refugee education in 20 of the largest 25 hosting countries,
which combined hosted 77 percent of all school-age refugees in LICs and MICs in 2021. Given
the deficiencies in the recording of such information at country level, as outlined in the
methodology, assumptions were required to estimate host government financing for the
majority of estimates produced. To ensure the validity of these estimates, offi cials from
international organizations, host country governments, and/or non-government organizations
(NGOs) either verified or worked with the authors to produce this studies estimates.
Given that refugee education financing was not tracked by the majority of governments
examined, there is little commonality in the methods used to estimate host government
financing for refugee education by country. Rather, approaches were adapted depending on
data availability.
(iii) Philanthropic financing of refugee education
The philanthropic financing data used in this paper is based on three separate sources: the
OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS), the grant aggregator database Candid, and a survey of
International Education Funders Group (IEFG) members conducted for this paper. The OECD’s
CRS forms the basis of the accompanying dataset’s philanthropic financing data. This
information is then supplemented by additional project data recorded in the grant aggregator
database Candid, and primary data collected through the September 2023 World Bank and
IEFG survey of IEFG members on refugee education (IEFG and World Bank, 2023). These data
were then triangulated to produce estimates of the philanthropic sector’s financing for refugee
education in LICs and MICs. While this paper uses the latest available information to estimate
philanthropic financing for refugee education, given the lack of transparency in this sector,
these figures are likely to underestimate the extent of philanthropic financing for refugee
education.
6
Key facts and findings on refugee education
The remainder of this paper presents ten key facts on refugee education financing in LICs and
MICs. This analysis is based on this paper’s accompanying dataset on Financing for refugee
education in low- and middle-income countries (REFD, 2024), and supplemented with
additional sources where relevant.
Key fact 1: Refugees are overwhelmingly hosted in LICs and MICs
Over the last decade, the number of people facing forced displacement due to conflict, violence
and/or persecution has increased threefold, from 33.7 million in 2012 to 107.8 million people
by the end of 20225 (UNHCR, 2023). Of those displaced, 40.1 million are classed as refugees,
asylum seekers, or other persons in need of international protection.
Figure A shows the number of refugees6 in the 20 largest host countries as of end-2022. The
bars show each countries’ total refugee population, while the line captures the cumulative total
of refugees hosted in these countries as a proportion of the global refugee population. Figure A
shows that a relatively small number of countries host the majority of the world’s refugees,
and that low- and middle-income countries host a disproportionately large share of this
population (70 percent of refugees globally), with only 4 of the top 20 host countries high
income countries (HICs) in 2022.7
Figure A: Distribution of refugees globally, 2022
4,500,000 80%
4,000,000 70%
3,500,000
60%
3,000,000
50%
2,500,000
40%
2,000,000
30%
1,500,000
20%
1,000,000
500,000 10%
- 0%
Source: UNHCR (2023)
Of the 107.8 million recorded as forcibly displaced as of end-2022, an estimated 43.3 million
(40 percent) were children below the age of 18. Figure B shows the proportion of school-age
5 In 2023, an additional 5.9 million refugees were registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees (UNRWA, 2023).
6 As outlined previously, ‘Refugee’ is defined by this report and its accompanying dataset as those categorized by the UNHCR as
either ‘refugees’, ‘asylum seekers’, or ‘other people in need of international protection’ (UNHCR, 2023).
7 Income classifications made in accordance with World Bank country-level classifications.
7
refugee children in low-, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high-income countries; while Figure
C shows the absolute number of school-age refugees in each income group. As these figures
show, the number of school-age refugees in upper-middle income countries (UMICs) has
increased dramatically in recent years, both in relative and absolute terms. In fact, between
2017 and 2022, the number of school-age refugees in UMICs increased tenfold, as crises in the
Syrian Arab Republic and the República Bolivariana de Venezuela saw millions flee to
neighboring UMICs, such as Türkiye and Colombia.
Figure B: Proportion of school-age refugees (5-17 years old) by host country income classification8
100% 4%
9% 15%
80%
32%
60%
74%
40%
31%
20%
21%
13%
0%
Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle income High income
Source: UNHCR (2023)
As shown in Figure B, the proportion of school-age refugees hosted in LICs and lower-middle
income countries (LMICs) has been falling in recent years. However, both income groups have
seen a steady increase in the absolute numbers of school-age refugees within their countries.
In fact, the total number of school-age refugees hosted by LICs tripled between 2010 and 2022,
with year-on-year increases reported for 16 of the last 20 years. Similarly, the number of
school-age refugees in LMICs doubled in the last ten years, and has tripled since 2009, as
shown in Figure C, indicating that refugee numbers are increasing in all income categories.
This section shows refugee numbers as of end-2022. It thus does not capture the significant
displacements witnessed in 2023, with displacements from the República Bolivariana de
Venezuela, Ukraine, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan and other countries likely to significantly
increase the number of refugees globally in 2023.
Figure C: Absolute number of school-age refugees (5-17 years old) by host country income classification9
8 Some hosting countries recorded incomplete demographic data. For countries where data on school-age populations were
incomplete, it was assumed that 19% of the total refugee population was aged 5-11 and 13% was ages 12-17. These proportions
represent the average populations in those countries with complete demographic data.
9 This graph shows all school-age populations protected under the UNHCR mandate. This does not include Palestinian refugees
under UNRWA’s mandate.
