2.2. Key factors in LLL policy-making

There are several key factors to consider throughout the LLL policy-making process. They are presented in detail in this section.

2.2.1. Aligning LLL with national and local contexts

Contextual factors are critical in formulating national LLL policies, since these policies must explicitly relate to national development priorities and ensure coherence to other related government and public strategies. Analysis must therefore be used to enhance the design and implementation of contextually sensitive LLL interventions, identifying overall parameters and potential orientations for LLL policies. A more fine-grained analysis at provincial, local and community levels will also yield insights into the kinds of interventions that are likely to result in viable, relevant and accessible learning opportunities for learners of all ages and circumstances. This contextual analysis should identify problems and the type of beneficiaries the LLL policy is intended to support and should consider how the LLL policy will be implemented. The following factors should be examined:

Demographic trends, since these provide information on the size of different social groups which may need specific types of educational opportunities. National census data, organized by age, gender, household and location, constitutes the main source of information, supplemented by other sources pertaining to migration.

Characteristics of educational systems, since LLL policies must take full account of the prevailing educational situation in a country. Any policy or educational development should be based on a systematic and in-depth analysis of the realities and challenges using data available from education management information systems (EMIS). Analysed figures should provide an important foundation for the design of LLL policies aiming to respond to the current and future learning demands of adolescents and youth, as well as for basic competences among the adult population.

Local economic conditions, given that income distribution is one of the main factors explaining the lack of access to learning opportunities for youth and adults. This analysis will support LLL interventions aiming to reduce the negative effects of economic inequalities. Data from national economic and labour censuses and surveys may also support this analysis.

Unemployment and its causes, since policies aiming to improve employability by adopting a LLL perspective must strengthen existing links across all government agencies and support education and economic development. When designing LLL policies, analysts should take into account the country’s employment profile and estimate the potential effects of LLL interventions. In addition, the conditions of the young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs) should be analysed, along with information on the uptake of professions (including existing and potential skills gaps) and gaps in educational qualifications among the employed and unemployed.

Gender equality is another factor to be considered, since LLL policies should focus on issues related to differentiated access to education, work, freedom of decision-making and movement, discrimination, gender-based violence and personal security. Understanding these issues will identify whether LLL policies promote equality of opportunity and to what extent socio-economic opportunities are open to women and men equally.

Minorities and Indigenous groups deserve special attention when designing and implementing LLL policies, since they are often in a disadvantaged position. Surveys at the appropriate level (regional, local and community) can provide clarity on the learning needs of minorities and Indigenous groups, which can then be factored into policy development. Minorities may be identified by ethnicity, socio-economic status, lifestyle, religion, and culture or location, among other factors.

Physical and social environment, since living in a rural, urban or peri-urban setting impacts the decision to learn or continue learning and how learning is provided, from early childhood to adult learning. Policy-makers should study statistical data on the proportions of the population living in various conditions to ascertain the particular learning and occupational needs in each context.

The interaction of all these factors, given that the issues outlined above interrelate and affect the distribution of learning opportunities. A comprehensive analysis and understanding of these interactions will enable policy-makers to assess which factors may have the greatest influence on educational access, participation and completion and to determine how LLL policy should be oriented.

Box 2.2. LLL in practice A case of an LLL policy responding to demographic changes Chapter 1 highlighted the population ageing that is taking place in many societies around the world; policies with a lifelong learning perspective can only be demographically sensitive if they respond to such changes. In Luxembourg, the ministry of education supports learners at risk of being excluded by the digital divide – including older people as well as low-income groups – by issuing diplomas to those who pursue an ‘internet führerschein’ (‘führerschein’ means ‘driving licence’ in German, one of Luxembourg’s three official languages). This is a 20-hour intensive course facilitated by trainers who are available for one-to-one and group sessions at low cost. Refresher courses are also available and allow learners to improve their knowledge of particular forms of ICT, such as communications software or internet shopping. Similarly, in Singapore, a programme has been developed specifically for older people. Silver Infocomm Junctions are digital learning centres where courses are offered along similar lines to those in Luxembourg. These centres are products of the wider Silver Infocomm Initiative (SII), a policy launched in 2007 to extend digital inclusion to older demographic groups in the country. Source: UNESCO, 2018a

2.2.2. Creating a comprehensive vision for LLL

Due to the characteristics of LLL initiatives, adopting them demands a favourable political setting to guarantee effective collaboration. This is achieved when all stakeholders value LLL as an effective and financially feasible intervention and when beneficiaries are convinced lifelong learning interventions will mean clear benefits for them. If these conditions are met, the probability of adopting and implementing LLL successfully will increase. This calls for a comprehensive, shared vision of LLL to which stakeholders are committed and in which they are invested. Any national LLL vision also needs to be clear, coherent, comprehensive and compelling, since a well-articulated approach facilitates widespread support, helps to secure the commitment of all stakeholders and provides guidance for pursuing policy priorities.

