Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming : methodological report.
Date: 2023-06-15
Institutions: European Institute for Gender Equality
Subjects: EU Member State, EU policy, EU statistics, European Institute for Gender Equality, database, equal treatment, gender equality, information centre, participation of women, report, sexual discrimination, virtual community, women's rights

Gender Statistics Database

Data collection on institutional 
mechanisms for gender equality  
and gender mainstreaming
Methodological report

European Institute
for Gender Equality

Data collection on 
institutional mechanisms 
for gender equality and 
gender mainstreaming
Methodological report

European Institute for Gender Equality

We are an independent centre and the primary source 
for  information  on  gender  equality  in  the  European 
Union.  We  contribute  to  making  the  European  Union 
become a Union of Equality, where women and men, 
girls  and  boys  in  all  their  diversity  are  free  to  pursue 
their  chosen  path  in  life,  have  equal  opportunities  to 
thrive,  and  can  equally  participate  in  and  lead  our 
societies. 

EIGE’s  unique  expert  knowledge,  research,  data  and 
tools  help  policy  makers  design  measures  that  are 
inclusive, transformative and promote gender equality 
in  all  areas  of  life.  We  communicate  our  expertise 
effectively  and  work  closely  with  partners  in  order  to 
raise awareness at the EU and national levels, as well 
as  in  EU  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidate 
countries.

European Institute for Gender Equality,  
EIGE Gedimino pr. 16 
LT-01103 Vilnius
LITHUANIA

Tel. +370 52157444 

Email: eige.sec@eige.europa.eu

Find us on 

 
 
 
 
Country codes

Country codes

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czechia

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

3

European Institute for Gender EqualityContents

Contents

Introduction 

1. Background:previousdatacollectionexercises

2. Measurementframeworkand questionnaire

2.1.  Overview 

2.2 

Indicator H1: Status of commitment to the promotion of gender equality 

2.3 

Indicator H2a: Personnel resources of the governmental gender equality body 

2.4 

Indicator H2b: Personnel resources of the designated body or bodies for the 
promotion of equal treatment of women and men 

2.5 

Indicator H3: Gender mainstreaming 

2.6 

Indicator H4: Production and dissemination of statistics disaggregated by sex 

2.7  General points related to the scoring model 

2.8  Comparability of data through time 

3. Methodofdatacollectionandanalysis

4. Referencemetadata

Annexes

Annex 1. Bodies covered in the study (mapping table) 

Annex 2. Contributing organisations, including national focal points 

Annex 3. Questionnaire 

Annex 4. Data gaps 

5

7

8

8

10

18

20

20

24

26

27

29

31

34

34

37

39

57

4

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportIntroduction

Introduction

This  report  outlines  the  approach  and  method-
ology  used  in  the  European  Institute  for  Gen-
der  Equality  (EIGE)  2021  data  collection  on 

institutional  mechanisms  for  the  promotion  of 
gender equality and gender mainstreaming.

Keydefinitions

Institutionalmechanismsforgenderequalityandgendermainstreaming refer to the bod-
ies and processes that serve to promote, advocate and support gender equality and the main-
streaming of gender issues across all areas of policy.

For monitoring purposes, ‘bodies’ refers to gender equality bodies convened at national level 
only. These are split into two types.

 • Governmentalgenderequalitybodies are bodies within government whose purpose is to 
design, coordinate and implement government policies for gender equality. Such bodies are 
normally located within the ministerial structures but can also be a government agency.

 •

Independentgenderequalitybodies are bodies outside government that are mandated 
to support the equal treatment of all persons without discrimination on the grounds of sex, 
sometimes as part of a wider equalities remit.

Establishing  institutional  mechanisms  to  pro-
mote  the  status  of  women  was  first  proposed 
during  the  World  Conference  on  the  Interna-
tional  Women’s  Year  in  1975.  Later,  in  1995,  the 
Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA) identified ‘Area 
H: Institutional mechanisms for the advancement 
of women’ as one of 12 critical areas for achiev-
ing gender equality. The BPfA also underlined the 
importance of institutional mechanisms for devel-
opments  in  the  11  remaining  areas  of  concern 
since the existence of effective national initiatives 
to promote and mainstream gender as a univer-
sal issue strengthens the capacity to implement 
relevant measures across all areas of concern.

The Council of the European Union has formally 
adopted a set of indicators to monitor the imple-
mentation Area H of the BPfA in the EU Member 
States (1):

 • H1  Status  of  governmental  responsibility  in 

promoting gender equality;

 • H2a Personnel resources of the governmental 

gender equality body;

 • H2b  Personnel  resources  of  the  designated 
body  or  bodies  for  the  promotion  of  equal 
treatment of women and men;

 • H3 Gender mainstreaming;

 • H4 Production and dissemination of statistics 

disaggregated by sex.

Following  a  review  of  the  conceptual  and  meas-
urement frameworks and an associated pilot data 
collection, a full data collection covering all Mem-
ber  States  was  undertaken  in  December  2021. 
The  data  were  compiled  by  researchers  in  each 
Member  State  who  collected  data  from  national 

(1)  A first set of indicators (H1 to H3) was adopted in 2006 and supplemented with indicator H4 in 2013.

5

European Institute for Gender EqualityIntroduction

focal points appointed by Member State authori-
ties. The authorities in France and Ireland did not 
participate  in  the  process  so  no  data  were  col-
lected  for  these  countries.  There  are  also  some 
isolated  gaps  in  the  data  for  other  countries 
due  to  difficulties  in  collecting  certain  pieces  of 
information. The data collected was subject to a 
comprehensive quality assurance process aimed 
at ensuring that the questions had been consist-
ently interpreted and answered so that the data 
are as accurate and comparable as possible.

The  report  is  structured  as  follows:  Section  1 
outlines  previous  data  collections  undertaken 
by EIGE in 2012 and 2018; Section 2 outlines the 
measurement  framework  used  in  the  current 
study and revisions made; Section 3 outlines the 
method  used  to  collect  and  analyse  the  data; 
 Section 4 outlines the reference metadata for the 
study.

6

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report1.  Background: previous data collection exercises

1. Background:previousdatacollection

exercises

The  development  of  indicators  to  monitor  the 
implementation  of  Area  H  of  the  BPfA  started 
in  June  2005  when  the  Council  of  the  European 
Union  invited  the  EU  Member  States  and  the 
European Commission to strengthen institutional 
mechanisms for promoting gender equality and 
to  create  a  framework  for  a  consistent  and  sys-
tematic  monitoring  of  progress.  The  Finnish 
Presidency prepared a report (2) on the issue and 
proposed three indicators that were subsequently 
adopted by the Council of the European Union in 
2006 (3). A fourth indicator, on the production and 
dissemination of statistics disaggregated by sex, 
was adopted by the Council in 2013 (4).

EIGE has conducted two previous data collection 
exercises  on  the  indicators  under  Area  H  of  the 
BPfA:  the  first  in  2012,  with  data  published  in 
a  report  in  2014  (5),  and  the  second  in  2018  (6). 
The  two  collections  were  based  on  slightly  dif-
ferent  conceptual 
frameworks.  The  concep-
tual  framework  for  the  2012  collection  closely 
aligned  with  the  BPfA,  in  that  the  dimensions 

of  the  conceptual  framework  followed  directly 
from  the  principles  set  out  in  the  platform.  The 
2018 collection was based on a revised concep-
tual  framework,  which  introduced  the  concept 
of ‘substantive representation’, which is linked to 
the effectiveness of institutional machineries and 
spelled out the role of all institutions that should 
be involved in the promotion of gender equality 
and mainstreaming.

A pilot study conducted in late 2019 also further 
informed revisions to the conceptual and meas-
urement framework used in this study (outlined in 
Section 2). Data was collected from eight Member 
States:  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  Poland,  Portugal, 
Romania, Finland and Sweden. The selection cri-
teria ensured that the countries were represent-
ative of the different degrees of advancement of 
institutional mechanisms for gender equality and 
gender  mainstreaming  in  the  EU.  The  selection 
was based on the country values of EIGE’s 2018 
data on institutional mechanisms.

(2)  Council of the European Union (2006), Review of the implementation by the Member States and the EU institutions of the Beijing Platform for 
Action ‒ Indicators in respect of institutional mechanisms, prepared by the Finnish Presidency, SOC 483, available at: https://data.consilium.
europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14376-2006-ADD-1/en/pdf.

(3)  Council of the European Union (2006), Council conclusions on review of the implementation by the Member States and the EU institutions of 
the Beijing Platform for Action ‒ Indicators in respect of institutional mechanisms, available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/
cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/91957.pdf.

(4)  Council of the European Union (2013), Council conclusions on the effectiveness of institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women 

and gender equality, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/139978.pdf.

(5)  EIGE (2014), Effectiveness of institutional mechanisms for the advancement of gender equality – Review of the implementation of the Beijing 
Platform  for  Action  in  the  EU  Member  States,  available  at:  https://eige.europa.eu/publications/effectiveness-institutional-mechanisms-
advancement-gender-equality-report.

(6)  Data from both exercises are published on EIGE’s Gender Statistics Database, available at: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/

browse/bpfa/bpfa_h.

7

European Institute for Gender Equality2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

2. Measurementframework

and questionnaire

This  section  describes  the  measurement  frame-
work applied for the collection of data on institu-
tional  mechanisms  in  2021  and  the  subsequent 
calculation  of  indicator  values.  It  provides,  first, 
an overview of the revised measurement frame-
work  and  how  it  differs  from  previous  versions, 
and  then  sections  dealing  with  each  of  the  four 
indicators and their respective sub-indicators.

2.1.Overview

The  measurement  framework  for  monitoring 
institutional  mechanisms  comprises  four  main 
indicators  (H1  to  H4),  each  with  a  number  of 
sub-indicators (Figure 1).

Compared  to  previous  iterations,  changes  have 
been made in two main areas.

 • Refinementofexistingsub-indicators aimed 
at  increasing  the  relevance  of  the  indicators 
to  the  current  circumstances  and  recognis-
ing that the context for, and what is expected 
of, gender equality and mainstreaming struc-
tures and processes has evolved since the key 
areas for action were set out in the BPfA. The 
refinements applied to a number of sub-indi-
cators, each of which is described in the rele-
vant sub-section below, meaning that the new 
framework gives more attention and weight to 
the  effectiveness  of  implementation  than  to 
the simple existence of relevant structures and 
processes. Two previously used sub-indicators 
have also been dropped because of a lack of 
current  relevance,  either  completely  (H1b  on 
the permanence of the governmental body) or 
by being subsumed into another sub-indicator 
(H4b on governmental commitment to the dis-
semination  of  gender  statistics  now  covered 
under H4a covering collection and dissemina-
tion together as production).