8
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
-
Low income Lower middle income Upper middle income High income
Source: UNHCR (2023)
Key fact 2: Africa and the Middle East have historically hosted the most
refugees, but new and increasing crises are dramatically altering the
geography of displacement and the location of refugees
Historically, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have
hosted the largest proportions of school-age refugees, as shown in Figure D. In 2017, 70
percent of the global school-age refugee population came from, and were hosted, in these two
regions. However, recent conflicts have seen a surge in refugees hosted in countries and
regions with previously low refugee populations.
Figure D shows the absolute number of school-age refugees by region from 2001 to 2021
(UNHCR, 2023). The position of each region dictates their significance, with the most populace
regions positioned at the top of the graph. As this figure shows, SSA hosted the highest number
of school-age refugees for 15 of the last 20 years. However, since 2017, there has been a
significant jump in the proportion of school-age refugees hosted in both Europe and Central
Asia (ECA) and in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), with the number of school-age
refugees increasing more than fivefold in ECA between 2017 and 2022, and more than 20-fold
in LAC over the same period. In fact, school-age refugees in LAC rose from fewer than 100,000
in 2017 to over 1.85 million as of end-2022, driven largely by forced displacement from the
República Bolivariana de Venezuela. This shows not only an increase in global displacement –
with the number of school-age refugee children tripling in the last 10 years – but an increase in
the spread of global displacement, with more countries than ever hosting vast numbers of
refugees.
9
Figure D: School-age refugee population (age 5-17) by host region (2001-2022)10
Source: UNHCR (2023)
Key fact 3: Refugee enrollment rates are markedly lower than host
country enrollment rates in LICs and MICs, but not everywhere
Refugees are at a noticeable disadvantage when it comes to education access, with average
enrollment rates lower for refugees across all income groups and levels of education.
Data on refugee gross enrollment rates (GERs) are available for 70 hosting countries
worldwide for the academic year 2021/22. This data shows the average refugee GERs11 are 65
percent at the primary level, 41 percent at the secondary level, and 7 percent at the tertiary
level, compared to 20221/22 global GERs of 101 percent, 77 percent and 40 percent for
primary, secondary and tertiary education, respectively (UNHCR, 2023c, World Bank, 2023a).12
Figure E below compares the average primary and secondary GERs for both refugee and host
populations in LICs and MICs. As this graph shows, refugee primary and secondary GERs were
lower on average that host country GERs13 for all income groups and levels of education.
However, as discussed below, these averages mask national differences, with GERs higher
among refugees in some, typically low-income, countries.
Figure E: Gross Enrollment Rates by income level, refugees and host country averages, academic year 2020/21
10 For countries where data on school-age populations were incomplete, it was assumed that 19% of the total refugee
population was aged 5-11 and 13% was ages 12-17. These proportions represent the average populations in those countries
with complete demographic data. The regions shown in this figure refer to East Asia & Pacific (EAP), Europe & Central Asia
(ECA), Latin America & Caribbean (LAC), Middle East & North Africa (MENA), North America (NA), South Asia (SA), Sub-
Saharan Africa (SSA).
11 Total enrollment in a specific level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the eligible official school-age
population corresponding to the same level of education in a given school year.
12 Gross enrollment rates can exceed 100 percent as a result of over-age students repeating grades.
13 Host country GERs were only available at the national level. As hosting communities typically reside in border regions or in
more deprived areas, host communities are likely to have lower GERs than the national levels shown.
10
120
100
80 37% 38% 34%
41%
60
30%
40
11%
20
0
Low income Lower middle income Upper middle income
Primary GER Secondary GER Bars: Host country averages Markers: Refugee averages
Source: UNHCR (2023c); UIS (n.d.)
Direct comparisons between refugee and host country GERs are possible for 58 refugee
situations worldwide. These comparisons reveal that refugee GERs are higher than host
country GERs in 15 countries, with 14 of these countries LICs or MICs. In fact, 33 percent of
LICs for which comparable GER data is available (seven out of 21 countries) had lower levels of
education access among the host population compared to the refugee population. For some
LICs, lower national enrollment rates were due to national fragility/conflict affecting the host
population’s access to education, as was the case in Syria, Burundi and the Central African
Republic. For other LICs, high GERs among both refugee and host populations mean that
differences between the population are slight and that both experience high levels of education
access, as was the case in Nepal and The Gambia. While for the majority of LMICs, higher rates
of refugee enrollment were often due to teacher and/or classroom shortages in host country
education systems, which affected host community education in Angola and Tanzania. For
those UMICs and HIC where refugee GERs surpassed national GERs, refugee numbers are
typically very low, with school-age refugee populations often in the tens or low hundreds,
making comparisons between host and refugee GERs unreliable. As such, while refugee GERs
are higher in some countries, these differences are typically small or the result of extreme
circumstances, such as state fragility or significant constraints to state education.
Among those countries that provided gender disaggregated data, average enrollment rates
were similar for both boys and girls at primary and secondary level. The average GER for
refugees at primary level was 63 percent for males and 61 percent for females, compared to
GERs of 36 percent and 35 percent for males and females at secondary level, respectively
(UNHCR, 2023c). While average GERs appear to indicate gender parity, large gender
disparities persist in some countries. Most notably, GERs are far higher for boys than girls in
Gabon, Ethiopia and Kenya by 22, 13 and 12 percentage points, respectively. In contrast, GERs
are higher among the female refugee population in Senegal, the Philippines, and Iraq, by 17, 8
11
and 5 percentage points, respectively14 (UNHCR, 2023c). While disparities in access to
education by gender persist in some refugee communities, there is no clear relationship
between those countries that have higher rates of gender parity and those that do not.