Such a vision should be based initially on an identification of problems, or policy issues, currently affecting the country or with a high probability of impacting national development in the future. This refers to the rationale for LLL explored in Chapter 1. LLL can address complex issues situated at the intersection of different public policy domains. To take one example, a report published by the UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme (Miletto et al., 2017) describes how, in developing countries where agriculture is the dominant sector of employment, a link exists between water scarcity (caused by climate change), youth unemployment, emigration and gender inequality. In this confluence of issues, water scarcity fuels unemployment among agricultural workers, many of whom are young men who subsequently migrate in search for work. This can, in turn, place a greater burden on women who remain – often without an accompanying increase in rights – meaning that gender disparities deepen. This example contains multiple public policy issues with interrelated causes that cannot be adequately addressed with a piecemeal approach and instead require comprehensive interventions. As LLL is holistic and intersectoral, it can be used to address multiple policy issues at the same time. In this case, a more sensitive and planned response to migration based on non-formal and informal learning programmes is needed, along with gender-responsive learning opportunities.

A wide-ranging exploration of issues can lead to the identification of a select few policy priorities to be addressed by LLL. This is a particularly sensitive and complex process in the case of LLL policy design, given that (a) there is a wide array of target populations (e.g. children, youth, adults, older people, immigrants, women and minorities, among others); (b) there are potentially multiple issues to address (e.g. unemployment, global citizenship, promoting democracy, assimilation, peace, financial insecurity, health and environment education, information literacy, illiteracy, and entrepreneurship, among several others); and (c) there are multiple modalities to consider, based on formal, non-formal and informal learning models.

A well-developed national LLL vision helps policy-makers rethink both how to articulate LLL within national development strategies and legal frameworks and how to translate these definitions into specific policy documents and processes across different sectors and institutions. In light of the global challenges humanity faces, any national LLL vision should also be aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Education 2030 Framework for Action, linking global goals to unique national contexts. Several countries have already developed a national vision of LLL through dedicated policies and strategies. Cambodia’s National Policy on Lifelong Learning, for example, features a vision to ‘develop every Cambodian citizen to gain knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values to contribute to economic growth and promote individual and social harmony through … lifelong learning opportunities in all contexts at any time, in any place, and by any means’ (Royal Government of Cambodia, 2019, p. 3).

Box 2.3. LLL in practice National visions The Strategy for Lifelong Learning in Norway (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2007) views LLL as an ongoing educational process, from childhood to adulthood and old age. It considers LLL essential for the development of the individual, for democracy and society, and for working life. The strategy acknowledges LLL as a concept for all forms of learning throughout the lifespan and recognizes the knowledge, skills and experiences an individual has gained through education and training, paid or unpaid work, and participation in society. Among other things, Norway’s vision emphasizes the need to improve collaboration between the education system and working life, to increase participation in learning among older workers and people with limited experience of education, and to improve documentation and validation of people’s non-formal and informal learning. Other countries have also included a national vision of LLL in their legislation. The constitution of the Republic of Korea, for example, acknowledges that all citizens ‘shall have an equal right to receive an education corresponding to their abilities’ and gives the state a duty to ‘promote lifelong education’ (MEST, 2012, p. 10). The term ‘lifelong education’ denotes non-formal learning processes that people engage in after, or in parallel to, formal schooling, vocational study and higher education. According to the country’s Lifelong Education Act of 2009, ‘lifelong education’ refers to all types of systematic educational activities, ‘including scholastic ability supplementing education …  education for the enhancement of vocational abilities, education for humanities and liberal arts, education for culture … [and] education for citizens’ participation’ (MEST, 2009, p. 1). The act establishes that all levels of government are responsible for promoting lifelong education policies, and calls on the Ministry of Education to develop a comprehensive, lifelong education promotion plan every five years at the national level, setting mid- and long-term policy objectives and the basic direction of lifelong education promotion (MEST, 2017). The country’s fourth and current National Lifelong Learning Promotion Plan (2018–2022) strengthens this national vision for LLL (cited by UIL, 2020).