 • Additionofnewsub-indicatorsthat consider 
the involvement of independent gender equal-
ity  bodies.  With  the  exception  of  sub-indica-
tor  H2b  on  personnel  resources,  the  officially 
adopted  indicators  focus  on  the  activities  of 
governmental gender equality bodies. The new 
framework takes note of the 2015 Organisation 
for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development 
(OECD) recommendation on gender equality in 
public life (7), which advocates greater involve-
ment of independent gender equality bodies in 
the mainstreaming of gender issues across all 
areas of policy. It adds two new sub-indicators 
considering the role of independent bodies (H1f 
on  the  scope  of  the  mandate  and  functions) 
and  their  involvement  in  the  development  of 
national policies and programmes (H3d on the 
consultation of independent bodies).

The changes related to refinement of sub-indica-
tors  mean  that  the  data  for  affected  sub-indica-
tors and, therefore, for the top-level indicators to 
which they contribute is not directly comparable 
through time. Indeed, changes have been made 
not  only  to  the  content  of  sub-indicators  (i.e. 
through the wording of questions and what they 
aim  to  measure)  but  also  to  the  scoring  model, 
so the maximum score achievable for any given 
indicator  or  sub-indicator  may  be  different  now 
than in previous iterations.

For indicators H1 and H3, the addition of new sub-in-
dicators  creates  a  further  difference  compared  to 
previous iterations of the measurement framework. 
Nevertheless, the separation of data on independ-
ent bodies as distinct sub-indicators means that it is 
still possible to separate out the results for govern-
mental bodies in a way that aligns with the officially 
adopted indicators (i.e. by calculating H1 excluding 
H1f and H3 excluding H3d). These subtotals would 
still,  however,  be  subject  to  the  general  caveat 
regarding  comparability  through  time  because  of 
other refinements to their component sub-indica-
tors and associated scores.

(7)  OECD (2015), 2015 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Public Life, available at: https://www.oecd.org/gov/2015-

oecd-recommendation-of-the-council-on-gender-equality-in-public-life-9789264252820-en.htm.

8

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportFigure 1.Indicatorsformonitoringinstitutionalmechanismsforthepromotionofgenderequalityandgendermainstreaming,2021

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

H1 Status of commitment to the 
promotion of gender equality

H2 Human resources of the 
national gender equality bodies 

H2a: Personnel resources 
of the governmental body 

H2b: Personnel resources 
of the independent body 

H1a: Highest responsibility for 
promoting gender equality within 
government

H1b: Not used

H1c: Position of the governmental 
body within the government 
structure

H1d: Mandate and functions 
of the governmental body

H1e: Accountability of the 
government for the promotion 
of gender equality

H1f: Mandate and functions of the 
independent gender equality body

H4 Production and dissemination 
of statistics disaggregated by sex

H4a: Government 
commitment to the production of 
statistics disaggregated by sex

H1b: Not used

H4c: Effectiveness of efforts to 
disseminate statistics 
disaggregated by sex

H3 Gender mainstreaming

H3a: Status of government 
commitment to gender 
mainstreaming

H3b: Governmental gender 
mainstreaming structures 
and consultation processes 

H3c: Commitment to and use 
of methods and tools for 
gender mainstreaming

H3d: Consultation of 
independent bodies 

NB:

•  Shaded boxes (H1f and H3d) represent extensions to the measurement framework compared to previous iterations. Subtotals for indicators H1 and H3 excluding these sub-indicators provide data 

that focus on governmental commitments in line with the formally adopted indicators.

•  H1b:Existenceandpermanenceofagovernmentalgenderequalitybody. Sub-indicator dropped in 2021 – almost all countries have previously reported a permanent body and the question of 

‘permanence’ within government structures has limited meaning (see Section 2.2).

•  H4b:Governmentcommitmenttothedisseminationofstatisticsdisaggregatedbysex. Previously H4a covered legal obligations and other agreements covering the collection of gender statistics 
and H4b the same for dissemination. In practice these often covered the same laws/agreements, so the two have been combined as ‘production’ of gender statistics under H4a (see Section 2.6).

9

European Institute for Gender Equality2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

2.2 IndicatorH1:Statusof

commitmenttothepromotion
ofgenderequality

The  currently  adopted  definition  of  indicator  H1 
Status of governmental responsibility in promot-
ing gender equality (2006 Council conclusions (8) 
and  maintained  in  2013  conclusions  (9))  com-
prises five sub-indicators, the values of which are 
cumulated  to  produce  an  overall  result  for  the 
indicator:

H1a 

 highest responsibility for promoting gen-
der equality at the governmental level;

 •

 •

sub-indicator  H1d  was  extended  to  consider 
the scope of the mandate of the governmental 
gender equality bodies (gender equality alone 
or as part of a wider equalities remit) and its 
functions;

sub-indicator  H1e  was  refined  to  add  detail 
about the existence of a gender equality strat-
egy and the implementation of gender equal-
ity action plans;

 • a new sub-indicator H1f was added to describe 
the role (scope of the mandate and functions) 
of the independent gender equality body/ies.

H1b 

 existence  and  permanence  of  a  govern-
mental gender equality body;

Further  details  about  the  changes  to  sub-indi-
cators H1d and H1e are provided in the relevant 
sub-sections below.

H1c 

 position  of  the  governmental  gender 
equality  body  within  the  government 
structure;

Sub-indicator  H1b  on  permanence  has  been 
removed  because  of  a  lack  of  relevance,  given 
that all Member S

H1d 

 functions  of  the  governmental  gender 
equality body;

H1e 

 accountability  of  the  government  for  the 
promotion of gender equality.

The  revised  conceptual  framework  developed  in 
2021  recognised  (a)  that  independent  gender 
equality  bodies  and  governmental  bodies  may 
have  an  important  role  in  promoting  gender 
equality and (b) that there is a need to take into 
account  the  effectiveness  of  institutional  mech-
anisms,  not  just  their  existence.  Bearing  this  in 
mind, and also drawing on lessons learnt from the 
pilot data collection, indicator H1 was adapted in 
the following ways:

 •

sub-indicator H1b was dropped due to a lack 
of relevance;

tates  now  have  an  established  gender  equality 
body within their government structures. Indeed, 
this was already the case in previous collections 
as  virtually  all  countries  reported  having  a  per-
manent body (10). Moreover, the question of what 
might  be  considered  ‘permanent’  rather  than 
‘temporary’  is  somewhat  open  to  debate  given 
that  ministries,  their  remits  and  internal  struc-
tures,  tend  to  change  every  time  there  is  a  new 
government  and  often  between  times.  Indeed, 
the  most  ‘permanent’  of  structures  are  likely  to 
be  government  agencies,  which  are  established 
(in  body  and  function)  by  legislation  but  which 
(under the currently adopted scoring) score zero 
in  terms  of  their  position  within  government, 
which seems somewhat anomalous. The removal 
of  sub-indicator  H1b  will  not  have  any  substan-
tive impact on the results for H1 as a whole (apart 
from the absolute value of scores) because virtu-
ally all countries scored the maximum possible (2) 
in all years when the information was collected.

(8)  Council of the European Union (2006), Review of the implementation by the Member States and the EU institutions of the Beijing Platform for 
Action ‒ Indicators in respect of institutional mechanisms, prepared by the Finnish Presidency, SOC 483, available at: https://data.consilium.
europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14376-2006-ADD-1/en/pdf.

(9)  Council of the European Union (2013), Council conclusions on the effectiveness of institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women 

and gender equality, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/139978.pdf.

(10)  The only exceptions where the governmental body was reported as being temporary were Poland in 2005 and Denmark in 2018 (also 

no data for BG, HR or RO in 2005).

10

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

The revised list of sub-indicators under indicator 
H1  is  thus  as  listed  below.  In  addition,  because 
the  indicator  now  covers  independent  gender 
equality bodies in addition to governmental bod-
ies,  the  name  of  the  indicator  was  adjusted  to 
remove  the  reference  to  ‘governmental  respon-
sibility’ and refer instead to the overall (national) 
commitment to the promotion of gender equality. 
See Section 2.8 for further details on the changes 
compared to the currently adopted version.

b.  [not used]

c.  position of the governmental gender equality 

body within the government structure;

d.  mandate  and  functions  of  the  governmental 

gender equality body;

e.  accountability of the government for the pro-

motion of gender equality;

a.  highest  responsibility  for  promoting  gender 

f.  mandate  and  functions  of  the  independent 

equality at the governmental level;

gender equality body.

2.2.1 Sub-indicatorH1a:highest
responsibilityforpromotinggender
equalityatthegovernmentallevel

2.2.2 Sub-indicatorH1c:positionofthe
governmentalgenderequalitybodywithin
thegovernmentstructure

Sub-indicator  H1a  comprises  a  single  question 
with a maximum score of 2 (Table 1).

Sub-indicator  H1c  comprises  a  single  question 
with a maximum score of 2 (Table 2).

Table 1.Questionsincludedinscoringofsub-
indicatorH1a

Table 2.Questionsincludedinscoringofsub-
indicatorH1c

Questionandoptions

Score

Questionandoptions

Score

1

Highestlevelofresponsibilityforgender

equalitywithinthenationalgovernment

2.1

Leveloflocationofeachgovernmentalbodyfor

thepromotionofgenderequality

Senior minister (member of the government who 

has a seat on the cabinet or council of ministers)

Junior minister (members of the government who 

do not have a seat on the cabinet)

None: gender equality is not an explicit 

responsibility of the government

Maximumscore

2

1

0

2

Entire ministry

A section/department of a ministry

A government agency

No governmental body / no answer [implicit not 

explicit option]

Maximumscore

2

1

0

0

2

11

European Institute for Gender Equality2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

In  the  original  2006  Finnish  Presidency  report  (11) 
and  also  in  EIGE’s  2014  report  on  Area  H  (12),  this 
question was scored as:

Entire ministry or ‘highest level’ within a ministry

‘Intermediate level’ within a ministry

‘Lower level’ within a ministry or ‘independent body outside ministerial structures’

Option

Score

2

1

0

This  was  adapted  in  the  2019  data  collection 
(reference  year  2018)  as  shown  below.  The 
downgrading  of  the  different  levels  of  sections/
departments  compared  to  the  previous  scor-
ing resulted in lower scores for many countries. 

There  are  also  some  apparent  anomalies  in  the 
2018  data  regarding  the  classification  of  some 
governmental  bodies  and  a  review  and  possible 
rescoring of this data is recommended.

Entire ministry

‘Highest level’ section/department within a ministry

Option

‘Intermediate level’ section/department within a ministry or a body outside the ministerial structures.

Score

2

1

0

The  scoring  model  was  further  adapted  in  the 
current  exercise  to  apply  the  model  shown  in 
Table  2,  which  aimed  to  (a)  avoid  the  subjective 
determination  of  ‘highest’  versus  ‘intermediate’ 
(or ‘low’) levels within a ministry, and (b) rename 
the category of ‘independent body outside minis-
terial structures’ to ‘government agency’ to avoid 
confusion  with 
independent  gender  equality 
bodies.