Key fact 4: Host country governments are unable to finance inclusive
refugee education in the majority of large LICs and MICs
Almost all host country governments in LICs and MICs grant refugees the right to education
alongside national children. However, only a few are able to operationalize these commitments
due to overstretched public education systems and/or limited fiscal space.
This section uses analysis conducted by Silva (2023)15 to estimate the hypothetical fiscal costs
of providing inclusive education to all school-age refugees in LICs and MICs. This analysis
shows that the average cost of inclusive refugee education was 2.4 percent of host country
public education expenditure in 2021, with average costs by income level 3.7 percent, 2.1
percent and 1.6 percent in LICs, LMICs and UMICs, respectively. While these average may seem
modest and imply that host countries can accommodate refugees with minimal external
assistance, they mask large variations between countries and do not account for deficits in
education that already exist in these countries.
Figure F: Ratio of the costs of inclusive refugee education to host country education expenditure in 10 LICs and MICs16
Source: Silva (2023)
As Figure F shows, for several of the largest refugee hosting LICs and MICs, the costs of
inclusive refugee education comprise a significant proportion of their education budgets and
are arguably too significant to be met by government alone. However, for many other host
14 Refugee GER for primary education by males and females, respectively: Gabon 100% and 78%, Kenya 77% and 65%,
Ethiopia 57% and 44%, Senegal 36% and 53%, Philippines 68% and 72%, Iraq 73% and 78% (UNHCR, 2023c).
15 The costing methodology used by Silva (2023) adds a coefficient to each countries’ unit costs of education to account for the
additional and distinct educational needs of refugees that are likely to inflate the cost of education to this group (Silva, 2023).
16 Data on several major refugee hosting countries in LICs and MICs, such as Lebanon, were not available; while cost data for
the Islamic Republic of Iran were taken from 2022. All costs are hypotheticals and are generated using the methodology
outlined in Silva (2023).
12
countries, the costs of providing inclusive refugee education are small in comparison to their
education budgets. In fact, for 42 of the 65 LICs and MICs for which data is available, the
annual cost of educating refugees was less than 1 percent of public education expenditure in
2021. Of these 42 countries, several host small refugee populations that could feasibly be
financed by host governments; however, for many of these countries, low national GERs
and/or limited fiscal resources limit their capacity to finance refugee education. This is most
notably the case in LICs, where the average primary education completion rate was just 67
percent in 2021, and where rising debt and low revenues constrain education spending and
limit the resources available for refugee education (World Bank, n.d.; Mawejje, 2023).
Given these constraints, it is not surprising that for many LICs and MICs, government
financing for refugee education is dwarfed by the cost of refugee education. Estimates of host
government financing for refugee education are available for 20 of the 25 largest refugee
hosting LICs and MICs in 202117. Figure G below compares these financing estimates with the
costs of inclusive refugee education in these countries. On average host government financing
for refugee education contributed 23 percent of the costs of inclusive refugee education among
the 20 countries for which data is available, ranging from zero percent in Bangladesh, Iraq,
Lebanon and Tanzania, to 84 percent in the Arab Republic of Egypt. Combined, these 20
countries hosted 73 percent of all school-age refugees in LICs and MICs in 2021 and provided
an estimated US$ 1.75 billion of finance for refugee education, less than a quarter of the cost of
inclusive refugee education in these countries. Given the analysis presented in this section, it is
clear that if the education needs of refugees hosted in LICs and MICs are to be met, significant
external assistance will be required.
Figure G: The costs of inclusive refugee education and host government financing in 20 of the 25 largest LIC and MIC hosting
countries, 202117 (US$ million)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
Cost of inclusive education for refugees Host government financing for refugee education
17 Insufficient information prevented financing estimates for the remaining five countries.
13
Source: REFD (2024)
Key fact 5: Philanthropic financing does not finance inclusive refugee
education in LICs and MICs
Philanthropic giving for refugee situations is dominated by a small number of large
philanthropic organizations (ECW , 2019; Root, 2019). In 2021, philanthropic financing for
refugee education in LICs and MICs was estimated to be US$ 789 million in 2021, with US$ 491
million financing basic education provision (i.e. pre-primary, primary and secondary
education). As shown in Figure H, the majority of financing for basic education (94%) came
from just a handful of large philanthropic organizations.
Figure H: Philanthropic financing for refugee education in LICs and MICs, 2021 (US$ millions)
Source: REFD (2024)
Philanthropic giving for basic refugee education accounted for around nine percent of total
refugee education financing in 2021, a significant contribution. However, the overwhelming
majority of philanthropic sector financing for refugee education was allocated to third sector
organizations. In fact, an estimated 74 percent of philanthropic financing for refugee education
in LIC and MICs went to non-government and civil society organizations, followed by 23
percent to international organizations, and 3 percent to research institutions, with none of the
philanthropic organizations consulted for this paper financing host governments to deliver
refugee education. As such, while the philanthropic sector is a major financer of refugee
education, this support is overwhelming allocated to non-governmental and civil society
organizations and the financing of parrallel, off-budget education systems.
As noted in the methodology section of this paper, the lack of transparency on philanthropic
financing has led to a dearth of available information on the sector’s refugee education. While
efforts were made to mitigate for this lack of information through primary data collection, the
14
data used in this section is inevitably incomplete, and as such the conclusions drawn are
subject to limitations.