2.2.3. Establishing governance arrangements and stakeholder involvement

National governments often create the framework and conditions for meaningful partnerships and the advancement of LLL policy across ministries, departments and local governments. In addition, they can ensure greater coordination within and between departments and improve synergies between government and partners from different sectors. These synergies are essential in a world characterized by rapid technological, environmental, social and economic change.

Nevertheless, national governments are not solely responsible for designing and implementing LLL policies: new forms of governance are required to capture the cross-sectoral benefits of LLL. Firstly, a comprehensive approach to LLL policy is essential within the education sector itself. This should encompass all modes of learning and involve all areas of education, from ECCE to higher education, including technical and vocational education and training (TVET) as well as adult and continuing education and education for older people. In addition, collaboration and coordination across different areas, sectors, agencies, organizations and levels of government is needed. This can involve the establishment of interdepartmental/interministerial policy frameworks and the creation of oversight bodies to ensure greater coordination.

Governments might opt to devolve more responsibility for policy-making to a city or sub-regional level. Decentralization of governance arrangements can happen in different ways, for example through the learning city model or networks of community learning centres (CLCs). In an increasingly diversified delivery context, central government must provide resources to support local initiatives and help learners access the services they need, such as in the case of partnership-based governance approaches used for learning cities.

It is important that cooperation towards LLL policy-making crosses the boundaries between formal, non-formal and informal learning. Collaboration is also required to realize the intersectoral and interdisciplinary potential of LLL in areas such as health, climate change, safety and justice. Private stakeholders, cultural institutions and civil society, alongside ministries and local governments, have important roles to play in LLL policy, which integrates LLL into the daily life and work of citizens, ensuring their learning demands are expressed, heard and met.

Box 2.4. LLL in practice Intersectoral collaboration Government should recognize the important contribution of non-governmental entities, including national and international development organizations, businesses, unions, libraries and cultural institutions, and facilitate their involvement. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can be important partners, particularly in providing community education. In Viet Nam, for example, the Vietnam Association for Learning Promotion (VALP) runs a network connecting central-level organizations to provincial, district and commune levels and to grassroots activities. The mission of VALP is to promote and facilitate learning for all, with the ultimate goal of building a learning society, implementing local projects and activities, and CLCs (Columbia Southern University, 2022). Regional-level organizations also have an important role to play. In southern Africa, for example, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) is creating new opportunities to develop regional and local lifelong learning qualification frameworks that facilitate cross-border labour mobility (SADC, 2022). National government must recognize and support NGOs as important partners in the development of national lifelong learning policy. Another example is provided by the health sector. Since the adoption of the 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (WHO, 2022), the World Health Organization (WHO) has repeatedly asked countries to dedicate part of their health spending to health promotion through education to reduce the growing and potentially unsustainable demand for curative health services (WHO, 2016). However, despite clear evidence of the long-term benefits and cost savings of investment in health promotion and education, most countries still fall short of the suggested allocation of 3 to 4 per cent of total health spending. This represents a missed opportunity to enable citizens to play an active role in improving their own health, engage in community action for health, and press elected officials and governments to meet their responsibilities in redressing health inequalities. Meeting the health literacy needs of the most disadvantaged and marginalized societies in particular will accelerate progress in reducing inequities in healthcare and prevention.

Chapters 3 and 4 will provide more insights into how policy-makers can respond to the challenges and opportunities of LLL governance, particularly in terms of implementation.

LLL policies need to be politically feasible to ensure the support of relevant stakeholders and the general public and to increase the likelihood of enactment, implementation and evaluation. Effective LLL policy-making must be a well-organized process, during which roles and responsibilities, coordination arrangements and working structures are clear. An important step in this process involves setting policy priorities and developing a coherent proposal on which to consult relevant stakeholders. Identifying, involving and securing the support of key stakeholders contributes to successful policy development and effective implementation. Key stakeholders for LLL usually include:

• the ministry of education, its departments and affiliated agencies;
• the ministry of finance;
• parliament;
• other ministries and departments, which, depending on the distribution of responsibilities, may include the ministry of social affairs or social welfare, ministry of social development, ministry of agriculture, ministry of foreign affairs, ministry of health, ministry of gender equality or women’s affairs, ministry of employment or labour, ministry of economic development, ministry of science and technology, and the ministry of culture;
• national statistical institute/agency;
• national validation and accreditation agency;
• national agency for vocational education and training;
• agencies for teachers’ professional development;
• provincial and district governments and municipal councils;
• trade and teachers’ unions, labour organizations;
• representatives of the private sector;
• researchers in the field of lifelong learning, ECCE, TVET and adult education;
• national youth council, women’s associations and representatives of minority groups;
• non-governmental and civil society organizations active in the field of education and social affairs;
• international development partners;
• providers of formal and non-formal education.

Policy-makers must identify interested parties and their priorities to determine potential stakeholder roles in the policy process. To engage key stakeholders in a participatory process constructively, policy-makers should foster a culture of democratic and open debate. Additionally, the existence of formal structures (e.g. a consultative committee with representation from different stakeholders), traditions (similar processes observed in the past) and tools (e.g. a draft with policy proposals on which stakeholders can comment) for policy dialogue may result in a more efficient participatory approach.

Box 2.5. LLL in practice Politically feasible LLL policy The Austrian Strategy for Lifelong Learning (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture et al., 2011) was developed and launched by four federal ministries: the Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture; the Ministry of Science and Research; the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection; and the Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth. To coordinate the implementation process, a taskforce was established, comprising a representative of each involved ministry. In addition to the taskforce, a national platform, LLL: 2020, was established to ensure a wide involvement of relevant stakeholders at multiple levels in the implementation process. Political feasibility was strengthened by the co-development of the policy by multiple government ministries as well as by the participation of a cross-section of society in the national platform. Ministry representatives, social partners, state and municipal governments, universities and adult education institutions, the unemployment service and researchers all participated.

Finally, LLL policy is inherently linked to participatory planning. It is not merely an intervention to promote economic growth and development but also a promoter of democratic deliberation and public debate. A LLL policy should therefore be shaped by consultation exercises organized by government agencies or based on the views of national and international non-governmental organizations, advocacy groups, experts or private lobbyists. It could also respond to or address national, historical and political contexts, including current or earlier policies in the area under review, cultural and economic constraints, or current or former social, political and economic agendas. A policy should also draw on the best information available on effective previous interventions and practices and areas requiring improvement. To be effective, policies must take circumstances and needs, political contexts and available institutional capacities into consideration.

2.2.4. Making LLL policy financially viable

Turning a LLL vision into a policy with effective programmes requires an efficient planning process of financial investment in education and learning. If learning is to continue throughout people’s lives, it is essential to establish financial incentives to mobilize greater and broader participation. Innovative financing strategies are required to secure the necessary resources to achieve goals included in any LLL national policy. To be credible and effective, a policy needs to be accompanied by a proper cost and financing framework, based on which detailed financing strategies and incentive mechanisms will be developed in the implementation plan.

Lifelong learning is offered by a broad range of providers catering to very heterogeneous populations of learners. Financing policies must therefore cover both how financial resources can be mobilized and how they can be spent effectively by different agencies. By mobilizing finance from a diversity of sources, countries can ensure better levels of investment in lifelong learning; and through the fair and effective utilization of financial resources, they can ensure that their societies reap the wider benefits that lifelong learning can deliver (UIL, 2013). It is important to consider what can be financed by the government and for which programmes other sources are needed (UIL, 2016a).

The ways in which learning activities are financed vary greatly but, by looking specifically at formal and non-formal education and training, it is possible to identify some typical financing instruments. Types of non-formal education and training include provision within the private sector, voluntary sector, community and workplace, and by individuals. Public financing tends to be distributed through a range of instruments: formula funding, programme funding, project funding, direct grants, tax incentives, levy grants, training leave, loans, and individual learning accounts (see Box 2.6).

