For the third year now, Ukraine has been operating with a major financial resource from the European Union — the Ukraine Facility program. It is based on the principle of “money in exchange for reforms,” is planned to run until 2027, and предусматриє the allocation of €50 billion. Part of these funds is directed toward education: school buses, shelters, equipment, catering facilities, and more. The Center for Fiscal Policy Research sought to present a comprehensive picture of the financing of the educational component of the Ukraine Facility — not only based on open data, but also on information collected directly on the ground, from schools to local government authorities.

“We set ourselves the task of collecting all education expenditures under the Ukraine Facility for 2024. We started with central government authorities and reached out to the Ministries of Education and Finance to understand which programs the funding comes from. After that, we processed all Treasury payment orders,” explained the Head of the Board of the Center, Viktor Maziarchuk, during the presentation of the monitoring results on the use of Ukraine Facility funds in the education sector.

However, already at this stage it became clear that the official picture is incomplete.

“The total amount of expenditures does not match the reporting. And this is normal. The Treasury does not always publish all payment orders due to technical reasons, such as refunds. Therefore, we went further and contacted the implementers directly,” he said.

As a result, the team collected and verified more than 36,000 payments totaling over UAH 7 billion. The data was provided by more than a thousand local government bodies, municipal enterprises, and educational institutions.

“We obtained the most comprehensive picture possible. There are discrepancies, but they are not systemic and their nature can be explained,” the expert added.

Based on this dataset, the Center produced three outputs: a detailed expenditure study, an analytical survey of implementers, and an open interactive dashboard. The latter allows users to literally “dive into” the data and see which regions received funding, for what purposes, and from which sources.

Barriers Hindering Project Implementation

To understand how educational projects under the Ukraine Facility are implemented in practice, the Center’s analysts reached out to those who deal daily with approvals and deadlines. For this purpose, more than 1,500 questionnaires were sent to procurement participants and project implementers.

Responses were received from 149 respondents across 21 regions.

“This study cannot be considered fully representative, but it covers almost the entire country — from rural schools to large institutions in regional centers. And that is sufficient to identify patterns,” emphasized the Center’s analyst Yuliia Zvierievych.

According to her, the main conclusion sounds simple but has systemic implications: “the better the guidance at the start, the fewer barriers arise during project implementation.”

Those who had a clear understanding of the program’s rules were significantly less likely to encounter difficulties with data entry into DREAM or with conducting procurement through Prozorro.

At the same time, the majority of respondents — around 80% — stated that funding was sufficient. However, this does not resolve the key issues.

“The main systemic barrier is not the lack of funding, but excessively long approval procedures,” the analyst stressed.

Other challenges identified included rising prices for construction materials, shortages of equipment, and complex requirements for contractors and procurement processes.

There is also a red flag that is difficult to ignore: most implementers are not confident that they will be able to sustain project operations after the funding ends. “This is a serious signal for decision-makers at both the central and local levels, as it affects not only the efficiency of fund usage but also the overall success of the Ukraine Facility program in education,” Zvierievych noted.

European Funds = European Rules

The shift in approaches to monitoring these funds was outlined by the Deputy Head of the State Audit Service of Ukraine, Vladyslav Marushevskyi. “If we want to receive European funds, we must use them according to European rules,” he noted. This means not only oversight by Ukrainian authorities, but also continuous supervision by EU institutions. “These funds are the money of European taxpayers. And they expect that the finances will be used efficiently and transparently,” he emphasized.

The State Audit Service has already moved to so-called systemic audits, where not a single project is checked, but the entire chain of fund flows — from the ministry to a specific school. And this revealed something unexpected. “The first entities were surprised to learn that they were working specifically with Ukraine Facility funds, rather than just general budget funds. And that implies a different level of requirements,” he added.

According to the official, many violations are in fact not abuses, but the result of misunderstanding. “When there is cooperation and proper explanation, these are mistakes. When there is none, suspicions of intentional violations arise. And this is seen not only by us, but also by our European partners,” Marushevskyi explained.

Oversight That Saves Hundreds of Millions

Another side of monitoring was presented by a representative of the Anti-Corruption Initiative, Olha Kolodochka. Her team joined the oversight of school kitchen construction projects.

Over two years, this approach has made it possible to save UAH 320 million.

“This allowed us to include an additional 36 schools in the project,” she emphasized.

Monitoring is carried out at all stages — from analyzing project documentation to verifying completed works. Even at this level, issues are identified that are not immediately visible.

“Equipment originating from Russia or Belarus is still found in documentation. We track this and prevent it,” Kolodochka assured.

A separate focus is working with local communities.

“We are not here to punish, but to help implement projects correctly,” she concluded.

Transparency as a Practical Tool

In the end, all participants of the discussion agreed on one point: the key to effectiveness lies not only in oversight, but also in clear rules and proper awareness. “We believe that most barriers can be minimized through better communication at both the central and local levels,” concluded Yuliia Zvierievych. This is precisely where open data becomes not a formality, but a tool. Because when every payment is visible, it becomes harder to hide systemic problems — and at the same time easier to fix them.

This material was prepared by the Center for Fiscal Policy Research with the support of the Askold and Dir Foundation, administered by ISAR Ednannia within the framework of the project “A Strong Civil Society of Ukraine — a Driver of Reforms and Democracy,” funded by Norway and Sweden.

The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the Center for Fiscal Policy Research and does not necessarily reflect the views of the governments of Norway, Sweden, or ISAR Ednannia.