Key point 6: ODA for refugee education is dominated by development
finance, in marked contrast to all other ODA for refugee situations
ODA for refugee education in LICs and MICs is overwhelmingly delivered as ‘development’ aid,
as shown in Figure I. This is in marked contrast to all other ODA for refugee situations, which
is dominated by humanitarian financing (Hesemann et al., 2023).
The OECD classifies ODA into three main categories: ‘development aid’, which focuses on
promoting long-term economic and social development in recipient countries; ‘humanitarian
aid’, designed to provide emergency relief and address immediate and urgent needs; and ‘peace
aid’, which is directed at peace building and preventing, resolving, and recovering from
conflicts (OECD, n.d.).
65 percent of all ODA for refugee situations (excluding education) is delivered as
‘humanitarian’ and ‘peace’ aid, with just 29 percent delivered as ‘development’ aid. By
comparison, ‘humanitarian’ and ‘peace’ aid constitute just 13 percent of ODA for refugee
education, with ‘development’ aid comprising 87 percent of all ODA for refugee education.
Education financing to refugee situations is thus dominated by ‘development’ aid in stark
contrast to all other forms of ODA for refugee situations, as shown in Figure I.
Figure I: ODA classifications disaggregated by ‘ODA for refugee education’ and ‘other ODA for refugee situations’
ODA by purpose code ODA for refugee education by
1%
recipient type
100%
5%
12% 7% Research/ Private sector
90%
1%
80%
70%
Not
60% 59% classified
18%
50%
87% NGOs and
40% CSOs
30% 8%
Host Multilateral org
20% country 62%
29% gov.
10%
11%
0%
Education All other ODA
Development Humanitarian Peace Other
Source: REFD (2024)
Despite financing for refugee education being dominated by ‘development’ aid, only 11 percent
of education aid for refugee situations in LICs and MICs went directly to host country
governments in 2021, as shown in Figure I, compared to 17 percent of all donor financing for
15
refugee situations. While this difference may seem small, given that the proportion of
‘development’ financing for refugee education is three times larger than in all other sectors,
this variance is substantial. It means that for every US$ 10 of ODA spent on refugee education,
only US$ 1 goes directly to host governments and thus directly to funding inclusive education.
This is somewhat surprising given there is a broad consensus on the importance of inclusive
refugee education and by extension the need to “prioritise financing that supports and
incentivises the inclusion of refugee…. children in national systems” (GRF & UNHCR, 2019).
While this data does not present the full picture, as only the ‘first implementing partner’ is
captured in this data18 and host country governments can receive financing from initial aid
recipients, it still demonstrates that far less financing goes directly to host governments for
refugee education in comparison to all other sectors despite education aid being dominated by
‘development’ as opposed to ‘humanitarian’ objectives.
Key fact 7: Over 80 percent of ODA for refugee education comes from
just 5 donor countries
The five largest providers of ODA for refugee education in LICs and MICs (excluding UN core
contributions) account for just over 80 percent of total ODA for the sector. They include the
European Union Institutions (US$ 541 million), Germany (US$ 382 million), the United States
(US$ 205 million), the United Kingdom (US$ 113 million), and Canada (US$ 107 million). All
five of these funders are bilateral donors; however, the sixth largest provider of financing for
refugee education in 2021 was the World Bank. Multilateral development bank financing
provided US$ 95 million for refugee education in 2021, circa 8 percent of all ODA for refugee
education in LICs and MICs,19 with the World Bank accounting for almost two-thirds of this
contribution.
Table 1 shows the distribution of ODA for refugee education by organization type and region,
with core contributions by UN and other organizations excluded from the analysis. This table
shows that multilateral donors allocated the majority of their financing for refugee education
in LICs and MICs to European countries, with most of this assistance going to Türkiye. Bilateral
aid, on the other hand, was more evenly spread geographically, with the MENA region,
followed by SSA and Europe, receiving the majority of bilateral financing.
The limited number of key donors for refugee education highlights the fragility of
responsibility sharing arrangements in this area, as well as the influence these donors have on
the terms, conditions, and destinations of this financing. If any of these key donors decide to
re-allocate or cut this financing, then the implications for refugee education could be
significant.
Table 1: Donor allocations to refugee education in LICs and MICs, by donor type and region (US$ millions 2021)
Type SSA EAP EUR LAC MENA SCA UNSPEC
18 For instance, the proportion of education funds allocated to multilateral agencies (62 percent of total ODA for refugee
education) could finance inclusive education if passed onto host country governments.
19 Excluding the use of core contributions by UN or other organizations, in line with OECD accounting (Hesemann et al., 2023).
16
48 3 493 46 77 11 2
Multilateral
7% 0% 72% 7% 11% 2% 0%
224 1 172 22 415 35 135
Bilateral
22% 0% 17% 2% 41% 3% 13%
Source: REFD (2024)
Core contributions by UN and other international organizations (IO) are excluded from the
above analysis, yet the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the
Near East (UNRWA)20 is a major financer of refugee education for Palestinians in Jordan,
Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 2021, the organization allocated US$ 944
million of its core resources for refugee education to the MENA region (REFD, 2024). When UN
and other IO's core contributions are included in financing allocations for refugee education,
the MENA region receives the highest volume of donor financing, with 55 percent of all ODA
for refugee education in LICs and MICs going to the region, followed by 25 percent to ECA, 10
percent to SSA, 3 percent to LAC, 2 percent to SCA and over 5 percent unspecified.