2.2.3 Sub-indicatorH1d:mandateand
functionsofthegovernmentalgender
equalitybody

This  sub-indicator  assesses  the  extent  to  which 
the governmental gender equality body/ies have 
a  mandate  to  implement  key  functions  referred 
to under strategic objective H1 of the BPfA, which 
requires  that  the  governmental  gender  equal-
ity  body  ‘should  have  clearly  defined  mandates 
and  authority;  critical  elements  would  be  ade-
quate resources and the ability and competence 
to  influence policy and formulate and review

legislation;  among  other  things,  it  should  per-
form policy analysis, undertake advocacy,
communication,coordinationandmonitoring
of implementation’.  In  this  respect,  the  2021 
questionnaire asked about a wider set of possible 
functions  that  governmental  bodies  might  fulfil, 
split  into  ‘main’  and  ‘additional’  functions  (Q2.3 
and  Q2.4  respectively,  see  details  in  Annex  3). 
However, to ensure (as far as possible) coherence 
with previous data, only the four key functions of 
drafting  gender  equality  policy,  reviewing  other 
policies from a gender perspective, coordinating/
implementing  government  decisions  on  gender 
equality  and  coordinating/implementing  gender 
mainstreaming  are  currently  taken  into  account 
for  the  scoring  of  the  indicator.  Each  function 
scores  0.5,  thus  contributing  a  maximum  of  2 
towards the total for the sub-indicator (Table 3).

Note  that  as  per  Section  2.7,  where  there  are 
multiple  governmental  bodies  the  responsibili-
ties for different functions may be split between 
them and a country will score positively for each 

(11)  Council of the European Union (2006), Review of the implementation by the Member States and the EU institutions of the Beijing Platform for 
Action ‒ Indicators in respect of institutional mechanisms, prepared by the Finnish Presidency, SOC 483, available at: https://data.consilium.
europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14376-2006-ADD-1/en/pdf.

(12)  EIGE (2014), Effectiveness of institutional mechanisms for the advancement of gender equality: review of the implementation of the Beijing 
Platform  for  Action  in  the  EU  Member  States,  available  at:  https://eige.europa.eu/publications/effectiveness-institutional-mechanisms-
advancement-gender-equality-report.

12

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

(scoring)  function  that  is  carried  out  by  at  least 
one of the bodies.

The  sub-indicator  also  covers  a  new  question 
(Q2.2)  regarding  the  scope  of  the  mandate  of 
the governmental gender equality, i.e. whether it 
is  solely  focused  on  gender  equality  or  includes 
gender equality as part of a wider equalities man-
date. This effectively defines the envelope within 
which  the  body  delivers  the  functions  under  its 
mandate. This question is thus used to refine the 
results  for  sub-indicator  H1c.  However,  recog-
nising that there is not a clear consensus on the 

pros and cons of treating gender separately or as 
part of a wider equalities remit (13), the question 
is scored with a maximum of 1 rather than 2 (i.e. 
half  weight).  This  gives  a  maximum  of  3  for  the 
sub-indicator as a whole (Table 3).

The  scoring  of  the  functions  of  gender  equality 
bodies, both for governmental bodies under this 
sub-indicator and for independent bodies under 
sub-indicator  H1f,  is  not  straightforward  and 
remains an area for further reflection before the 
next  data  collection.  Issues  related  to  functions 
are discussed separately in Section 2.2.7.

Table 3.Questionsincludedinscoringofsub-indicatorH1d

Questionandoptions

Score

2.2 Scopeofthemandateofeachgovernmentalbodyforthepromotionofgenderequality

Exclusively gender equality

Gender equality combined with other equality-related functions, for example, the promotion of equal treatment of all 

people without discrimination on other grounds

2.3 Functionsofeachgovernmentalbodyforthepromotionofgenderequality

Drafting gender equality policy for the government

Drafting anti-discrimination (on grounds other than sex or gender) policy for the government

Conducting gender sensitive analysis of policies and legislation

Coordinating and/or implementing government decisions on gender equality

Coordinating and/or implementing gender mainstreaming processes and methodologies, including gender budgeting

Monitoring progress in achieving gender equality

Maximumscore

1

0

0.5

0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0

3

2.2.4 Sub-indicatorH1e:accountabilityof
thegovernmentalgenderequalitybody

The  currently  adopted  version  of  sub-indicator 
H1e  dealing  with  accountability  of  the  govern-
mental gender equality body covers the existence 
of (a) a national action plan and (b) a system for 
regular  reporting  by  the  governmental  body  to 
parliament. These scored one point each, giving 
a maximum of 2 for the sub-indicator in line with 
all other sub-indicators.

The sub-indicator has been refined to give more 
focus on substantive implementation in line with 
the  2015  OECD  recommendations  (14),  namely 

that  there  should  be  a  strategy,  which  is  imple-
mented  through  a  concrete  action  plan  that  is 
adequately  costed  and  sets  specific  and  quan-
tifiable  targets  that  can  be  regularly  monitored 
to  assess  performance.  This  change  was  imple-
mented through the inclusion of scores for ques-
tions 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 (Table 4).

All  the  indicators  for  Area  H  are  scored  under 
the  general  principle  that  all  questions  within 
a  sub-indicator  have  equal  weight.  In  this  case, 
however,  two  of  the  three  new  questions  (3.5 
and  3.6)  deal  with  the  concrete  implementation 
of gender equality action plans through the use 
of  quantifiable  targets  and  whether  or  not  they 

(13)  Although  the  2014  report  comes  down  in  favour  of  bodies  having  gender  equality  as  a  sole  focus,  it  recognises  that  ‘some  experts 

believe that a multi-disciplinary approach is effective’.

(14)  2015  OECD  Recommendation  of  the  Council  on  Gender  Equality  in  Public  Life,  available  at:  https://www.oecd.org/gov/2015-oecd-

recommendation-of-the-council-on-gender-equality-in-public-life-9789264252820-en.htm.

13

European Institute for Gender Equality2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

are regularly monitored. Consequently, these are 
treated as equivalent to one question in total (0.5 
points each) such that the maximum score for the 
sub-indicator is 5.

In the questionnaire, questions 3.4 to 3.6 dealing 
with  the  costing,  use  of  targets  and  monitoring 
thereof,  are  answered  in  relation  to  each  action 
plan, which may include a national gender equal-
ity  plan,  a  wider  national  equalities  plan  or  sec-
toral plans addressing gender equality in specific 
areas. For scoring purposes, the implementation 
questions are scored only in relation to overarch-
ing national plans (exclusively gender equality or 
gender with other equalities). Implementation of 
sectoral plans is not taken into account.

For question 4 on reporting to legislative bodies, 
the full score of 1 is achieved if there is a system 

of regular reporting to parliament (at least once 
a year), with half a point awarded if the reporting 
is either less regular or indirect (to a parliamen-
tary committee rather than to the full parliament). 
The  point  of  this  question  is  to  ensure  that  the 
governmental body is accountable to parliament 
so the scoring differentiates, in the first instance, 
between regular reporting (at least once a year) 
and  less  frequent  or  ad  hoc  reporting  (or  no 
reporting  at  all,  which  would  score  zero).  Parlia-
mentary committees are established to consider, 
and  report  on,  specific  issues  on  behalf  of  the 
parliament so that, although reporting to a par-
liamentary committee is not direct to parliament, 
where the monitoring is regular and the commit-
tee is specifically established to deal with gender 
equality  issues  (this  was  an  explicit  requirement 
in the questionnaire), this is considered at least as 
good as infrequent reporting direct to parliament.

Table 4.Questionsincludedinscoringofsub-indicatorH1e

3.2 Existenceofanationalstrategyforgenderequality

There is an overall strategy on gender equality

Questionandoptions

Score

1

There is a national strategy for equality covering gender equality together with other equality and non-discrimination issues

0.5

There are sectoral strategies on specific aspects of gender equality (health, education, agriculture, etc.)

There is no strategy on gender equality

3.3 Existenceofanationalactionplanforgenderequality

There is an overall national action plan on gender equality

0

0

1

There is a national action for equality covering gender equality together with other equality and non-discrimination issues

0.5

There are sectoral action plans on specific aspects of gender equality (health, education, architecture, etc.)

There is no action plan on gender equality

3.4 Hasthenationalactionplanforgenderequalitybeencostedorbudgetedfortheperiodcoveredbytheactionplan?

Yes

Partly

No

3.5 Doesthenationalactionplansetspecifictargetstobeachieved?

Yes

No

3.6 Isthenationalactionplanregularlymonitored,toassesswhetherthetargetssetoutintheplanarebeingachieved?

Yes

No

4

Doesthegovernmentalbodyforthepromotionofgenderequalityregularlyreporttotheparliamentontheprogress
madeongenderequalityandgendermainstreaminginitiatives?

There is a system of regular reporting of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality to the parliament, 
i.e. at least once a year

There is a system of reporting of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality to the parliament, but it is 
not regular

There is a separate parliamentary committee which includes gender equality as a specific and named part of its brief that 
regularly (i.e. at least once a year) monitors the work of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality

Maximumscore

14

0

0

1

0.5

0

0.5

0

0.5

0

1

0.5

0.5

5

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

2.2.5 Sub-indicatorH1f:mandateand
functionsoftheindependentgender
equalitybody

Sub-indicator H1f is a new indicator (as explained 
in  Section  2.2).  It  captures  the  scope  and  func-
tions  of  the  independent  body  in  the  same  way 
that H1d captures the scope and functions of the 
governmental gender equality body/ies, although 
with  the  ‘main’  and  ‘additional’  sets  of  functions 
reversed  in  line  with  the  expected  role  of  an 

independent gender equality body (see Q7.2 and 
Q7.3 in the questionnaire, Annex 3).

As  with  sub-indicator  H1d,  only  the  ‘main’  func-
tions  of  the  independent  body  are  scored  and 
only four of the five options included in the ques-
tionnaire (Table 5). Issues related to the scoring of 
functions  are  discussed  further  in  Section  2.2.7. 
Also in line with sub-indicator H1d, the question 
on  the  scope  of  the  mandate  is  scored  at  half 
weight.

Table 5.Questionsincludedinscoringofsub-indicatorH1f

Questionandoptions

Score

7.1 Scopeofthemandateofeachindependentbodyforthepromotionofgenderequality

Exclusively gender equality

Gender equality combined with other equality-related functions, for example, promotion of equal treatment of all people 

without discrimination on other grounds

7.2 Functionsofeachindependentbodyforthepromotionofgenderequality

Conducting research on gender equality issues

Integrating gender equality considerations in EU and international affairs

Publishing and disseminating information and training on gender equality

Providing legal support for victims of discrimination on the grounds of sex or gender 

Deciding on complaints on discrimination on the grounds of sex

Maximumscore

1

0

0.5

0

0.5

0.5

0.5

3

2.2.6 OverallscoringofindicatorH1

In  the  currently  adopted  scoring  model  (2014 
report),  the  overall  score  for  indicator  H1  is 
derived from the sum of the sub-indicators H1a to 
H1e. Each of these scored a maximum of 2 such 
that  each  sub-indicator  contributes  equally  to 
the overall score for H1 (i.e. maximum 10). In the 
current revision of the measurement framework, 
the inclusion of additional questions to refine the 
data for sub-indicators H1d and H1e means that 
these sub-indicators now have maximum scores 
of 3 and 5, respectively, and therefore a greater 
weight  in  the  final  result.  The  new  sub-indicator 
H1f also has a maximum score of 3.

