Financing as a Key Enabler for Better Gender Statistics Systems

Understanding how gender data are financed requires both quantitative and qualitative insights across global and national contexts. Reliable monitoring of these financial flows supports accountability, enhances coordination, and enables better alignment between funding and actual data needs. Given the persistent underfunding of gender statistics—especially in low- and middle-income countries—robust methodologies for tracking financial inputs are essential to closing the gender data gap and strengthening statistical systems.

This section outlines the key international and domestic sources and methods used to track financing for gender data.

Funding for gender data remains modest when compared to broader investments in gender equality or data systems. In 2021, Official Development Assistance (ODA) for gender data reached an estimated 122 million US dollars (see Figure 1⁵), the highest recorded amount to date. However, this spike was largely due to a one-time World Bank loan for a civil registration project in Nepal and does not represent a structural increase in grant-based support.⁵ Excluding that loan, financing for gender data has remained relatively stagnant over the past decade as Figure 1 shows. However, the increase in funding from private donors, such as philanthropic foundations, is notable and will be discussed later in this section.

Meanwhile, total global funding for gender equality surpassed 58 billion US dollars annually in 2021. Yet less than 1 percent of that funding is allocated to gender data across all DAC donors, see Table 1.⁵ This disconnect illustrates a persistent challenge: while gender equality is widely recognized as a policy priority, the data systems necessary to measure and drive progress remain chronically underfunded. Data2X and Open Data Watch estimate that an additional 500 million US dollars annually would be required to build and maintain the core gender data systems needed worldwide that would enable better monitoring of gender equality outcomes and better programming for gender equality initiatives.¹⁴

Meeting this target would not require vast new funding streams. Rather, if just 1 percent of an existing $58 billion in annual gender equality investments were directed to gender data, the gap could be closed.⁵

The financing landscape is shaped by a mix of multilateral institutions, bilateral donors, philanthropic organizations, and domestic actors. Among multilateral institutions, the World Bank, UNICEF, and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have become the largest contributors to gender data, supporting national statistical offices (NSOs), civil registration systems, and household surveys.⁵

Several bilateral donors—especially Canada, the Netherlands, and Sweden—have emerged as leaders in integrating gender data into their feminist foreign policies and international development strategies. These donors have funded initiatives on gender-disaggregated labor force data, gender-based violence statistics, and support for NSO capacity development.^5,22

Philanthropic foundations, notably the Gates Foundation, have played a catalytic role in advancing gender data innovation, contributing a total of USD 28.4 million to gender data in 2022¹⁰ to become the largest single donor. Their funding has enabled experimentation with administrative data systems, data use platforms, and novel approaches to tracking gender indicators across sectors (. The role of regional development banks, such as the African Development Bank, is also expanding, particularly in support of CRVS (civil registration and vital statistics) systems.

Within countries, NSOs remain at the center of gender data production and coordination. However, key contributions also come from ministries responsible for health, education, social protection, and gender equ

ality. Coordination across these institutions is often limited or informal. Some countries, such as Ghana and Kenya, have created inter-agency committees or gender data working groups to improve cross-sector collaboration, but such models are not yet widespread or, in some countries, have not yet yielded results.¹⁹

Funding for gender data remains geographically uneven. From 2019 to 2021, nearly half of all ODA for gender data went to regional or multi-country initiatives rather than individual countries.⁵ While these initiatives can promote knowledge sharing and efficiency, they may not adequately support in-country capacity building or localized data needs.

At the national level, Nepal received the largest amount of gender data financing in this period, primarily from a World Bank loan. Other top recipients included Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Mozambique, where investments focused on CRVS, household surveys, and health data systems.⁵ African countries received the highest proportion of bilateral and multilateral support, especially for foundational systems such as population registers and health statistics.

Some countries in Latin America, South Asia, and Southeast Asia participate in regional programs, but direct investment in individual countries remains limited compared to African countries. Moreover, the total number of individual countries receiving gender data support has declined over time, from 31 between 2016 and 2018 to 27 from 2019 to 2021, indicating that the reach of funding is narrowing even as needs grow.⁵ Funders may prefer to fund statistical capacity system at the regional level instead, which may unlock efficiencies but risks losing country context.