Key Fact 8: ODA allocations for refugee education are distributed
unevenly across income groups and regions
In 2021, LICs hosted 29 percent of school-age refugees in LICs and MICs, yet received just 11
percent of ODA allocated for refugee education in LICs and MICs. By comparison, UMICs
received 54 percent of ODA for refugee education, while hosting 33 percent of school-age
refugees in LICs and MICs (see Table 2). While ODA allocations do not correspond to the
number of school-age refugees hosted by each income group, this financing is somewhat
proportional to the costs of educating refugees in these income categories.
Comparing the proportion of ODA financing with the proportion of costs of inclusive refugee
education shows that ODA allocations broadly align with average costs in each income group,
with UMICs receiving a greater share of ODA in line with their greater costs (see Table 2,
columns 4 and 5). This does not indicate these allocations are progressive. Rather, this analysis
implies that a country’s income level does not have a significant impact on the ODA it receives
for refugee education, when arguably LICs should receive more ODA given their limited fiscal
capacity and typically over-stretched education systems.
Table 2: Distribution of school-age refugee children and ODA for refugee education received by host country income-category
ODA for Share of school- Share of costs of Share of ODA for
Income Group education (US$ age refugees in refugee refugee
Millions) LICs & MICs education education
Low income 296.2 29% 3% 11%
Lower middle income 714 37% 25% 27%
Upper middle income 1,433 33% 72% 54%
Unspecified 187 - - 7%
20 UNRWA is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions, with state and regional governments providing 94 percent of
all contributions in 2021. Financing for core contributions cannot be disaggregated by sector. However, the largest financers of
the UNRWA’s programs budget in 2021 were the United States, Germany, European Union, Sweden and Japan, which
combined made up 70 percent of the total program budget (UNRWA, 2022).
17
Low and middle income 2,630 100% 100% 100%
Source: REFD (2024)
As shown in Figure J, in 2021 over half of ODA for refugee education in LICs and MICs was
allocated to countries in the Middle East and North Africa region, with all other regions
receiving far less financing despite their significant refugee populations.
In the Middle East and North Africa, ODA for refugee education surpassed the fiscal costs of
inclusive education for refugees by 17 percent in 2021.21 By contrast, less than 3 percent of the
costs of inclusive refugee education in Latin America and the Caribbean were financed by ODA
for refugee education, with Latin America and the Caribbean the most underfunded region in
2021. Significant disparities also exist in Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and Central Asia, and
South Asia, where approximately 50, 30 and 16 percent (respectively) of the costs of inclusive
refugee education were financed by ODA in 2021, with donors more likely to finance refugee
education in the Middle East and North Africa over any other region.
Figure J: Allocation of ODA for refugee education, costs of inclusive education, and school-age refugees (5-17), by region
3,000 3500
Education Funds (US$ millions)
3000
School-age refugees (Thousands)
2,500
2,730
2,936
2500
2,000
2,162
2000
1,500
1,798
1500
1,437
1,548
1,000
1,226
1000
1,082
918
500 500
665
274
170
519
271
121
68
44
5
- 0
Middle East & Europe & Sub-Saharan Latin America South Asia East Asia &
North Africa Central Asia Africa & Caribbean Pacific
Education ODA Education Costs School-age refugees (5-17)
Source: REFD (2024)
Key Fact 9: ODA for refugee education is skewed toward specific
countries, with donor financing far exceeding costs in some countries
Sixty-nine LICs and MICs were recipients of ODA for refugee and host community education in
2021,22 with additional ODA allocated to a host of regional and international organizations.
Figure K shows the number of school-age refugees in each country and the sum of ODA for
refugee education for the 25 largest refugee hosting LICs and MICs. As this Figure shows, there
21 The fiscal costs used in this analysis are the estimated costs of delivering education to all refugees through national
education systems. The provision of education through parallel systems is likely to face higher costs.
22 The OECD (2023) dataset records the first implementing partner only, and so the final destination of aid delivered to
multilateral organizations by donors is unknown.
18
are vast differences in ODA allocations by country/area. In fact, four of the largest recipients of
ODA for refugee education (Türkiye, Lebanon, West Bank and Gaza, and Jordan) received 75%
of all ODA for refugee education in LICs and MICs, despite hosting just 29% of the total school-
age refugee population in LICs and MICs (REFD, 2024; UNHCR, 2023).23
Figure K: ODA for refugee education relative to school-age refugee population (5-17), 2021
700 600
Number of school-age refugees (Thousands)
Financing for refugee education
600 500
School-age refugees (5-17)
500
400
ODA (US$ millions)
400
300
300
200
200
100 100
0 0
Source: REFD (2024)
In Figure L, the costs of inclusive refugee education are compared with ODA for refugee
education for the 25 largest refugee hosting LICs and MICs to determine the proportion of
inclusive refugee education costs met by ODA.24 This analysis shows that in three LICs and
MICs – Jordan, South Sudan and Ethiopia – ODA for refugee education exceeds or meets the
resources required to finance inclusive refugee education in the country, while in all other
countries a financing deficit exists. Financing exceeded costs by the greatest margin in Jordan
(by 71%), followed by South Sudan (13 percent), and Ethiopia (4 percent). In South Sudan and
Ethiopia, the relatively low costs of inclusive education in these countries meant that only
modest ODA allocations were required to meet the costs of inclusive education. The relatively
higher costs of education in Jordan meant that significant financial resources were required to
meet the costs of inclusive refugee education in the country.