Although  it  would  be  possible  to  normalise  the 
scores  of  each  sub-indicator  to  give  each  equal 
weight in the overall score for H1, it was consid-
ered  preferable  and  more  understandable  for 
users  to  stick  to  the  simple  sum  approach.  The 
extra  weight  imparted  by  the  higher  scoring 

sub-indicators  (H1d,  H1e,  H1f)  is  justifiable  on 
the basis that the additional scores largely derive 
from  questions  that  focus  on  the  effectiveness 
and  accountability  of  the  institutional  mecha-
nisms developed in each country.

2.2.7 Issuesrelatedtothescoringof
functions

Indicators  H1d  and  H1f  deal  with  the  scope  of 
the  mandate  and  the  functions  undertaken  by 
governmental and independent gender equality 
bodies, respectively. The recording and scoring of 
functions is, however, not straightforward. There 
are two main issues.

The  first  is  the  potentially  subjective  interpreta-
tion  of  (a)  what  the  function  entails  and  (b)  the 
extent  to  which  it  is  a  mandated  task  of  the 
body.  Different  interpretations  combined  with 
the  risk  of  a  quick  tick-box  type  approach  when 

15

European Institute for Gender Equality2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

confronted with a list of options creates a risk of 
over reporting.

The second is how to score the functions of both 
governmental  and  independent  bodies  whilst 
maintaining the possibility to separate the efforts 
of each.

2.2.8 Interpretation,mandateandcapacity
todeliver

Whilst the questionnaire used for data collection 
included  metadata  items  that  were  used  to  val-
idate  responses  to  many  of  the  questions,  this 
was not the case for functions and for the most 
part there is no readily available means to test the 
reliability of the responses provided. An exception 
is the function ‘Conducting gender sensitive anal-
ysis of policies and legislation’, which is scored as 
a  main  function  of  governmental  bodies  (Q2.3). 
Here the response can be considered against:

Q13.1: Frequency of consultation of governmen-
tal bodies about new or existing policies, laws or 
programmes  (in  policy  fields  other  than  gender 
equality);

Q5: Personnel resources.

In this respect, the following can be observed.

Five  countries  (BE,  HR,  CY,  LV,  RO)  indicate  that 
gender  sensitive  analysis  of  policies  and  legisla-
tion  is  a  function  of  the  governmental  body  but 
under Q13.1 report that the governmental body 
is  never  consulted  about  policies  in  fields  other 
than gender equality.

On  the  other  hand,  four  countries  indicate  that 
the  function  is  not  undertaken  but  then  report 
significant  consultation:  IT  (majority  of  laws/pol-
icies, 50–75 %); LT, NL, AT (some, 25–50 %).

The  meaning  of  these  apparently  contradictory 
answers is not clear. It could possibly reflect a dif-
ferent interpretation of the two questions, though 

this  is  not  intended.  Otherwise  it  raises  some 
concerns  about  the  reliability  of  the  responses 
and whether these concerns might apply also to 
other functions.

There is also the question of whether the availa-
ble resources of the body allow the function to be 
implemented  effectively,  which  ought  to  be  the 
case if the function is really part of the mandate 
of the body. The level of resources available thus 
represents a form of plausibility test. For example, 
Bulgaria reports that the function is undertaken 
(Q2.3)  and  that  the  body  is  consulted  on  all or
nearlyall laws/policies (Q13.1) but has very low 
levels of resources (2.25 persons) to fulfil this task 
alongside all of the other functions that the body 
is reported to undertake (all five of the remaining 
‘main’  functions  and  two  additional  functions).  It 
seems  unlikely  that  all  these  functions  could  be 
fulfilled  effectively  with  so  few  resources.  Slova-
kia  is  a  similar  case  (3.25  staff,  consultation  on 
all  laws/policies,  undertaken  alongside  a  further 
main and two additional functions).

There is clearly a need before the next data col-
lection  to  consider  how  the  recording  of  func-
tions  can  be  improved.  More  detailed  guidance 
on what each function entails and what the body 
is  expected  to  do  could  be  a  starting  point.  But 
the  level  of  resources  should  also  be  taken  into 
account  somehow.  It  might  be  considered,  for 
example, to impose some constraints so that the 
indicators  take  into  account  only  functions  that 
are  adequately  resourced.  This  would,  however, 
be more difficult to define and monitor and might 
only  serve  to  overcomplicate  the  data  collection 
process,  which  needs  to  be  as  straightforward 
and transparent as possible.

2.2.9 Scoringoffunctions

The list of functions used in the 2021 survey was 
developed  from  the  list  used  in  2018.  For  gov-
ernmental bodies these were split into ‘main’ and 
‘additional’ functions based on conceptual expec-
tations of what are fundamental requirements (15) 

(15)  For  example,  strategic  objective  H1  of  the  BPfA  requires  that  the  governmental  gender  equality  body  ‘should  have  clearly  defined 
mandates  and  authority;  critical  elements  would  be  adequate  resources  and  the  ability  and  competence  to  influence policy and
formulate and review legislation;  among  other  things,  it  should  perform policy analysis, undertake advocacy, communication,
coordinationandmonitoringofimplementation’.

16

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

and  what  are  less  critical,  supplementary,  func-
tions. To maintain coherence with previous data, 
only four of the six ‘main’ functions were actually 
scored. Recording of the functions of independ-
ent bodies was new to the 2021 data collection. 

For  this,  the  lists  of  main  and  additional  func-
tions used for governmental bodies were simply 
reversed  (Table  6).  Again,  only  four  of  the  main 
functions were scored (to ensure the same maxi-
mum score of 2 for both bodies).

Table 6.Functionsofgovernmentalandindependentgenderequalitybodies

Draftinggenderequalitypolicyforthegovernment

Drafting anti-discrimination (on grounds other than sex or gender) policy for the government

Conductinggendersensitiveanalysisofpoliciesandlegislation

Coordinatingand/orimplementinggovernmentdecisionsongenderequality

Main

Additional

Governmental

Independent

Coordinatingand/orimplementinggendermainstreamingprocessesand

methodologies,includinggenderbudgeting

Monitoring progress in achieving gender equality

Conductingresearchongenderequalityissues

Integrating gender equality considerations in EU and international affairs

Publishinganddisseminatinggenderequalityrelatedinformationandtraining

Additional

Main

Providinglegalsupportforvictimsofdiscriminationonthegroundsofsexorgender

Decidingoncomplaintsofdiscriminationonthegroundsofsex

NB: Functions in grey italics are not scored.

The  approach  is  not  perfect,  in  that  the  split  of 
main/additional functions and how they are attrib-
uted to the different bodies may not be appropri-
ate to all institutional contexts and creates a risk 
that some important functions are delivered but 
not  reflected  in  scoring.  For  example,  six  coun-
tries  report  that  ‘Conducting  gender  sensitive 
analysis of policies and legislation’, a core activity 
in relation to gender mainstreaming, is not under-
taken  by  the  governmental  body  (DE,  IT,  LT,  LU, 
NL, AT). In two cases, however, it is undertaken by 
the independent body (LT, NL). Because the func-
tion is scored only in relation to the governmental 
body,  the  input  of  the  independent  body  is  not 
taken into account.

Similarly,  some  of  the  main  functions  expected 
of and scored only for an independent body may 
be  undertaken  only  by  a  governmental  body. 
For example, ‘Providing legal support for victims 
of  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  sex  or  gen-
der’  in  Greece  and  ‘Deciding  on  complaints  on 
discrimination on the grounds of sex’ in Austria. 
Again,  these  efforts  are  not  taken  into  account 

in scoring because the functions are not under-
taken in accordance with expectations.

Whilst the approach taken for this collection fol-
lows  that  of  previous  exercises  in  terms  of  the 
main  functions  scored  for  governmental  bod-
ies, there is room for further reflection on which 
functions should be scored for each type of body. 
For  example,  ‘Integrating  gender  equality  con-
siderations in EU and international affairs’, which 
was  treated  this  time  as  an  additional  function 
of  governmental  bodies  and,  therefore  (follow-
ing  the  reverse  categories  approach)  as  a  main 
function  of  independent  bodies,  might  be  con-
sidered a main function of governmental bodies 
that  should  be  included  in  scoring.  In  the  2021 
data, this is reported as a function of the govern-
mental body in 23 of the 24 Member States that 
responded to Q2.4 (i.e. all except Latvia and the 
three  countries  that  did  not  answer:  IE,  FR,  HU) 
but as a function of the independent body in only 
12  countries  (BE,  BG,  CZ,  DE,  EE,  ES,  HR,  IT,  MT, 
PL,  PT,  FI).  In  all  of  the  latter  cases,  this  implies 
that  the  function  is  carried  out  by  both  govern-
mental  and  independent  bodies  and  it  would 

17

European Institute for Gender Equality2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

be  necessary  to  understand  what  this  means  in 
practice in order to come to a conclusion about 
how the function should be treated.

unrealistic  even  after  allowing  for  reasonable 
price/wage differentials.

In  short,  further  work  is  needed  on  the  report-
ing and scoring of functions. As a starting point, 
better  guidelines  are  needed  to  ensure  a  com-
mon interpretation of what each function entails 
and  when  it  can  be  considered  as  a  mandated 
function of the body. In relation to scoring, then 
working from the premise that there is an added 
value of having (sub)indicators that treat govern-
mental and independent bodies separately, sep-
arate scoring of functions for each type of body 
will  have  to  be  maintained.  At  the  same  time, 
if  all  functions  are  scored  against  both  bodies 
there  is  a  risk  of  some  functions  being  scored 
twice so some form of compromise solution will 
be needed. It is key, however, to ensure that the 
solution  adopted  remains  clear  and  straightfor-
ward to implement.

2.3 IndicatorH2a:Personnel

resourcesofthegovernmental
genderequalitybody

2.3.1 Dataonfinancialresources

In  line  with  other  revisions  to  improve  the  rele-
vance of indicators, it was planned that indicators 
H2a  and  H2b  should  cover  not  only  personnel 
resources but also financial resources as a further 
indication  of  the  commitment  to  the  promotion 
of  gender  equality  and  evidence  that  the  rele-
vant  bodies  are  suitably  equipped  to  fulfil  their 
mandates.  Although  data  on  financial  resources 
were  collected,  the  data  were  often  incomplete, 
for  example  because  countries  were  apparently 
unable to identify the costs of the gender equal-
ity section/department/unit from the wider costs 
of  the  parent  ministry.  Moreover,  even  where 
data  have  been  provided,  the  quality  assurance 
process  raised  significant  concerns  about  data 
quality. For example a basic plausibility test of the 
data  on  personnel  costs  in  relation  to  the  num-
ber  of  personnel  reported  showed  wildly  differ-
ent results between countries that are completely 

18

It  is  not  entirely  clear  why  the  information  was 
so  problematic  and  this  raises  questions  about 
financial  transparency  within  government.  The 
questionnaire asked for administrative costs (per-
sonnel and overheads), which even if not readily 
available ought to be straightforward to estimate, 
and project/programme costs, for which the rel-
evant  unit  should  be  responsible  and  therefore 
have  access  to.  Further  consideration  of  this 
issue, more input from countries on the reasons 
why such data are so difficult, and possibly recom-
mendations on possible estimation methods, are 
needed  for  future  collections.  In  the  meantime, 
the  incompleteness  of  the  data  and  concerns 
about data quality mean that financial data can-
not currently be used for indicators H2a or H2b.