Gender data financing supports a wide range of activities, though certain areas dominate. Between 2019 and 2021, population registers received the largest share of funding—nearly one-quarter of total gender data investments—reflecting growing interest in civil registration and administrative data systems that produce disaggregated data.⁵ These investments are essential for establishing comprehensive, real-time data on births, deaths, and other vital events, many of which are lacking in low- and middle-income countries.

Health statistics were the second most funded sector. These included maternal and child health data, reproductive health indicators, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women’s health and service access. Social protection systems also received substantial funding, with donors supporting the development of gender-responsive registries and cash transfer programs.⁵

Notably, investments in data on the gender-environment nexus are growing. From 2019 to 2021, approximately 8 percent of gender data financing supported environmental monitoring and gender-responsive climate adaptation efforts.⁵ This reflects increasing recognition that gender inequality shapes climate vulnerability and that disaggregated data are needed to design inclusive mitigation and resilience strategies.

Despite this sectoral diversity, most financing remains concentrated on data production. Relatively little is invested in the dissemination, communication, and use of gender data. This limits the potential for data to drive action and accountability. Open Data Watch, Data2X, PARIS21, and others have all emphasized the need to support the entire data value chain—from planning and collection to communication and uptake—to ensure data informs real-world decision-making.^3,14

In many countries, “data graveyards”—where valuable data are collected but never shared or used—remain a serious issue, caused in part by limited funding for data accessibility and reuse.⁷ Financing strategies must be redesigned to correct this imbalance and promote demand-driven, user-centered approaches.

There is increasing consensus that gender data are a fundamental building block for evidence-based policymaking and accountability in gender equality. Without reliable data, it is difficult to identify disparities, measure progress, or target interventions effectively. Investments in gender statistics are closely linked to outcomes in areas such as health, education, labor force participation, and social protection.

For example, supply-side gender-disaggregated data have been instrumental in shaping financial inclusion strategies. In Chile, such data revealed significant gaps in women’s access to financial products, prompting policy reforms that led to increased account ownership among women.^23,24 These kinds of outcomes demonstrate that targeted financing for gender data can yield concrete, measurable benefits.

Despite this, gender data remains underfunded relative to broader gender equality efforts.⁵ The disconnect between financial commitments and actual data needs limits the potential to track progress and make informed decisions. Aligning gender equality financing with data system investments would improve efficiency and strengthen the impact of both streams.¹⁰

According to a recent analysis from Data2X, FemDev, and Local Development Research Institute, political will is a decisive factor in whether demand for gender data translates into financing.²⁵ In countries where gender equality is prioritized at the highest levels of government, there is often stronger support for data systems that reflect those values. Canada and the Netherlands, for instance, have integrated gender data into their international cooperation strategies, resulting in consistent funding through both bilateral and multilateral channels.⁵

At the national level, domestic resource mobilization plays a crucial role in sustainability. Countries with high dependence on donor funding often face volatility and uncertainty in financing. By contrast, when governments allocate domestic budgets to gender data, even at modest levels, they are better positioned to maintain continuity and plan for the long term. Notably, according to the results of the Gender Data Outlook Index 2024, countries with a regular domestic budget for gender data typically perform better on gender data capacity at large, compared to countries with no budget or with an irregular budget.³

While domestic resource mobilization is more sustainable, predictable, and driven by national priorities (rather than donor-prescribed), recent analysis demonstrates that less than one fifth of all countries have a budget line for gender data.⁴ Several key barriers – often political in nature – are responsible for this gap.²⁵ First, national budget processes themselves can be highly complex and opaque in terms of how they are formulated and implemented. Even where gender-responsive budgeting exists, gender data is often folded into existing budget lines, making it difficult to track specific disbursements for gender data and understand how national champions can effectively influence appropriations and allocations. Further, in the context of global polycrises like rising conflict, climate change, global inflation and the COVID-19 pandemic, as governments struggle to provide for basic needs from sanitation and health care to food security and housing, attention to gender data – let alone willingness to finance its collection, analysis and use – tends to be diminished.

