What does value for money mean when it comes to educating a child?

Group Submission Type: Formal Panel Session

Proposal

The concept of value for money emerged as a response to over-extension of the public sector in the 1970s, however, it did not achieve prominence it has today until the early 2000s. Different sectors as well as national governments approach defining what it means to obtain value for money from public expenditure differently. Understood broadly, value for money refers to obtaining the best return on investment on the outcomes of interest. However, a lack of commonly agreed-upon definitions and procedures for assessing value for money resulted in a wide range of approaches to operationalizing it, compromising comparability as well as utility of results.

Over the past decade, value for money frameworks became increasingly popular in the international development sector, as well. As national governments face increased scrutiny over budgetary decision-making, calls for increased transparency and accountability regarding development assistance expenditure are triggering changes in how donor agencies approach programming, track results, and report back to national stakeholders. As part of these structural changes, accountability for the use of public resources in achieving results in priority areas is increasingly in the forefront. Value for money frameworks are useful for ensuring consistency of assessing how well public resources are being used in achieving a set objectives.

The most commonly used value for money framework includes three elements: economy (analysis of the costs of inputs), efficiency (analysis of conversion of inputs into outputs) and effectiveness (analysis of conversion of outputs into outcomes). In addition, DFID (followed by others) started including the fourth “E” – equity – in the value for money, which intends to underscore the importance of assessing results of development assistance for the most vulnerable populations.

Since introduction of value for money as one of DFID’s five strategic objectives in 2011, many donors have followed suit. The practical adoption of a value for money lens in the operational processes has varied by sector. Education, compared with other sectors, has been slow to integrate value for money principles. In part this is due to the complexity of the sector’s value chains, and in part due to the lack of agreed-upon outcome metrics. Even donors that formally adopted value for money as their strategic priority do not always have clear, well-articulated processes for assessing value for money and using the results of such assessments to inform decision-making.

Understanding the imperative to deliver quality education to children globally, and recognizing that resources are limited, it is essential that as a sector we collect and utilize data to ensure we are targeting funds in an effective, efficient, equitable manner. To do this, we must collect systematic data on key inputs (expended resources), outputs, and outcomes. Measuring the “value” of investments in education relies on clearly and comprehensively defining intended outcomes. Value must be understood to mean more than just the overall reach of a given education program for the least amount of money, and instead track metrics on quality and equity.

As a whole, the sector has and continues to make strides in measuring the outputs, outcomes, and effectiveness of global education interventions. While not always practical, the number and quality of impact evaluations, which enable the measurement of attribution and effectiveness, has and continue to grow. Other types of evaluations, along with regular monitoring also serve as key inputs in building the evidence base of what works in the education sector, and establishing value. Taken together with information on how global donors, local governments, the private sector, and other partners are expending resources, we develop a better picture of what our money can buy, and how to best allocate limited funds.

The proposed panel will present an overview of value for money framework, discuss approaches adopted by different donors to assess value for money of their investments, and present a new guidance note for measuring cost of education programs produced by Building Evidence in Education (BE2) donor working group. In each donor presentation, we will unpack the definition of “value for money” as it is codified in the processes and metrics of tracking costs and results by the donor-funded programs. Each presenter will also discuss how their agency assesses the resulting value for money. We will examine challenges faced by donors throughout the process as well as possible solutions. We will close the panel with the discussion of opportunities that improved and harmonized approach to assessing value for money will present for the field of international education development.

Sub Unit

• General Pool

Individual Presentations

• DFID’s Approach to Value for Money: Lessons from First 7 Years of Implementation - Rachel Hinton, DFID

• GPE’s Approach to Value for Money: A Case for Complexity and Sustainability - Kouassi Soman, GPE

• Harmonizing Value for Money across Donors: BE2 Cost Measurement Guidance Note - Elena Walls, US Agency for International Development (USAID)

• USAID’s approach to Value for Money: Let’s See Where the Money Goes - Christine Harris-Van Keuren, SALT Analytics

Discussants

• Alaka Holla, Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund

• Dominic Richardson, UNICEF