2.3.2 Scoringofthedataonpersonnel
resources

Data  on  the  total  number  of  employees  of  gov-
ernmental  gender  equality  bodies  are  collected 
in Q5.1 for bodies focused only on gender equal-
ity and in Q5.2 for bodies with a wider equalities 
remit. In the case of equality bodies with a wider 
remit  (i.e.  when  there  are  data  for  Q5.2),  Q5.3 
also  collects  data  on  the  proportion  of  the  time 
that  the  total  employees  reported  in  Q5.2  work 
on gender equality issues. The data are collected 
as  a  broad  range  (0–25  %,  25–50  %,  50–75  %, 
75–100 %).

To  calculate  the  total  governmental  person-
nel  resources  allocated  to  gender  equality,  the 
total employees reported under Q5.2 are (sepa-
rately for each body) adjusted by the proportion 
reported  under  Q5.3  (always  using  the  upper 
limit  of  the  range)  and  then  added  to  the  total 
reported under Q5.1 as per this formula:

[Total  gender  equality  only  staff,  5.1]  +  ([Total 
general equalities staff, 5.2] × [Proportion of time 
spent on gender equality, 5.3])

For scoring purposes, this total resources figure 
has previously been normalised (e.g. by express-
ing  resources  per  million  of  population  or  per 

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

million persons employed) to try and avoid issues 
of comparability created by differences between 
countries  in  the  size  of  their  ministries.  In  prac-
tice, however, analysis of the data shows that this 
approach clearly tends to give higher results for 
smaller  countries  and  lower  results  for  larger 
countries. A refinement of this approach could be 
to express the gender equality personnel in rela-
tion to the numbers employed in central govern-
ment,  but  the  data  are  too  incomplete  to  make 
this  practical.  Even  after  taking  into  account  the 
latest  figures  for  2018,  2019  or  2020  to  try  and 
ensure  the  maximum  coverage,  there  are  still 
data missing for 10 Member States (16).

that  a  core  minimum  number  of  people  would 
be  required  to  deliver  effective  services  across 
all areas of activity related to promotion of gen-
der  equality  in  all  countries.  For  many  of  the 
functions  covered,  particularly  for  governmental 
bodies,  there  is  no  reason  why  a  small  country 
should need less resources than a large country 
(e.g. to review proposed legislation across all pol-
icy  areas).  This  argument  is  less  valid  in  relation 
to  tasks  such  as  review  of  discrimination  cases 
where a large country is likely to have more cases, 
but  such  functions  are  in  the  minority  from  all 
those scored so it is reasonable to go with what 
works for the majority.

In light of these challenges, the approach taken 
is  to  score  based  on  the  absolute  numbers  of 
personnel reported (as calculated using the for-
mula above). There are of course potential issues 
of  comparability  because  of  the  different  insti-
tutional  structures  and  sizes  in  Member  States. 
However,  there  is  also  justification  on  the  basis 

Fundamentally,  a  team  of  two  or  three  within  a 
unit  of  a  ministry  does  not  have  anywhere  near 
the same capacity as a team of 25 or more in a 
dedicated  department  or  separate  agency.  This 
is  true  irrespective  of  the  size  of  the  population 
served and the scoring now reflects this (Table 7).

Table 7.QuestionsincludedinscoringofindicatorH2a

Question/option

Maximum
score

Combinedresultsof:

5.1Whatisthetotalnumberofemployeesineachgovernmentalgenderequalitybody(remitgenderequality

only)?

5

5.2Whatisthetotalnumberofemployeesineachgovernmentalequalitybody(widerequalitiesremit)?

5.3Approximatelywhatpercentageofpersonneltimeisspentonprojectsfocusedongenderequality?Please

notethatthiscanincludeprojectsthattakeanintersectionalapproachandcovergenderequalityandother

diversitycharacteristics.

100 or more

25–100

10–25

5–10

0–5

Maximumscore

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

3

(16)  BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, HR, MT, AT, RO, SI. See data published by the International Labour Organization on public employment by sectors and 

sub-sectors of national accounts (category Government level: General government – central). Data extracted in May 2022.

19

European Institute for Gender Equality2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

2.4 IndicatorH2b:Personnelresources
ofthedesignatedbodyorbodies
forthepromotionofequal
treatmentofwomenandmen

Questions  currently  included  in  the  scoring  of 
indicator  H2b  are  shown  in  Table  8.  The  scor-
ing  model  applied  is  exactly  the  same  as  for 

indicator H2a (i.e. based on absolute numbers of 
personnel).

Table 8.QuestionsincludedinscoringofindicatorH2b

Question

Maximum
score

Combinedresultsof:

8

8.1Whatisthetotalnumberofemployeesineachindependentgenderequalitybody(remitgenderequalityonly)?

8.2Whatisthetotalnumberofemployeesineachindependentequalitybody(widerequalitiesremit)?

8.3Approximatelywhatpercentageofpersonneltimeisspentonprojectsfocusedongenderequality?

100 or more

25–100

10–25

5–10

0–5

Maximumscore

2

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

3

2.5 IndicatorH3:Gender
mainstreaming

The currently adopted indicator H3 (2014 report) 
is compiled as the sum of scores for three ‘aspects’ 
with an overall maximum score of 10. For consist-
ency  with  H1  these  ‘aspects’  will  henceforth  be 
referred to as ‘sub-indicators’:

bodies in relation to gender sensitive policymak-
ing. Following this, questions were added about 
the  frequency  and  effectiveness  of  consultation 
of  independent  bodies  about  new  policies/pro-
grammes. In line with the approach for indicator 
H1,  these  have  been  separated  out  as  an  addi-
tional sub-indicator (H3d) to ensure that govern-
mental  and  independent  efforts  can  be  scored 
separately. The revised list of sub-indicators is:

a.  Status  of  the  government’s  commitment  to 

a.  Status of government commitment to gender 

gender mainstreaming (maximum 2);

mainstreaming (maximum 2);

b.  Gender mainstreaming structures (maximum 4);

b.  Governmental  gender  mainstreaming  struc-
tures and consultation processes (maximum 4);

c.  Commitment to and use of methods and tools 

for gender mainstreaming (maximum 4).

c.  Commitment to and use of methods and tools 

The  revised  measurement  framework  refines 
these sub-indicators by including questions that 
aim  to  measure  not  only  the  existence  of  gen-
der  mainstreaming  structures,  consultation  pro-
cesses and tools/methods, but also their extent/
effectiveness. The conceptual framework was also 
extended  in  line  with  the  Commission’s  recent 
legislative proposals and the 2015 OECD recom-
mendation to strengthen the role of independent 

20

for gender mainstreaming (maximum 6);

d.  Consultation  of  independent  gender  equality 

bodies (maximum 2).

Each sub-indicator is discussed in the rest of this 
section.

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

2.5.1 Sub-indicatorH3a:Statusof
governmentcommitmenttogender
mainstreaming

Sub-indicator  H3a  comprises  a  single  question 
with a maximum score of 2 (Table 9).

Table 9.Questionsincludedinscoringofsub-indicatorH3a

Questionandoptions

Score

11

Whatisthestatusofthegovernment’scommitmenttogendermainstreaminginthenationalpublic

administrationinyourcountry?

There is an enforceable legal obligation regarding the implementation of gender mainstreaming

There is a legal obligation regarding the implementation of gender mainstreaming without provisions for 

enforcement or sanctions

There is a de facto binding decision of the government regarding gender mainstreaming

There is some other kind of policy commitment from the government regarding gender mainstreaming

There is no commitment from the government regarding gender mainstreaming

Maximumscore

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

2

2.5.2 Sub-indicatorH3b:Governmental
gendermainstreamingstructuresand
consultationprocesses

Sub-indicator  H3b  covers  governmental  gender 
mainstreaming  structures  and  consultation  pro-
cesses  designed  to  ensure  that  gender  issues 
are  taken  into  account  across  all  policy  areas. 
The  scoring  is  intended  to  align  with  the  idea 
that  gender  mainstreaming  activities  should 

be  well  structured  and  universal  within  govern-
ment,  thus  giving  little  or  no  score  to  partial 
efforts.  Compared  to  previous  data  collections, 
the  questions  have  been  expanded  to  measure 
not only the existence of structures and consul-
tation  processes  but  also  their  extent/effective-
ness. Each aspect is scored but with half weight 
so that the maximum score for the sub-indicator 
is unchanged (4, see Table 10).

Table 10.Questionsincludedinscoringofsub-indicatorH3b

Questionandoptions

Score

12.1

WhatstructuresareinplacetocoordinategendermainstreamingacrossgovernmentMinistries/

departments?

Interdepartmental coordination structure that includes contact persons in ministries/departments

Other structures for gender mainstreaming across the different government ministries/departments

External coordination structure

No coordination structure

12.2 Whatproportionofministries/departmentsareincludedinthestructure?

All ministries (more than 75 %) 

Most ministries (50–75 %)

Some ministries (25–50 %)

Very few ministries (less than 25 %)

13.1

Howregularlyaregovernmentalbodiesforthepromotionofgenderequalityconsultedbydepartmentsor

ministriesaboutneworexistingpolicies,lawsorprogrammes(inpolicyfieldsotherthangenderequality)?

For all or nearly all policies, laws or programmes developed (more than 75 %)

1

0.5

0

0

1

0.5

0

0

1

21

European Institute for Gender Equality2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Questionandoptions

For the majority of policies, laws or programmes developed (50 %–75 %)

For some policies, laws or programmes developed (25 %–50 %)

Is never consulted, or is consulted only in few cases (less than 25 %)

No consultation takes place as departments or ministries have an internal mechanism for ensuring gender equality 
in new or existing policies, laws or programmes

Ifthegovernmentalbodiesforthepromotionofgenderequalityareconsultedaboutneworexisting

13.2

policies,lawsorprogrammes,howoftendoestheinvolvementofthegovernmentalbodyleadtorelevant

adjustments?