As Figure L shows, many large host LICs and MICs received only a fraction of the costs of
inclusive refugee education as ODA, with 11 of the largest 25 host countries receiving less than
5 percent of the costs required to finance inclusive refugee education as ODA.25 This gulf in
ODA is most pronounced in Brazil, Mexico, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chad and Peru, which
23 This population includes all school-age refugees in LICs and MICs in 2021 under UNHCR mandate and the 545,000 children
enrolled in United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees schools in 2021 (UNRWA, n.d.).
24 Specifically, ODA for refugee education (per school-age refugee) is subtracted from the cost of providing inclusive education
(per school-age refugee) to estimate the financing gap in each country and the proportion of refugee education costs met by
ODA.
25 Calculated using ODA specifically for education in refugee situations only.
19
all received less than US$ 3 per school-age refugee in ODA.26 Most notable among this group is
Chad, which in 2021 received just over US$ 2 per school-age refugee27 despite being the 10th
poorest country in the world and hosting an estimated 200,000 school-age refugees (REFD,
2024).
Figure L: Financing gap for inclusive refugee education in the 25 largest refugee host LICs and MICs, 202128
Country of Education Financing per school- Cost of education per school
Financing gap (US$) Proportion of cost met by ODA
Asylum age refugee (5-17) (US$) age (5-17) refugee (US$)
Jordan 1,901 1,114 787 171%
Lebanon 613 1,861 - 1,249 33%
Turkiye 532 1,711 - 1,180 31%
Iraq 240 737 - 497 33%
South Sudan 166 147 19 113%
Cameroon 159 237 - 78 67%
Tanzania 154 199 - 44 78%
Ethiopia 129 125 5 104%
Bangladesh 118 190 - 72 62%
Kenya 116 407 - 290 29%
Sudan 62 207 - 144 30%
DRC 52 56 - 4 93%
Uganda 42 89 - 47 47%
Niger 32 106 - 74 31%
Ecuador 26 789 - 763 3%
Colombia 21 2,083 - 2,062 1%
South Africa 17 2,094 - 2,077 1%
Pakistan 9 363 - 355 2%
Egypt 7 401 - 394 2%
India 3 406 - 402 1%
Peru 3 1,578 - 1,576 0%
Chad 2 110 - 107 2%
Iran 2 691 - 689 0%
Mexico 0 1,923 - 1,923 0%
Brazil 0 2,548 - 2,548 0%
Source: REFD (2024)
Key Fact 10: ODA for refugee education in LICs and MICs is primarily
allocated to Syrian refugees
Further disaggregation of ODA for refugee education in LICs and MICs reveals that not only is
financing skewed towards specific countries, but towards one specific crisis.
Figure M uses country of origin data for each of the 25 largest refugee hosting countries to
create an estimate of financing for refugee education by crisis.29 This analysis shows that ODA
for refugee education in LICs and MICs is heavily skewed towards countries hosting Syrian
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Cost data on refugee education financing is taken from Silva (2023) and refers to the costs of education for refugee children
via the host country’s national education system.
29 This calculation assumes that all the refugees in the country receive the same proportion of ODA for education.
20
refugees. The proportion of school-age Syrian refugees hosted in LICs and MICs is equivalent
to 25 percent of the total school-age refugee population; yet the countries’ hosting these
refugees received approximately 75 percent of ODA for refugee education in 2021 (REFD,
2024).
These differences in ODA allocation cannot be accounted for by the costs of education in these
host countries, with the average cost of inclusive education in countries hosting Venezuelan
refugees (e.g. Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Brazil) exceeding the average cost of inclusive
education for the major host countries of Syrian refugees (Türkiye, Jordan, and Lebanon).
Furthermore, education ODA for refugee situations does not correspond to the costs of
education in the majority of countries, as shown in Figure L. It is thus clear from this analysis
that there is a distinct preference among donors to finance education for Syrian refugees at the
expense of other nationalities/crises, with Venezuelans displaced abroad receiving noticeably
less ODA for refugee education in comparison to other nationalities/crises.
Figure M: School-age refugee population and financing by country of origin, 2021
1,836,421
2,100,000 1,400
1,258
Financing for refugee education (US$ mns)
1,800,000 1,200
School-age refugees (5-17)
1,312,406
Financing for refugee education
Refugee at school-age (5-17)
1,500,000 1,000
955,797
1,200,000 800
787,110
900,000 600
333,945
300,875
288,005
600,000 400
245,606
227,526
153,029
300,000 200
65
38
28
26
24
25
18
15
11
0 0
Source: REFD (2024)
Conclusion and Recommendations
As is clear from the information and analysis presented in this paper, financing for refugee
education in LICs and MICs is not suffi cient to meet the education needs of these countries’
refugees. As Figure N shows, almost US$ 3 billion of additional financing was required to
finance inclusive refugee education in LICs and MICs in 2021. This represents the financing
gap if all refugees were educated through national systems. However, with many refugees
currently educated through costlier parallel systems, the finances required for all refugees in
LICs and MICs to access education are likely to be far higher.
21
This gulf in financing is particularly concerning given the rate at which the number of school-
age refugees has been increasing in recent years. While financing data is only available for
2021, the total cost of providing inclusive education to all school-age refugees in LICs and MICs
was estimated to be US$ 9.3 billion in 2022 (Silva, 2023). This represents a US$ 1.6. billion
increase in cost on the previous year, driven almost entirely by growing refugee displacement.