Nonetheless, examples from Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of Congo show that domestic ownership of gender data financing is possible, especially when supported by strong national strategies and leadership.¹⁹ Still, many countries report difficulty coordinating between national statistical offices, finance ministries, and gender ministries. These coordination challenges hinder effective budget planning and advocacy.

To increase political will and enhance institutional coordination in these contexts, focused, long-term awareness-raising and advocacy are key. Champions both within government ministries, from national statistical offices to gender ministries, and outside of government, from civil society to the media, can raise awareness about the importance of gender data for achieving national priorities using evidence from other countries and international organizations. Capacity-building initiatives could also teach champions about the national budget cycle, including how to influence annual processes, and both civil society and government champions alike can advocate for specific budget lines for gender data to be included within national, sub-national or departmental budgets. Establishing gender data focal points within gender ministries could also improve intergovernmental coordination and enhance technical capacity within government, complementing existing gender focal points within national statistical offices. Ultimately, increasing domestic financing will first require increased demand for gender data – and building strong constituencies of support both within and outside of government.

National Strategies for the Development of Statistics (NSDS) provide an important platform to express and institutionalize demand for gender data. Countries that include specific gender objectives and activities in their NSDS are more likely to have a roadmap for financing gender data. Ghana’s NSDS, for example, outlines detailed activities for gender statistics production and dissemination, including engagement with users and stakeholders.²

Integrating gender data into broader policy frameworks, such as national development plans, gender equality strategies, and budgeting processes, helps embed data needs into funding decisions. However, only a minority of countries include detailed gender data line items in their statistical budgets. This limits visibility and hinders alignment between planning and financing.²

To build sustainable funding systems, gender data priorities must be clearly articulated, costed, and integrated into multi-year strategies. NSDSs, sectoral plans, and financing frameworks can work together to ensure that gender data are not treated as a temporary or donor-driven initiative, but as a core component of national data systems.²¹

Setting clear and measurable targets is essential for closing the gender data financing gap. Current estimates suggest that an additional 500 million US dollars per year is needed to support foundational gender data systems globally.¹⁴ Meeting this target would require coordinated efforts across donors, national governments, and multilateral institutions.

One practical target is the recommendation that at least 1 percent of gender equality financing should be allocated to gender data,⁵ something that most development partners still fall short of. Modeling this target across current funding levels shows that it would be sufficient to close the gap. It is a modest yet impactful benchmark that emphasizes integration rather than the creation of new funding streams.

Donors can also set internal targets, ensuring that a portion of their development cooperation budgets support statistical capacity with a gender lens. Similarly, governments can include gender data indicators in performance-based budgeting frameworks and track expenditures to improve transparency and accountability.

Targets are only effective if supported by political commitment and institutional capacity. Monitoring progress toward these goals and learning from countries that have succeeded in aligning gender data and financing, such as Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom,²² can help inform global standards and best practices.

If financing for gender statistics is to meaningfully contribute to gender equitable development, statistics must not only be produced, but also be made accessible and meaningful, and ultimately be used. The Gender Data Outlook 2024³ points towards the importance of investments beyond production both in connecting data and outcomes for gender equality and in strengthening overall gender data capacity. Perhaps most strikingly, regular user-producer dialogues were a key common factor among the top-performing countries of the GDO Index, suggesting that broader investments that connect the supply and demand sides of gender data capacity are particularly meaningful.

Successful use cases analyzed for the Gender Data Outlook also highlighted the role of investments in activities such as dissemination and communication in ensuring that data are used. In one case, the subnational gender observatory in the Colombian department of Nariño applied multiple strategies to disseminate gender statistics, including the development of infographics, a radio show, and a public participation forum. The data disseminated through these strategies were successfully used to develop a municipal economic autonomy project with a gender perspective and within one year of the plan being introduced, 147 women had already benefited directly from the project. Cases like these are extremely important for demonstrating the importance of investments beyond production (by pointing out key steps in translating existing data into impact), but also in building the business case for gender data financing at large.

For investments in gender data to effectively lead to change towards gender equality, they must not only be ‘enough’ in monetary terms, but they must also be smarter. Domestic and external funders should look towards existing evidence on where the greatest gaps in gender data capacity lie (through indices like the Gender Data Outlook and the Gender Data Compass, as well as dialogues with key national stakeholders) to better understand where their investments in data will contribute most to supporting gender equality.