All or nearly all cases (more than 75 %) 

Majority of cases (50–75 %)

Some cases (25–50 %)

Never or in few cases (less than 25 %)

Maximumscore

Score

0.5

0

0

0

1

0.5

0

0

4

In the questionnaire, Q12.3 also asked about the 
resources (number of staff) allocated to the gen-
der mainstreaming structure but the data remain 
incomplete. In addition to the four countries that 
have not answered at all on this issue (IE, FR, HU, 
PL), there are no data on resources for five of the 
20 countries that report having some form of gen-
der mainstreaming structure (IT, LV and NL report 
no relevant structure). A possible scoring method 
would be to consider the personnel of the main-
streaming structure in relation to the number of 
ministries in the country (i.e. a per-ministry meas-
ure).  Data  on  the  number  of  ministries  in  each 
Member  State  is  readily  available,  and  updated 

each quarter, from EIGE’s data collection on polit-
ical decision-making.

Table  11  shows  the  results  for  the  15  countries 
that  have  provided  the  relevant  data.  However, 
further work would be needed to ensure compa-
rability  of  the  data  before  it  can  be  included  in 
scoring. For example, the high figure for Belgium 
is  partly  because  the  number  reported  includes 
alternates,  while  the  low  figure  for  Finland  is 
because  the  number  reported  is  an  adjusted 
full-time equivalent number (24 persons but only 
2  person-years  of  input  specifically  for  gender 
mainstreaming).

Table 11.Resourcesofgendermainstreamingstructures(ascurrentlyreported)

Staffperministry

Less than 1

1–5

5 or more

Countries

CZ, EL, CY, LT, SK, FI

BG, ES, HR, PT, RO, SI, SE

BE, AT

2.5.3 Sub-indicatorH3c:Commitmentto,
anduseof,methodsandtoolsforgender
mainstreaming

The  questions  covered  by  sub-indicator  H3c  are 
shown  in  Table12.  These  cover  obligations  to 
undertake  gender  impact  assessments,  obliga-
tions and actual use of gender budgeting, aware-
ness raising in relation to use of gender sensitive 
language,  and  the  delivery  of  gender  equal-
ity  training  to  different  groups  of  government 
employees and whether or not this is mandatory. 

Effectively these are six questions scored equally 
at 1 point each but in practice the method used 
to score the two questions about gender equality 
training  is  slightly  more  complicated  in  order  to 
take  into  account  the  dimensions  related  to  the 
frequency of the training and the different levels 
of government employees to whom the training 
is addressed (see Table 12).

Two further questions planned for inclusion in the 
sub-indicator  (Q17  about  the  use  of  evaluations 
and Q18 about centralised initiatives to promote 

22

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

gender mainstreaming within government) have 
been  excluded  from  the  current  scoring  model 
because of concerns about the data quality (see 

Section 4) but should be restored in future once 
the questions have been refined and data quality 
improved.

Table 12.Questionsincludedinscoringofsub-indicatorH3c

14

15

Istherealegalobligationtoundertakeanexantegenderimpactassessmentwhendraftinglawsand/or

policies/plans/programmes(excludinggenderbudgeting)?

Questionandoptions

Score

Yes

In some cases

No

Istherealegalobligationtoundertakegenderbudgetingforaministerialbudgetorthebudgetofother

governmentalinstitutions?

Yes

In some cases

No

16 Genderbudgetinginministerialbudgetsandinthebudgetsofothergovernmentalinstitutionsis:

Widely used in most ministries

Used by some ministries

Still in its foundational stages

Practically an unknown concept

19

20

Havetherebeenanycentralinitiativestoraiseawarenessontheimportanceofgender-sensitivelanguage

amongministriesandothergovernmentalbodiesinthepast3years?

Yes

No

Combinationof:

Aregovernmentalemployeesinvolvedingenderequalitytraining?

21 Isthegenderequalitytrainingmandatory?

From question 20, the highest single score obtained from the matrix below

Allormost
government
employees

Highestlevel
(ministers,vice
ministers)

Employeesof
governmental
genderequality
body

Someemployees
ofotherministries/
departments

1

0.5

0.75

0.375

0.5

0.25

0.5

0.25

Yes, on a regular 
basis (at least once 
a year)

Yes, on an ad hoc 
basis

Maximumscore

1

0.5

0

1

0.5

0

1

0.5

0

0

1

0

2 

(maximum)

6

2.5.4 Sub-indicatorH3d:Consultationof
independentgenderequalitybodies

As noted above, this new indicator measures the 
input  of  independent  gender  equality  bodies  in 
the  process  of  ensuring  that  gender  issues  are 
addressed  across  all  areas  of  policy.  Scoring  is 

exactly the same as for the equivalent questions 
for governmental bodies covered under sub-indi-
cator H3b.

23

European Institute for Gender Equality2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Table 13.Questionsincludedinscoringofsub-indicatorH3d

10.1

10.2

Howregularlyareindependentbodiesforthepromotionofgenderequalityconsultedbydepartmentsor

ministriesaboutneworexistingpolicies,lawsorprogrammes(inpolicyfieldsotherthangenderequality)?

Questionandoptions

Score

For all or nearly all policies, laws or programmes developed (more than 75 %)

For the majority of policies, laws or programmes developed (50 %–75 %)

For some policies, laws or programmes developed (25 %–50 %)

Never consulted, or consulted only in a few cases (less than 25 %)

No consultation takes place as departments or ministries have an internal mechanism for ensuring gender equality 

in new or existing policies, laws or programmes

Ifindependentbodiesforthepromotionofgenderequalityareconsultedaboutneworexistingpolicies,laws

orprogrammes,howoftendoestheinvolvementoftheindependentbodyleadtorelevantadjustments?

All or nearly all cases (more than 75 %)

Majority of cases (50–75 %)

Some cases (25–50 %)

Never or in few cases (less than 25 %)

Maximumscore

1

0.5

0

0

0

1

0.5

0

0

2

2.5.5 OverallscoringofindicatorH3

In  the  currently  adopted  scoring  model  (2014 
report), the overall score for indicator H3 is derived 
from the sum of the sub-indicators (aspects) H3a 
to  H3c,  respectively  scoring  2,  4  and  10  points, 
making  a  maximum  of  16.  In  the  current  revi-
sion of the measurement framework, H3a to H3c 
score 2, 4 and 6 points, respectively, and the new 
H1d a further 2 points, making a maximum of 14.

2.6 IndicatorH4:Productionand
disseminationofstatistics
disaggregatedbysex

The currently adopted indicator H4 is compiled as 
the sum of scores for three ‘aspects’ with an over-
all  maximum  score  of  6.  As  for  H3  above,  these 
aspects  are  now  treated  as  sub-indicators.  The 
sub-indicators and scores for H3 are:

a.  Government commitment to the collection of 
statistics disaggregated by sex (maximum 2);

b.  Government  commitment  to  the  dissemina-
tion  of  statistics  disaggregated  by  sex  (maxi-
mum 2);

c.  Methods in use for the dissemination of gen-

der statistics (maximum 2).

The first two sub-indicators both dealt with legal 
obligations or other forms of agreement govern-
ing  both  the  collection  (H4a)  and  dissemination 
(H4b) of statistics disaggregated by sex. There are 
two issues with this approach. Firstly, it is difficult 
to  disentangle  obligations  to  collect  data  from 
obligations  to  disseminate  data,  which  meant 
that a single general obligation would be counted 
under both sub-indicators. Secondly, it is not clear 
that  legislation  requiring  the  collection/dissem-
ination  of  gender  statistics  is  a  prerequisite  for 
the  effective  and  comprehensive  production  of 
such data, particularly given that national statisti-
cal offices would ideally operate independently of 
government  to  avoid  selective  dissemination  of 
data and ensure that information on key issues – 
including gender differentials – is publicly availa-
ble. See, for example, comments from Finland on 
this issue in the latest data collection (17).

(17)  Comment provided by Finland as metadata to Section 4 of the questionnaire: ‘Despite there being no legal obligation to provide gender 
statistics, there is an established custom among relevant institutions to gather and analyse data on gender. Gender equality statistics 
have been published for decades. The first statistics on the position of women were published in 1980, simultaneously with the first 
governmental  gender  equality  programme,  which  stressed  the  need  of  statistics.  The  positive  equality  duty  of  authorities  obligates 
Statistics Finland, as does the Beijing Platform requirements. All information concerning persons is collected disintegrated by sex.’

24

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

For  this  reason,  the  questions  asked  in  2021 
focused  less  on  government  commitments  and 
more  on  what  happens  in  practice.  Effectively, 
previous  sub-indicators  H4a  and  H4b  were 
merged  into  a  broadened  H4a  referring  to  gov-
ernment  commitment  to  the  ‘production’  of  sta-
tistics (i.e. covering collection and dissemination 
together). While sub-indicator H4c was expanded 
to consider not only the methods used to dissem-
inate gender statistics but also the intensity and 
accessibility of the efforts made.

The revised list of sub-indicators is as follows:

a.  Government  commitment  to  the  production 
of  statistics  disaggregated  by  sex  (maximum 
2);

b.  [Not used – incorporated under H4a];

c.  Effectiveness  of  efforts  to  disseminate  statis-

tics disaggregated by sex (maximum 4).

2.6.1 Sub-indicatorH4a:Government
commitmenttotheproductionofstatistics
disaggregatedbysex

Sub-indicator  H4a  was  presented  in  the  ques-
tionnaire as four separate sub-questions (23.1 to 
23.4) each with a yes/no response. This approach 
allowed for the existence of more than one type 
of legislation/agreement governing the collection 
and  dissemination  of  statistics  disaggregated 
by sex. For scoring purposes, however, the data 
is  scored  as  one  question  from  which  a  single 
option is selected (Table 14). Where multiple laws/
agreements are reported, only the highest scor-
ing case is taken into account.

Table 14.Questionsincludedinscoringofsub-indicatorH4a

23 Whatformsofobligationsexistregardingtheproductionofstatisticsbysex?

Questionandoptions

A legal obligation (besides the EU regulations) for the national statistical office to collect data disaggregated by sex

A legal obligation for other public institutions to collect data disaggregated by sex

Other kinds of agreement (i.e. policy) to collect data disaggregated by sex (regular collection)

Other kinds of agreement (i.e. policy) to collect data disaggregated by sex (ad hoc collection)

Maximumscore

Score

2

1.5

1

0.5

2

2.6.2 Sub-indicatorH4c:Effectiveness
ofeffortstodisseminatestatistics
disaggregatedbysex

Sub-indicator H4c measures the effectiveness of 
efforts  to  disseminate  statistics  disaggregated 
by sex. Questions on dissemination efforts focus 
on whether there is a dedicated website, or sec-
tion  of  a  website,  dedicated  to  gender  statistics 
(up to 2 points) and the accessibility of the data 

presented  there  (maximum  1  additional  point). 
Then,  irrespective  of  whether  dissemination  is 
via  a  dedicated  site  or  not,  the  final  questions 
ask about the intensity of efforts in terms of the 
regularity  with  which  analytical  publications  and 
gender statistics are disseminated. These efforts 
also score a maximum of 1, giving a maximum of 
4 points for the sub-indicator. The scoring is out-
lined in Table 15.