Figure N: Total costs and financing for refugee education in LICs and MICs, 2021 ,
Total financing for and costs of refugee Total financing for refugee education in
education in LICs and MICs, 2021 LICs and MICs, 2021
2022 cost increase
(1.6 bn)
Host Gov.
USD billions
36%
0.4
7.7
1.7 ODA
55%
2.6
Philanthropy
9%
Total Financing Total cost (2021)
ODA Host Gov. Philanthropy Total cost
Source: REFD (2024)
For many LICs and MICs, government financing for refugee education is dwarfed by the cost of
refugee education. Over-stretched education systems and/or significant fiscal constraints limit
state capacity to finance refugee education in many host countries. As shown in Figure N,
philanthropic financing for basic refugee education in LICs and MICs contributed
approximately 8 percent of total financing for refugee education in 2021. However, as
discussed in Key fact 5, the majority of philanthropic financing was delivered to non-
government and civil-society organizations, and did not finance inclusive refugee education.
While philanthropic organizations should be encouraged to finance inclusive education, it is
clear that significantly more resources, beyond those delivered by the philanthropic sector, are
required to meet the current financing gap. With ODA for refugee education representing 10
percent of aid to refugee situations in LICs and MICs, and less than 1 percent of all ODA in
2021, increasing ODA for refugee education in LICs and MICs is feasible. However, ODA for
refugee education can arguably be improved to ensure a more effi cient use of limited donor
resources and improve refugee education outcomes in LICs and MICs.
While donor allocations to refugee education reflect a range of political and practical
considerations, the analysis presented in this paper clearly demonstrates that ODA for refugee
education targets specific countries. An estimated 75 percent of all ODA for refugee education
in 2021 went to Syrian refugees residing in just four countries, while several other host
22
countries received negligible financial support despite having significant refugee education
needs.
As long as refugee education is not fully funded, the international community has to make
uncomfortable choices around how ODA is allocated. However, for ODA for refugee education
to be used most effectively, it is essential to refrain from earmarking allocations. ODA for
refugee education was earmarked more than any other sector in 2021, with 95 percent of ODA
for refugee education in LICs and MICs earmarked at the regional or country level, leaving just
5 percent of ODA ‘unspecified’ by donors.30 Reducing the proportion of earmarked ODA can
help improve the effi ciency of ODA allocations and better meet the education needs of refugees.
30 By comparison, ‘unspecified’ aid (i.e. aid not allocated to a specific country) constituted 21 percent of overall bilateral aid for
refugee situations in LICs and MICs in 2021.
23
References
Betts, A. (2021) The Wealth of Refugees: How displaced people can build economies, Oxford
University Press
Burde, D.; Coombes, A.; de Hoop, T.; Haddad, Y.; Holla, C.; Lahmann; H., Ring, H. (2022)
Forced displacement and education: Building the evidence for what works: case study
summary
Education Cannot Wait (2019) Foundations’ engagement in education in emergencies and
protracted crises: Policy Brief.
Education for All Global Monitoring report (2015) Pricing the right to education: the cost of
reaching new targets by 2030. Policy Paper 18. Paris: UNESCO.
GRF & UNHCR (2019) Global Framework for Refugee Education: A framework to guide the
pledging process for the first Global Refugee Forum and subsequent initiatives to meet the
2030 education commitments of the Global Compact on Refugees Prepared by the Global
Refugee Forum Education Co-Sponsorship Alliance, November 2019, Available at:
https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5dd50ce47.pdf [Accessed 19.12.2023]
Hesemann, J., H. Desai, and Y. Rockenfeller (2021), Financing for refugee situations 2018-19
Report, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Hesemann, J., H. Desai, and Y. Rockenfeller (2023), Financing for refugee situations 2020-21
Report, OECD Publishing, Paris.
IEFG and World Bank (2023) Survey of financing for refugee education in low- and middle-
income countries (2020-21), The World Bank and International Education Funders Group.
Marcus, R., Nicolai, S., Lón-Himmelstine, C., Carvalho, S., Zubairi, A., Rodas-Kamminga, R.
(2023) Including Refugee Learners in National Education Systems, UNICEF
Nguyen, Nga Thi Viet, Aboudrahyme Savadogo, and Tomomi Tanaka (2021) Refugees in Chad:
The Road Forward. Washington, DC: World Bank.
OECD (2021) Development Finance for Refugee Situations, Volumes and trends, 2018 – 2019
OECD (2021) Private Philanthropy for Development – Second Edition: Data for Action, The
Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdf37f1e-en.
OECD (2022) DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics: Tracking support for
refugee and IDP situations in ODA recipient countries in the CRS – updated proposal, 26
September 2022
OECD (2023) Development Finance for Refugee Situations, Volumes and trends, 2020 – 2021
OECD (n.d) Index of financing for sustainable development terms, Available at:
https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/index-terms.htm [Accessed
25.01.2024]
24
Root, R., L. (2019) “Private Sector Foundations Put up $250 Million Toward Refugee
Initiatives,” Devex News, December 18, 2019. As of June 3, 2022:
https://www.devex.com/news/private-sector-foundations-put-up-250-million-toward-
refugee-initiatives-96250
Save the Children (2018) Time to act: a costed plan to deliver quality education to every last
refugee child.