Box 2.6: LLL in practice Individual learning accounts Sometimes referred to as ‘voucher systems’, individual learning accounts provide targeted individuals with an entitlement to access specified learning activities from a range of approved providers. Vouchers are commonly distributed through an active labour market programme, which also provides supporting advice and guidance services. Individual learning accounts are also used to support individuals to access both non-vocational and vocational learning of their choosing. In France, training is an ‘individual right’: it is framed in this way to promote social progress and reduce inequality in access. Its two main components are individual training leave (CIF) and, implemented more recently, the personal training account (compte personnel de formation, or CPF). The latter allows individuals – employed or unemployed – to review career-relevant information, training opportunities, unemployment assistance and other social protections. Formulated as an ‘individual right’ scheme, the personal account is portable and can move with the individual as they gain or change employment. It was reported that, in 2016, almost 500,000 requests pertaining to the CPF system were approved, with 65 per cent of the total being made by job-seekers and 35 per cent by employed workers. Sources: Cedefop, 2016, 2018

Several of these public financing instruments rely on private-sector collaboration; in addition, there are a number of employer-led (e.g. on-the-job training), collective (e.g. public subsidies and shared contributions) and learner-managed (e.g. student loans and individual savings) financing instruments (Schuetze, 2009). A policy should therefore provide an indication of how the funding instruments will contribute to achieving targeted goals and identify the factors that need to be considered in designing the funding instruments, aligned with the main policy goals.

While expanding access to learning opportunities is a positive development, expansion is rarely met with a proportional increase in budgetary allocation. This places public finances under strain. There are several responses available to countries: harnessing existing resources more effectively, enhancing measures of accountability for public investments in education and, perhaps most importantly, exploring and implementing new ways of mobilizing resources for education, including through arrangements with stakeholders operating outside the public sector (UNESCO, 2015). Alternative approaches to resource mobilization can lead to new opportunities for education by reducing the sector’s dependence on national budget. Moving beyond the boundaries of formal education, activities that fall within the remit of LLL are almost countless and so, while it is valuable to consider the typical funding instruments previously detailed when formulating LLL policies, alternatives should also be considered. Depending on the programme or activity, financing measures can involve cross-sectoral cooperation and partnerships and community-based funding, as well as incentives for providers and learners.

Local initiatives for resource mobilization are also important, as shown by several UNESCO learning cities, like Espoo in Finland. Espoo subsidizes civil society organizations to provide services to learners, including sports, music and after-school activities (ibid.).

Box 2.7. LLL in practice Financing adult education The 2015 Recommendation on Adult Learning and Education suggests that Member States set incentives to facilitate learning. Many countries have acted on this guidance. For example, in Serbia, the Law on Adult Education was amended so that finances for adult education feature in national, provincial and local budgets. In the People’s Republic of China, the national government has promoted the establishment of private-sector adult education centres and greater collaboration between private organizations and schools. In Poland, a National Training Fund was founded in 2014 to incentivize employer-led training by offering funding to cover training costs. Other national initiatives have sought to facilitate a more bottom-up approach to financing ALE, such as the competitive funding system in Indonesia, which invites non-formal educational institutions to apply individually for government grants. Sources: UIL, 2016b

2.2.5. Gathering data for evidence-based policy-making

Relevant data on LLL opportunities and participation rates can help policy-makers focus their efforts to support underserved populations effectively, understand where – and ideally why – LLL opportunities have been inconsistent, and identify any potential synergism or need for intervention.

Information on LLL policy and its effects comes from different data sources. These include national censuses and regional statistical units; administrative data reported by schools and other education institutions; specialized surveys on aspects of lifelong learning based on individual, household or school samples; reports by non-governmental providers or private-sector companies; and analyses found in peer-reviewed publications. The main challenge, however, is to identify relevant and solid evidence pertaining to different aspects of lifelong learning: provision, access, participation, completion, quality, funding, learning processes and learning outcomes.

Box 2.8. LLL in practice International data sources Several endeavours to measure LLL have emerged in recent decades, including the Composite Learning Index (CLI) produced by the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) and the European Lifelong Learning Indicators (ELLI) developed by the Bertelsmann Foundation. Though both initiatives have since been discontinued, they serve to illustrate a range of potential lifelong learning data sources, as well as the challenges associated with monitoring such a diversity of learning. The CLI was an annual measure of progress in LLL, conceptualized in terms of the four major dimensions of learning identified in the Delors Report: learning to know, to do, to live together, and to be (Delors, 1996). The CLI classified 17 indicators and 26 statistical measures, which were meant to reflect the many modalities in which Canadians learn: in school, at home or work, or within the community (UNESCO-IBE, 2022). The ELLI was also based on Delors’ four pillars and described levels of LLL among European countries. It combined 36 variables to reflect a wide range of LLL activities, including participation rates in formal education and training, literacy skills (PISA), employees participating in continual vocational training (CVT) courses, labour market policies expenditure, and community engagement through cultural activities, among others. The ELLI-Index stressed the known economic and social outcomes of learning – for example, income, employability, population health, and social cohesion and democracy – and aimed to be accessible to a wide audience, including policy-makers, education researchers and practitioners, individual students and parents (Bertelsmann Stiftung, n.d.). Using the four-pillar framework of learning, Kim (2016) constructed a Global Lifelong Learning Index (GLLI) more suited to developing countries, which is based on an array of educational, economic, social and political measures – mostly quantitative, some qualitative – available from international sources.