Table 15.Questionsincludedinscoringofsub-indicatorH4a

24.1

Isthereaspecificwebsiteorsectionofawebsite(e.g.ofnationalstatisticalofficesand/orother

governmentalbodies)thatisdevotedtoprovidinggenderstatistics?

Questionandoptions

There is a specific website

The national statistical office website has a section on gender statistics

Score

2

2

25

European Institute for Gender Equality2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

The website of the governmental body has a section on gender statistics

There is no website or section of a website devoted to gender statistics

Questionandoptions

Accessibility of the data on this website (each option scores one third of a point in case of a ‘yes’ answer, zero for 
‘no’, giving a maximum of 1 for accessibility)

24.2 Doestherelevantwebsiteorsectionofwebsiteincludeathematicbreakdownofthestatisticsitcovers?

24.3

24.4

25.1

Doestherelevantwebsiteorsectionofwebsiteprovideaccessdirectlytorelevantdatasetsthatcanbeboth

viewedonlineanddownloaded?

Doestherelevantwebsiteorsectionofwebsiteprovidedirectaccesstorelevantpublicationsand/oronline

analysesofgenderstatistics?

Intensity of dissemination efforts

Arethereregularpublications(e.g.reports,infographics)thatanalysegenderstatisticsbynational/federal

statisticalofficesand/orothergovernmentalbodies?

Yes, there are regular publications, i.e. at least once a year

There are only ad hoc publications

There are no publications on gender statistics

25.2 Aregenderstatisticsdisseminatedonaregularbasis?

Yes

No

Maximumscore

Score

1

0

0.33

0.33

0.33

2

0.5

0

0

0.5

0

4

2.7 Generalpointsrelatedtothe

scoringmodel

The  way  in  which  responses  have  been  scored 
depends on the type of question.

2.7.1 Scoringofmultiplebodies

The questionnaire allows for reporting from mul-
tiple  governmental  gender  equality  bodies  and 
multiple  independent  gender  equality  bodies. 
This  means  that  there  are  potentially  multiple 
answers to some questions.

Single option questions.  When  the  question 
allows just one answer per body (e.g. Q2.1 regard-
ing the level of the body), the question is scored 
according  to  the  highest  score  achieved  by  the 
bodies covered. In the example below, the coun-
try with two governmental bodies (a department 
of  a  ministry  and  a  government  agency),  would 
score 1.

Body

1

2

A section/department of a ministry

A government agency

Option

Score

1

0

Multiple option questions.  When  the  question 
allows  multiple  answers  per  body,  the  question 
is  scored  according  to  the  score  for  the  unique 
set of responses reported for all relevant bodies. 
In  the  example  below  (Q2.3)  the  country  would 

score the full available 2 points because all four 
of the scoring functions (two are not scored, see 
Section  2.2.3)  are  carried  out  by  at  least  one  of 
the bodies covered even though individually they 
only carry out three of the scoring functions each.

Drafting gender equality policy for the government

Option

Drafting anti-discrimination (on grounds other than sex or gender) policy for the government

Conducting gender sensitive analysis of policies and legislation

Coordinating and/or implementing government decisions on gender equality

Score Body1 Body2

0.5

0

0.5

0.5

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

26

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Coordinating and/or implementing gender mainstreaming processes and methodologies, including 

Option

gender budgeting

Monitoring progress in achieving gender equality

Score Body1 Body2

0.5

0

No

No

Yes

No

Data  from  questions  on  the  frequency  of  gen-
der  equality  training  for  different  subgroups  of 
government employees and whether or not it is 
mandatory (Q20, Q21) are combined into a single 
score, as described in Table 12.

2.8 Comparabilityofdatathrough

time

The  specifications  of  each  of  the  four  indicators 
outlined above include some changes compared 
to  the  currently  adopted  versions,  as  detailed 
in  EIGE’s  2014  report.  These  are  summarised  in 
Table 16.

Changes  to  the  coverage  of  an  indicator,  to  the 
scores  attributed  to  the  different  components 
(questions)  of  an  indicator,  or  to  the  scoring 
method (e.g. H2a and H2b) all have some impact 
on the final results and, therefore on the compa-
rability  of  data  through  time.  As  can  be  seen  in 
Table 16, some changes (compared to the 2014 
report)  have  been  applied  to  almost  all  indica-
tors  and  sub-indicators  (H3a  is  an  exception) 
such that the data cannot be considered directly 
comparable  with  that  from  previous  collections. 
There were also changes between the collections 
undertaken  in  2012  and  2018.  This  means  that 
the  data  cannot  be  treated  as  a  coherent  time 
series  and  users  will  have  to  be  appropriately 
warned of this point when the data are published.

Note  that  if  any  rules  regarding  the  scoring  of 
multiple  bodies  were  established  in  the  2014 
study, their treatment is not documented. Annex I 
of the report dealing with methodology notes in 
relation to Q2.1 (level of governmental body) that 
in case of multiple governmental bodies informa-
tion should be reported in relation to ‘the one in a 
key position in the design/implementation of the 
government  gender  equality  policies’  and  that 
information  on  any  other  governmental  bodies 
should  be  covered  ‘in  a  later  question’.  But  this 
later question does not appear to exist as there 
is  no  reference  anywhere  else  to  governmental 
bodies  other  than  the  ‘main’  one.  Although  not 
explicitly described, this implies that all scoring in 
relation to governmental bodies covered only the 
‘main’ body. For independent bodies, Q6.1 gath-
ered information on one body (either focused on 
gender  alone  or  together  with  other  equalities) 
and there is a separate question (6.2) dealing with 
‘other’ independent bodies (though no evidence 
to  suggest  that  these  are  taken  into  account  in 
scoring).

2.7.2 Scoringofmultipleoptionsfor
multiplecases

In the questionnaire, some questions allow mul-
tiple options to be applied across multiple cases.

In relation to the costing, targeting and monitor-
ing  of  action  plans  (Q3.4,  Q3.5,  Q3.6),  data  can 
be provided for the national action plan for gen-
der equality, a wider equalities action plan and for 
sectoral plans. In this case only responses related 
to one overarching plan are scored (either purely 
gender equality or gender equality together with 
other  equalities,  but  not  both)  and  any  data  for 
sectoral plans is not scored.

27

European Institute for Gender Equality2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Table 16.Changestoindicatorsformonitoringinstitutionalmechanisms,2021v2014

Indicator

2014

2021

Changes

H1

Statusofgovernmentalresponsibility

Statusofcommitmenttothe

inpromotinggenderequality

promotionofgenderequality

Differences in sub-indicators as listed 

below. Name changed to accommodate 

inclusion of independent bodies.

Highest responsibility for promoting 

Highest responsibility for promoting 

Some differences through time 

H1a

gender equality at the governmental 

gender equality at the governmental 

(particularly in 2018 data) regarding the 

level

H1b

Existence and permanence of a 

governmental gender equality body

level

[not used]

scoring of different levels.

Dropped

Position of the governmental gender 

Position of the governmental gender 

Some differences through time 

H1c

equality body within the government 

equality body within the government 

(particularly in 2018 data) regarding the 

structure

structure

scoring of different levels.

H1d

H1e

H1f

H2

H2a

Functions of the governmental gender 

Mandate and functions of the 

equality body

governmental gender equality body

Extended coverage

Accountability of the government for 

Accountability of the government for 

Extended coverage to inform on 

the promotion of gender equality

the promotion of gender equality

effectiveness of implementation

Mandate and functions of the 

independent gender equality body

New sub-indicator

Humanresourcesforthepromotion

Humanresourcesforthepromotion

ofgenderequality

ofgenderequality

Personnel resources of the 

Personnel resources of the 

governmental gender equality body

governmental gender equality body

New scoring method

Personnel resources of the designated 

H2b

body or bodies for the promotion of 

equal treatment of women and men

Personnel resources of the 

independent gender equality body

New scoring method

H3

Gendermainstreaming

Gendermainstreaming

H3a

Status of the government’s 

Status of government commitment to 

commitment to gender mainstreaming

gender mainstreaming

H3b

Gender mainstreaming structures

Gender mainstreaming structures and 

and how they are scored. Sub-indicator 

consultation processes

name updated to better reflect the 

Minor refinements to the questions 

issues addressed.

Minor refinements to some of the 

H3c

H3d

H4

Commitment to and use of the methods 

Commitment to, and use of, methods 

questions and how they are scored. 

and tools for gender mainstreaming

and tools for gender mainstreaming

Issue related to the use of evaluations 

not covered due to data quality issues.

Consultation of independent gender 
equality bodies

New sub-indicator

Productionanddisseminationof

Productionanddisseminationof

statisticsdisaggregatedbysex

statisticsdisaggregatedbysex

Governmental commitment to the 

Governmental commitment to the 

H4a

production of statistics disaggregated 

production of statistics disaggregated 

by sex

by sex

Governmental commitment to 

Modified to effectively combine previous 

H4a and H4b.

H4b

the dissemination of statistics 

[not used]

Subsumed under H4a

disaggregated by sex

H4c

Methods in use for the dissemination of 

Effectiveness of efforts to disseminate 

gender statistics

statistics disaggregated by sex

Refined to assess the effectiveness of 

dissemination efforts rather than just 

the use of different methods

28

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report3.  Method of data collection and analysis

3. Methodofdatacollectionandanalysis

This section outlines the steps taken throughout 
the study to collect and analyse the data.

Howwasthedatacollected?

Whocollectedthedata?

Data  was  primarily  collected  by  national  focal 
points  who  were  individuals  appointed  by  the 
Member  States.  Most  national  focal  points  were 
employees  of  the  governmental  equality  body, 
although  one  (SK)  was  a  non-governmental 
organisation  (NGO).  The  job  titles  and  organisa-
tions  of  the  national  focal  points  are  detailed  in 
Annex 2.

National researchers were involved in each Mem-
ber State to work with national focal points. Their 
role was, firstly, to support the national focal point 
to  collect  data,  such  as  to  carry  out  additional 
interviews,  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden 
on  the  national  focal  point.  Secondly,  national 
researchers  were  trained  on  the  data  collection 
tools  and  guidelines  and  thus  able  to  support 
the national focal points to collect more accurate 
data.

As  outlined  in  Annex  1,  other  institutions  also 
contributed to data collection through providing 
data,  primarily  national  statistical  offices  in  rela-
tion to indicator H4.

National  researchers  and  national  focal  points 
worked  together  in  different  ways,  at  the  direc-
tion  of  the  national  focal  point.  Some  national 
independently,  with 
focal  points  worked 
their  responses  later  checked  by  the  national 
researcher  against  the  guidelines,  whereas  oth-
ers worked closely together via online meetings 
to complete the questionnaire together. National 
focal  points  asked  that  the  national  researchers 
pre-populate  the  questionnaire  based  on  desk 
research.  All  information  was  validated  by  the 
national focal point.