Silva, K. (2023) The Global Cost of Inclusive Refugee Education – 2023 Update, World Bank
UIS (n.d) Government expenditure on education in constant US$, Available at:
http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3813 [Accessed 01.09.2023]
UIS (n.d) Gross Enrolment Rate data, Available at:
http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3813 [Accessed 01.09.2023]
UNESCO (2020) Act Now: Reduce the impact of COVID-19 on the cost of achieving SDG 4.
Policy Paper 42.
UNESCO (2023) Can countries afford their national SDG4 benchmarks? Policy Paper 49.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385004
UNESCO (n.d.) Gross enrolment ratio by level of education, UNESCO Institute for Statistics,
Available at: http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3813 [Accessed 20.01.2024]
UNESCO and World Bank (2023) Education Finance Watch 2023.
UNFCCC (2021) Climate refugees the worlds forgotten victims, Available at:
https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/climate-refugees-the-worlds-forgotten-victims/
[Accessed 06.02.2023]
UNHCR (2019) UNHCR Refugee Education 2030: A Strategy for Refugee Inclusion, 2019
Edition
UNHCR (2020) ‘Climate change is the defining crisis of our time and it particularly impacts the
displaced’ Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/latest/2020/11/5fbf73384/climate-
change-defining-crisis-time-particularly-impacts-displaced.html [Accessed 04.02.2023]
UNHCR (2022) UNHCR Global Trends Report 2021
UNHCR (2023) Refugee Data Finder, Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-
statistics/download/?url=9GAx9j [Accessed 28.07.2023]
UNHCR (2023a) Classifying refugee host countries by income level, Available at:
https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/insights/explainers/refugee-host-countries-income-
level.html#:~:text=In%20comparison%2C%2076%20per%20cent,countries%20(16%20per
%20cent) [Accessed 28.07.2023]
UNHCR (2023b) Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2022, Available at:
https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2022 [Accessed 20.10.2023]
25
UNHCR (2023c) UNHCR Education report 2023 – Unlocking Potential: The Right to Education
and Opportunity.
UNHCR (2023d) Multistakeholder Pledge: Securing sustainable futures: Towards a shared
responsibility to uphold the right to education and include refugee children in national
education systems. Available at: https://globalcompactrefugees.org/pledges-
contributions/multistakeholder-pledges-2023/multistakeholder-pledge-securing-sustainable.
[Accessed 19.11.2023]
UNHCR (n.d.) Operations Data Portal: Iran (Islamic Republic of) Available at:
https://data.unhcr.org/en/country/irn#_ga=2.243885637.1527568635.1681220619-
2096341937.1670432755 [Accessed 12.12.2023]
UNHCR (n.d.) Refugee Population Statistics Database, Available at:
https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/download/?url=9GAx9j [Accessed 28.07.2023]
UNHCR et al. (2022) Food Security and Nutrition Assessment in Refugee Settlements and
Refugee Host Districts in May 2022, UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, and the Government of Uganda
UNRWA (2022) 2021 Pledges to UNRWA's Programme Budget (Cash and In-kind) as 31
December 2021, Available at:
https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/programme_budget_2021_all_donor_ranking.pdf
[Accessed 05.02.2024]
UNRWA (2023) Registered Population Dashboard, Available at: https://www.unrwa.org/what-
we-do/relief-and-social-services/unrwa-registered-population-dashboard [Accessed
17.12.2023]
UNRWA (n.d.) Frequently Asked Question, Available at: https://www.unrwa.org/who-we-
are/frequently-asked-questions [Accessed 17.12.2023]
World Bank & UNHCR (2021) The Global Cost of Inclusive Refugee Education, Available at:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/publication/the-global-cost-of-inclusive-
refugee-education [Accessed 19.11.2023]
World Bank (2018) The Ugandan Refugee and Host Communities Household Survey, Available
at: https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/3867 [Accessed 20.11.2023]
World Bank (2019) 2019 update: How long do refugees stay in exile? To find out, beware of
averages, World Bank blogs: Xavier Devictor, Available at:
https://blogs.worldbank.org/dev4peace/2019-update-how-long-do-refugees-stay-exile-find-
out-beware-averages [Accessed 19.12.2023].
World Bank (2021) Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence 2020–2025; Holland, P.;
Sundharam, J.; Shruti Miwa, K.; Saavedra, J.; Abu-Ghaida, D.; Darvas, P. (2022) Safe and
Learning in the Midst of Fragility, Conflict, and Violence: A World Bank Group Approach Paper
World Bank (2022) The State of Global Learning Poverty: 2022 Update.
26
World Bank (2023) Financing Inclusive Refugee Education: Towards More Equitable and
Transparent Responsibility-Sharing, Draft, Produced by RAND on behalf of the World Bank
World Bank (2023a) World Development Indicators, Available at: https://data.worldbank.org
[Accessed 11.12.2023]
REFD (2024) Refugee Education Financing Dataset on financing for refugee education in low-
and middle-income countries, World Bank, Available at: World Bank Development Data Hub.
World Bank (n.d.) World Bank Development Indicators, Available at:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.CMPT.ZS [Accessed 22.02.2024]
Mawejje, J. (2023) Large needs, few means: fiscal policy challenges in low-income countries,
World Bank blogs, June 21, 2023, Available at:
https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/large-needs-few-means-fiscal-policy-
challenges-low-income-
countries#:~:text=Rising%20debt%20and%20chronically%20low,and%20Developing%20Ec
onomies%20(EMDEs). [Accessed 22.02.2024]
27