The most persistent issue is the insufficient volume of financing dedicated to gender data. In 2021, development assistance for gender data peaked at 122 million US dollars, the highest annual level to date. However, this figure was heavily influenced by a one-time World Bank loan for a civil registration system in Nepal. Without this outlier, the overall trend in grant-based support has remained flat for more than a decade and highly variable at country-level.⁵

Such variability creates planning uncertainty for national statistical offices (NSOs), which rely on predictable funding to maintain regular data collection, processing, and dissemination cycles. Short-term project-based financing may allow for a one-off survey, but it rarely supports long-term system development or institutional strengthening. As a result, many gender data initiatives remain fragmented or unsustainable.

Stabilizing financial flows—especially through multi-year commitments—would allow NSOs to invest in training, infrastructure, and strategic partnerships that support high-quality and continuous gender data production.¹⁹ Sustained investment is essential for building resilient systems that can meet ongoing and emerging data demands.

However, this imperative for sustained investment faces a stark reality: global official development assistance (ODA) is projected to decline sharply, with the OECD estimating a 9–17% drop in 2025 following a 7.1% decline in 2024.^26,27 This unprecedented contraction in international funding creates a fundamental tension between the ambitious goals of comprehensive gender data systems and increasingly constrained fiscal resources.

In this challenging environment, LMICs and their development partners must pivot toward strategies that maximize impact with limited resources. This necessitates a dual approach: mainstreaming gender data collection within existing statistical infrastructure rather than creating parallel systems, and strategically reallocating resources to prioritize high-impact, cost-effective interventions. Rather than viewing these constraints as insurmountable barriers, they present an opportunity to build more efficient and integrated systems that embed gender considerations into core national data architecture.

Building on these efficiency imperatives, several practical and cost-effective approaches can strengthen gender data systems without requiring substantial new investments. Administrative data sources—such as health records, education enrollment systems, and social protection databases—often offer as yet untapped potential for generating sex-disaggregated insights at minimal additional cost, as the infrastructure for collection already exists. Similarly, re-analyzing existing survey datasets with a gender lens can yield valuable new insights without the expense of primary data collection. Innovative methodologies, including web scraping techniques to extract gender-relevant information from public databases and online platforms, natural language processing to analyze text-based administrative records for gender-relevant patterns, and citizen data approaches that engage local communities in data validation and collection, may dramatically reduce the per-unit cost of gender data production for certain topics while improving timeliness and coverage.

Concurrently, diversifying financing sources beyond traditional bilateral and multilateral flows presents opportunities for greater sustainability and innovation. Private sector engagement, particularly through corporate social responsibility initiatives and data-sharing partnerships with companies that collect gender-relevant information, such as telecommunications companies, can provide both financial resources and technical expertise. Blended finance mechanisms that combine public and private capital can leverage limited ODA resources to attract additional investment in gender data infrastructure. Philanthropic foundations, especially those focused on gender equality and data for development, represent the biggest donors to gender data financing already but may be even more necessary moving forward, as private funders often supports more flexible, innovative approaches than traditional donors. These alternative financing models can not only help address funding gaps but also foster the kind of cross-sector partnerships and technological innovation that can make gender data systems more resilient and responsive to evolving needs.

The donor base for gender data is narrow and concentrated. While multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, UNICEF, and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have been key contributors, most bilateral funding comes from a small group of countries, notably the United States, Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.^5,22 These donors have shown consistent support through feminist foreign policies and targeted statistical capacity-building initiatives. These donors have been joined in recent years by philanthropic foundations.

However, reliance on a small pool of funders presents systemic risks. As donor priorities shift—due to changing political leadership or crises like pandemics and conflicts—the continuity of gender data financing can be jeopardized. The absence of a broad and diversified donor ecosystem limits flexibility, innovation, and geographic reach.

Efforts to expand the donor base to include regional development banks, philanthropic foundations, and private sector actors could strengthen the overall financing landscape. For example, the Gates Foundation has become the biggest donor for gender data in 2022, funding innovations in administrative data and gender-focused data platforms, demonstrating how philanthropy can complement traditional funding streams.^10,28

Another critical challenge is the lack of transparency and data on domestic financing for gender statistics. While many countries reference gender data in their National Strategies for the Development of Statistics (NSDS), few include explicit cost estimates, dedicated line items, or mechanisms for tracking implementation.² This makes it difficult to assess national investment levels, evaluate funding gaps, or coordinate effectively with external partners.

