As early as 1942, in wartime, the governments of the European countries, which were confronting Nazi Germany and its allies, met in the United Kingdom for the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education (CAME). The Second World War was far from over, yet those countries were looking for ways and means to reconstruct their systems of education once peace was restored. Very quickly, the project gained momentum and soon took on a universal note. New governments, including that of the United States, decided to join in.

By midsummer 1943, the work of the Conference grew to such an extent that re-organization was necessary. From the discussion about the re-organization of the Conference, it came out that one of the objects of the reconstituted CAME would be to consider plans for the formation of a permanent organization for promoting cooperation in educational matters in the post-war period. This organization should first be confined to the United Nations, and should then - after the war - grow into an international organization.

The decision of CAME to promote the foundation of a United Nations Organization for Educational and Cultural Reconstruction found a profound echo in the public. The League of Nations Union expressed the hope that the new organization would develop into a General International Organization for education which would provide the moral and intellectual basis of the peace.

The decision was taken to convene an extraordinary Conference, which would be attended by the participating countries on an equal footing with one vote for each, for the purpose of agreeing on the creation of an international organization that would take charge of educational and cultural concerns during the reconstruction period: the United Nations Conference for the establishment of an educational and cultural organization (ECO/CONF).

The Technical Advisory Board analyzed the programme activities of the IBI and ensured for appropriate coordination with other bodies and organizations.

The Department of Pilot Projects was succeeded by the Projects Department. Carlos Piattini continued as Director of this Department.

"The United Nations was a name devised by the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942 when 26 nations pledged to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers. The United Nations Charter was drawn up by the representatives of countries at the United Nations Conference on International Organization, San Francisco, 25 April-26 June 1945, and was based on proposals worked out earlier at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington D.C. by representatives of China, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945. The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 when the Charter was ratified by China, France, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States, and by a majority of other signatories. United Nations Day is celebrated on 24 October each year" (Guide to the Archives of International Organizations).

The United Nations General Assembly resolved to establish the Special Fund on 14 October 1958 in order to enlarge the scope of the UN programme of technical assistance in certain basic fields. The Special Fund was to concentrate on large projects “in the fields of resources, including the assessment and development of manpower, industry, including handicrafts and cottage industries, agriculture, transport and communications, building and housing, health, education, statistics and public administration (UN, GA, 1958). UNESCO participated primarily in projects in the fields of education and public administration. Assistance might take the form of “surveys; research and training; demonstration including pilot projects; … implemented by the provision of staff, experts, equipment, supplies and services as well as the establishment of institutes…and other appropriate means, including fellowships (UN, GA, 1958). In other words, the Special Fund was to be for ‘pre-investment’ types of projects aimed at creating conditions making new capital investment in a country either feasible or more effective (Alexander, p. 12). The Special Fund reported to ECOSCOC which would then consider EPTA and the Special Fund in relation to each other. However, the Special Fund had its own governing body, the Governing Council, consisting of representatives of eighteen States as elected by ECOSOC, with equal representation from more developed and less developed countries. The Special Fund was administered by the Managing Director and his staff. The third organ of the Special Fund was the Consultative Board which provided advice in the examination of project requests and proposed programmes. Representatives of specialized agencies could be invited to the Consultative Board deliberations, but the Board consisted of the Secretary-General of the UN, the Executive Chairman of the Technical Assistance Board (TAB), and the President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, or their designated representatives.

Governments made requests directly to the Special Fund. Specialized agencies were asked to be ready to assist governments in the preparation of their requests, and could also be asked to assist with the evaluation of requests to be examined by the Fund’s Governing Council. Specialized agencies could also then be the agent (or one of the agents) responsible for the execution of the project, as per the terms of an agreement between the agent and the Government in question with the concurrence of the Fund’s Managing Director.

The Special Fund entered into agreements with the governments and the concurrence of the executing agency would only be sought in cases of substantial modifications of the terms affecting the executing agency. These agreements signed with governments set forth the conditions under which the Special Fund was to render help to the country and the conditions under which projects were to be executed. An exchange of letters could clarify any provisions open to interpretation. UNESCO signed a Basic Agreement with the Special Fund in 1959 following the Executive Board’s approval at its Fifty-fifth Session. These Basic Agreements set forth the conditions under which the executing agency was to undertake projects within its fields of competence. In total there were then three types of agreements: agreements between the Special Fund and the executing agencies; agreements between the Special Fund and the requesting governments; and Plans of Operation signed by the Special Fund, executing agency and recipient government for a specific project. Plans of Operation set out in greater detail the obligations of the parties for the duration of the project, guidelines for the control of the project, and for its measurement and evaluation. These Plans of Operation tended to vary in form and content before the Special Fund established a model Plan (Alexander, p. 54).

In the first year of project implementation, UNESCO was allocated US$ 613, 903. The figure grew to US$13,968,970 in 1965 (UNESCO, 1987). The EPTA and Special Fund were amalgamated effective 1 January 1966 to form the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). However, EPTA and SF continued to be maintained as two separate funds by UNDP until the 1970 Consensus, approved by the General Assembly in December 1970, to take effect in 1971. In 1970, UNESCO implemented US$26,073,904 of SF projects (UNESCO, 1987).