Given the intersectoral reach of LLL policy, information on the interrelationships between the education sector and other sectors is also needed. Such information might focus on how learning can be applied to healthcare, childcare, job-seeking, increased productivity, and other aspects of life and work, which may be invisible to policy-makers. Both quantitative and qualitative data feed into effective LLL policy, as does information on the equality of LLL opportunities. Expertise is needed to ensure the careful processing and analysis of data and its visualization in different formats.

A critical aspect for the successful adoption of an evidence-based LLL model is establishing mechanisms that monitor and evaluate LLL policy systematically on an ongoing basis. This not only enables countries to better meet the LLL needs of all groups but also contributes to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which stresses the importance of LLL for sustainable development and calls for efforts to monitor LLL and ensure its quality. Monitoring is an ‘ongoing, systematic collection of information to assess progress towards the achievement of objectives, outcomes and impacts’ (Mcloughlin and Walton, 2012, p. 6), whereas evaluation is ‘an assessment, as systematic and objective as possible, of an on-going or completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, developmental efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability’ (OECD, 2013, p. 33).

M&E of LLL policies should build on existing data collection and monitoring mechanisms; yet, in many countries, the provision of lifelong learning is diversified and does not easily lend itself to monitoring. A periodic report presenting data on key measures of LLL ‘at a glance’ should be considered and, at later stages, the analysis of trends and patterns should be conducted to identify main challenges and prioritize measures for improvement.

General recommendations for the monitoring and evaluation process (adapted from Weiss, 1998)

• A monitoring and evaluation system design should consider not only information production but also how to promote the instrumental use of evidence.
• It should be a continuation of previous stages of the policy-making process. It must capture the principles agreed upon, particularly during the problem-definition and policy-design stages.
• It requires the development of local capacities.

Box 2.9. LLL in practice Monitoring participation in adult learning and education (ALE) At the international level, UNESCO’s Global Report on Adult Learning and Education (GRALE) monitors the state of adult learning and education – as a key dimension of lifelong learning – in Member States. The most recent edition, GRALE 4, had a thematic focus on participation, equity and inclusion. Drawing on a monitoring survey completed by 160 countries, the report found that: participation in ALE is uneven. While it has increased overall since 2015, rates of participation vary considerably, and progress has been uneven not only between regions but also within them. Many vulnerable groups continue to be excluded and are seemingly off the radar of policy-makers. Thus, in one-third of countries, fewer than 5 per cent of adults participate in ALE; changes in participation vary: the largest increase in participation since 2015 is for women (59 per cent of 139 Member States), followed by unemployed adults (54 per cent of 134 Member States) and adults lacking education and skills (48 per cent of 136 Member States). Even if women’s participation is growing, they still have no access to education in some parts of the world, especially in poor rural areas. With the majority of these women having low levels of literacy, they engage less in programmes for professional development; a major constraint in participation in ALE is the scarcity of data. This hinders efforts to improve participation rates and to understand who is not participating and why – both essential undertakings in achieving SDG 4 on education and advancing towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. progress in policy and governance is insufficient; ALE is underfunded. Unfortunately, only 28 per cent of Member States responding to the GRALE survey reported that ALE spending as a proportion of public education spending increased, 41 per cent reported no progress since 2015, and 17 per cent said that they did not know whether there had been a change to ALE spending in the past three years; deep inequalities in participation persist. Vulnerable groups are still excluded, which constitutes a concern for their participation in the labour market. Migrants and refugees, older adults, adults with disabilities, those living in rural areas, and adults with low prior educational attainment are among the groups facing the greatest barriers to participation in ALE. Sources: UIL, 2019

Given that the analysis it generates may have consequences for the continuation, redefinition or termination of a policy, M&E is a particularly demanding stage of the LLL policy-making process.