In many cases, gender data are embedded within broader statistical or gender equality budgets without clear disaggregation. Even when funding exists, it may be directed only toward data production, without provisions for data use, analysis, or dissemination.

To address this gap, governments should institutionalize financial reporting for gender data across planning and budgeting systems. Tools like performance-based budgeting and program-based budgeting offer opportunities to integrate gender data indicators and track expenditures across ministries. Strengthening collaboration between NSOs, ministries of finance, and gender ministries is essential to improve visibility and accountability.⁶

Although gender equality is prominently featured in global and national development agendas, the financing allocated to gender data remains disproportionately small. Gender data receives less than 1 percent of the 58 billion US dollars committed annually to gender equality initiatives.⁵ This gap undermines the ability to monitor progress on commitments, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and ensure equitable outcomes.

This disconnect reduces the coherence and impact of broader gender programming. Many interventions, such as social protection schemes or climate resilience initiatives, lack the sex-disaggregated data needed to measure who benefits. Without timely and relevant gender statistics, even well-designed programs may fail to reach or serve women and marginalized groups effectively.

Integrating gender data into the design, budgeting, and monitoring of gender equality strategies and programs would help close this gap. Embedding data generation and use within policy and program frameworks can reduce duplication, enhance results, and improve accountability. For example, the Maldives’ National Gender Equality Action Plan 2022–2026 incorporates the production and use of gender statistics both as a standalone pillar and as a key target across several strategic interventions, working to embed data across the design and monitoring of the policy. Clear acknowledgement of financing, however, is needed to make these ambitions a reality.²⁹ Targeting even 1 percent of gender equality budgets for gender data is a practical and cost-effective step toward systemic change.⁵

In a context where recent elections around the globe have ushered in the rise of far-right governments and major cuts to foreign aid, holding a set earmark for gender data across agencies and partnerships – whether sectorally focused or statistical – can not only prove most financially efficient, but also ensure capacity to produce gender data is better protected from political shocks. Governments that fail to do so risk losing critical sources of information during periods of global volatility. For example, after the recent U.S. suspension of the Demographic and Health Surveys, the Kenyan government could no longer control or even access its national system of Electronic Medical Records, marking a dangerous loss of information that prevented health care workers from delivering life-saving treatment.³⁰ In a context of increasingly constrained external support, mainstreaming both capacity to produce gender data and financing across agencies while protecting gender statistics in budgets would provide greater statistical stability and political durability.

A critical but often overlooked challenge in gender data financing is the imbalance across the data value chain. Most investments continue to prioritize the production of data, such as surveys, censuses, and upgrades to administrative systems, while significantly underfunding dissemination, analysis, and use. This narrow focus limits the impact of data collection and reduces the value of investments over time.

Current measures of gender data capacity, such as the Gender Data Outlook³ and the Gender Data Compass,⁴ suggest that countries’ capacity to produce data is typically stronger than their capacity to make that data open or accessible. On average, countries’ GDO Index performance on gender data production were the highest of all pillars on gender data capacity (0.591 out of a maximum score of 1), while average scores for data accessibility lagged behind (0.520) – the lowest of all pillars.

To support better use of gender data, investments must extend beyond productive capacity to also support this “second layer” of gender data gaps³¹—which includes deficiencies in how data are analyzed for policymaking, whether disaggregated indicators are integrated into monitoring systems, and to what extent users can access and interpret the information. Without targeted financing for dissemination, open data portals, user-producer dialogues, and capacity-building efforts, data remain underutilized or disconnected from real-world decision-making processes.

Building a gender data ecosystem that supports actual use requires financing strategies that extend across the entire data lifecycle. This includes not only upstream activities like data collection and infrastructure, but also downstream investments in communication tools, user training, stakeholder engagement, and accountability mechanisms. Without such approaches, gender statistics risk becoming “data graveyards”—collected but not used.⁷