The Funds-in-Trust (FIT) co-operation modality was initiated in 1963, following on the approval of the the 1961-1962 Budget and Programme at the 11th General Conference which featured a new clause in the Appropriation Resolution covering the receipt of ‘other funds’. The first two projects were funded by France, for the training of educational administrators in Africa, and by Sweden, for the development of education for girls and women in Africa. Funds-in-trust are cash contributions made available by Governments, organizations, private companies or individuals to enable UNESCO to carry out specific programmes and projects on behalf of the donor within the Organization’s fields of competence. Funds-in-trust contributions may be self-benefiting, if they are intended for activities within the donor’s own territory; if they are intended for activities elsewhere, they are called donated funds-in-trust. Funds-in-trust are operated on the basis of a specific agreement between the donor and UNESCO, or of a specific agreement between the donor and UNESCO on the one hand, and the benefiting Government and UNESCO on the other. Projects and programmes are proposed by member states or by UNESCO acting as a link between member states requesting assistance, and member states and organizations willing to provide the assistance. FIT is said to represent an amalgamation of bilateral and multilateral aid. Implementation of a funds-in-trust project is the responsibility of the project officer, whether at Headquarters or in a field office. Project officer reports are submitted to donors after review by the relevant programme sector. UNESCO’s services may consist of provision of personnel assistance, analysis and advice, the organization of training activities (including the administration of fellowships), the procurement of equipment, or other services consistent with the Organization’s mandate and requested by the donor. The associate expert scheme, under which young professionals are made available to UNESCO for two or three years, is operated as a funds-in-trust arrangement. FIT was most recently evaluated in 2012 and was studied by a Special Committee of the Executive Board in 1974.

The International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) came into being in April 1963 with the adoption of Resolution 1.213 at the 12th session of UNESCO’s General Conference. As a Category 1 Institute, the IIEP is an integral part of UNESCO and subscribes to its main priorities. It is governed by UNESCO’s rules and regulations, is directed by a UNESCO staff member, and is included within the Organization’s programme and budget under the Education Sector. At the same time, the Institute enjoys a large amount of autonomy with its own Governing Board, statutes, premises, four-year Medium-Term Strategy, staff, and budget. It also sets its own agenda and goals, while supporting the overall goals of UNESCO and is a key actor in the achievement of the Organization’s educational mission in particular. The core mission of the IIEP has remained focused on expanding knowledge in educational planning and building the capacity of UNESCO Member States to achieve their educational goals. Since its founding, the IIEP has been based in Paris, France and has also established two regional offices to better meet the unique needs of different areas. These are located in Buenos Aires, Argentina and Dakar, Senegal, which were established in 1997 and 2013, respectively. Previous to the 2013 establishment of the IIEP's Dakar office there had been an IIEP team attached to the UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Africa (BREDA), also located in Dakar.

As of 2021, the Institute is administered by a Governing Board that determines the Institute’s agenda, goals and budget, as delineated in its Statutes. The Governing Board consists of twelve members who are appointed by the Director-General of UNESCO, based on the recommendations of the IIEP Governing Board, each with a term period of four years. Eight of the members must be specialists in fields relevant to the IIEP’s mission, such as economics and education, with at least one member each from Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Arab States. Four of the members are designated by the United Nations, the World Bank, a UN Agency, and a UN Economic Commission. Every two years a Chair is elected by the Board, and the Director of the IIEP is appointed by the Director-General of UNESCO, with recommendations from the Board and a maximum term length of six years. This system of governance ensures that there is a balance between the IIEP’s autonomy and accountability to UNESCO.

The IIEP was conceived of in the early 1960s in the context of growing international recognition of education as both a human right, as established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, as well as a crucial element of economic growth and development. The field of educational planning, a multi-faceted and interdisciplinary field, emerged from increased demand for improved education systems that could contribute to countries’ social and economic development goals. This field remains relevant today, and the IIEP continues to help nations across the world plan and manage their education systems. While the IIEP initially focused its operations in developing nations, it now responds to demand for its services from nations at all levels of development. Since its inception, the IIEP has operated with the understanding that education is a basic human right and that in order to create a world where quality learning opportunities are universally available, educational planning must be comprehensive and suited to the contexts for which it is intended.

At its creation, the IIEP’s budget was financed about equally by UNESCO, the World Bank and the Ford Foundation. The first Director of the Institute, Philip H. Coombs, was formerly the Programme Director for Education at the Ford Foundation and the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs of the United States of America. Coombs played a crucial role in securing the IIEP’s funding, as his appointment ensured both the Ford Foundation’s initial grant and the financial support of the World Bank (Elfert, Maren. “Philip H. Coombs: Pioneer of Educational Planning.” Link 138, (2021): 6-7.). As of July 2021, the IIEP receives funding from a variety of sources, with UNESCO’s contribution forming the bedrock of its income. Other sources of income include other United Nations agencies, governments, public or private organizations, associations or individuals, and fees collected for special purposes.