Data was collected through a questionnaire (see 
Annex  2)  structured  in  four  parts:  responsibility 
and resources of the governmental body/ies for 
the promotion of gender equality; responsibility, 
resources and consultation of independent body/
ies for the promotion of gender equality; gender 
mainstreaming; and collection and dissemination 
of statistics disaggregated by sex. The question-
naire was organised in-part by the relevant bod-
ies to make it easier for respondents to complete, 
rather  than  aligning  it  with  the  structure  of  the 
indicators.

Howwasdatastored?

Data  was  collected  through  an  online  ques-
tionnaire.  The  online  questionnaire  allowed  for 
automatic filtering of questions according to the 
mandate of the relevant bodies for the promotion 
of gender equality and ‘pull-through’ of the names 
of  bodies,  once  entered,  across  the  question-
naire. This reduced the risk of human error. The 
online  questionnaire  could  only  be  accessed  by 
the national focal point and national researcher.

All  data  collected  from  individuals  outside  the 
organisation  of  the  national  researcher  was 
recorded  in  an  editable  PDF.  Information  from 
the editable PDF was added to the online ques-
tionnaire by the national researcher. This allowed 
all data inputs to be easily traceable.

Howwasdataqualityassured?

A  thorough  data  quality  process  was  imple-
mented following the collection of the data. This 
involved  three  steps.  Quality  assurance  focused 
on the following.

1)  Firstly,  on  completeness,  ensuring  all  ques-
tions,  including  metadata,  had  been  com-
pleted for each Member State.

29

European Institute for Gender Equality3.  Method of data collection and analysis

2)  Secondly,  metadata  questions  were  used  to 
check data accuracy of the main question, i.e. 
if  a  legal  citation  had  been  provided  for  the 
indication  legal  measures  were  in  place  or 
relevant  description  of  the  measure.  Where 
the  question  required  a  judgement  by  the 
national  focal  point,  the  reasoning  provided 
was  checked  to  establish  whether  it  was  log-
ical and sound.

National  researchers  were  asked  to  liaise  with 
the  national  focal  points  to  address  all  quality 
assurance  issues  and  amend  the  online  ques-
tionnaire.  In  a  few  instances,  the  data  provided 
by the national focal points was considered not in 
compliance with the guidelines, most commonly 
because  of  insufficient  evidence  and  ultimately 
the data was changed by the central study team, 
most commonly to ‘don’t know’.

3)  Thirdly,  data  was  compared  and  sense-
checked  across  Member  States  to  help  iden-
tify issues of non-comparability. This was done 
in  response  to  learning  from  the  pilot  study 
which  showed  unexplained  high  degrees  of 
variation between Member States, particularly 
regarding personnel and financial resources.

For all quality assurance decisions, strict reference 
was  made  to  the  guidelines,  which  were  shared 
with  the  national  researchers  and  national  focal 
points.  The  guidelines  set  out  definitions  of  key 
terms and information on how questions should 
be interpreted.

Howwasdatascored?

Scoring was carried out using the measurement 
framework outlined in Section 2 and implemented 
by  the  central  study  team.  The  scoring  was  not 
shared with the national researchers or national 
focal points to avoid biasing responses (18). Follow-
ing data quality assurance, where significant data 
quality  issues  were  identified  that  could  not  be 
addressed, the decision was made not to include 
the question in the scoring (see Section 4).

(18)  The risk of bias occurs in case of questions for which the response is potentially liable to a degree of subjectivity (e.g. assessing the 
proportion of laws/policies that are reviewed by a gender equality body). Here the choice could be influenced by knowing the score that 
derives from the choice made. Given a choice between two categories the respondent might, even subconsciously, opt for the higher-
scoring category if they want the country to score well or the lower-scoring category if they have a negative view of the country’s efforts 
in this respect.

30

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report4.  Reference metadata

4. Referencemetadata

This section outlines reference metadata for the 
current data collection.

Referencearea

EU Member States.

Timecoverage

Data  were  collected  regarding  the  situation  in 
December 2021.

Frequencyofdatacollectionandreference
period

Data  have  been  collected  in  ad  hoc  collections 
in  2012  (published  in  2014),  2018  (published  in 
2019) and 2021.

The next data collection is expected in 2024.

Completeness

In the current data collection, there are data gaps 
due to lack of or limited response from the rele-
vant authorities and because of data quality con-
cerns. All data gaps, by question, are outlined in 
Annex 4.

There  is  no  data  for  France  and  Ireland,  or  for 
the  independent  body  in  Slovakia,  because  no 
response  was  received  from  the  respective 
authorities.  There  are  significant  data  gaps  for 
Hungary  across  the  questionnaire  because  of 
data quality concerns and limited response from 
the authorities.

There  were  three  instances  where  data  was  not 
considered  accurate  and  it  was  not  scored.  This 
has led to data gaps for the following.

Questions  on  financial  resources  under  H2a 
and  H2b  were  incomplete  for  many  countries 

because data was reported as unavailable for the 
costs of the gender equality section/department/
unit from the wider costs of the parent ministry. 
Moreover, even where data have been provided, 
the  quality  assurance  process  raised  significant 
concerns  about  data  quality.  For  example,  a 
plausibility  test  of  the  data  on  personnel  costs 
in relation to the number of personnel reported 
showed wildly different results between countries 
that are unrealistic even after allowing for reason-
able price/wage differentials.

Q17 of the questionnaire about the use of eval-
uation as a gender mainstreaming tool – i.e. the 
extent to which policy evaluations integrate gen-
der  equality  concerns  into  the  questions  asked 
and  assessed.  The  wording  of  the  question  is 
not considered to have been sufficiently clear to 
many  respondents,  and  no  definition  was  pro-
vided in the guidelines.

Q18  asked  about  ‘central  initiatives’  designed  to 
raise awareness of gender mainstreaming issues 
across  government  (all  ministries,  agencies  and 
other relevant bodies). In practice, the responses 
obtained indicate that respondents did not always 
appreciate that the focus was on raising capacity 
within government, so answers included actions 
aimed at the public (e.g. campaign to counter the 
rise of domestic violence during the pandemic) or 
at businesses (e.g. awards for companies with a 
gender action plan).

Accuracy

Data  can  largely  be  considered  accurate  due  to 
the  quality  assurance  process  whereby  all  data 
was  checked  for  coherence  with  the  question-
naire  guidelines  (further  outlined  in  Section  3). 
It  should  however  be  noted  that  institutional 
mechanisms  are  often  highly  complex  and  con-
text specific and thus cannot be fully captured in 
a quantified measurement framework.

31

European Institute for Gender Equality4.  Reference metadata

Data  accuracy  is  somewhat  weakened  where  it 
relied on an estimation by the national focal point. 
This includes questions about:

 •

the  percentage  of  personnel  time  and  finan-
cial resources allocated to gender equality for 
bodies with a mandate not exclusively for gen-
der equality (Q5.3, Q8.2);

 • how regularly governmental and independent 
bodies are consulted (Q10.1, Q13.1) and how 
often consultation leads to adjustments (10.2, 
Q13.2);

 • how widely gender-budgeting is used (Q16);

 •

the  percentage  of  databases  with  sex-disag-
gregated data (Q24.5).

The risk of inaccurate responses was mitigated to 
some  extent,  by  asking  for  percentages  accord-
ing  to  four  broad  categories  (0–25  %,  25–50  %, 
50–75 %, 75 %–100 %), rather than an exact per-
centage. While information was asked about how 
an estimate was made, where this was provided, 
the  answers  in  nearly  all  cases  referred  to  the 
national  focal  points’  experience,  rather  than  a 
verifiable source.

It is difficult to assess the accuracy of questions 
20  and  21  on  training  as  no  information  was 
asked  for  in  the  questionnaire  on  the  source  of 
the answer.

In  three  instances,  the  data  was  not  considered 
accurate following the quality assurance process. 
The decision was made to not score the data and 
record these instances as a data gap (see ‘Com-
pleteness’ above).

Samplingerror

No  sampling  error  has  been  identified.  All  bod-
ies identified were validated by the national focal 
points. The bodies are mapped in Annex 1.

Independent  bodies  were  identified  based  on 
membership of the European Network of Equal-
ity  Bodies  (EQUINET)  as  a  reliable  source  to  val-
idate  findings.  There  are  two  exceptions  where 

32

independent  gender  equality  bodies  covered  in 
the 2021 data are not members of EQUINET.

 •

 •

Italy:  the  National  Equality  Counsellor  (Con-
sigliera  Nazionale  di  Parita)  is  not  a  current 
EQUINET member but was previously. The cur-
rent  EQUINET  member  for  Italy  (Ufficio  Nazi-
onale  Antidiscriminazini  Razziali)  deals  with 
racial discrimination only and has no respon-
sibility for gender equality issues.

Finland: data cover the Ombudsman for Equal-
ity (EQUINET member) and TANE (Council for 
Gender  Equality),  which  is  not  an  EQUINET 
member.  TANE  is  a  unique  body  in  the  Euro-
pean context but has an important role in gen-
der  equality.  It  is  formed  of  parliamentarians 
drawn from all parties in accordance with their 
representation in parliament so does not rep-
resent the government only and is not obliged 
to  follow  government  policy/direction.  TANE 
also  has  members/permanent  advisors  from 
NGOs.

Comparabilityacrosscountries

Data are considered comparable between Mem-
ber States but it is important to note that the form 
institutional  mechanisms  take  naturally  varies 
across  countries  in  response  to  different  social, 
political  and  institutional  contexts.  However,  the 
questionnaire,  measurement 
framework  and 
method  has  been  honed  over  time  to  allow  for 
and  respond  to  this  variation  to  ultimately  pro-
duce data that is as comparable as possible.

Comparabilityovertime

Comparability  of  data  over  time  is  restricted  by 
changes to the sub-indicators, the questionnaire 
and scoring of the data, which mean that the data 
cannot be considered to provide a coherent time 
series.  See  details  in  Section  3  of  the  methodo-
logical report.

Coherencewithotherdatasets

None.

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report4.  Reference metadata

Datarevision

Mappingtables

No revision to past data occurred, but it has been 
recommended  that a review  of  the  2018 data is 
undertaken  to  check  on  some  of  the  classifica-
tions and scores applied.

See Annex 1 for the independent and governmen-
tal  bodies  for  the  promotion  of  gender  equality 
bodies covered in the study.

33

European Institute for Gender EqualityAnnexes

Annexes

Annex1.Bodiescoveredinthestudy(mappingtable)

The below table outlines the bodies covered in the study: the governmental and independent body/ies for the promotion of gender equality.

Member
State

Governmental 
body1

Governmental 
body1(nationallanguage)

Governmental 
body2

Governmental 
body2(national
language)

Independentbody1

Independentbody1 
(nationallanguage)

Independent
body2

Independent 
body2(national
language)

BE

Institute for the Equality of 

Institut pour l’égalité des femmes et 

Women and Men

des hommes

Policy for People with 

Дирекция политики за хора с 

BG

Disabilities, Equal Opportunities 

увреждания, равни възможности 

and Social Benefits Directorate

и социални помощи

Department for Gender 

CZ

Equality, Office of the Czech 

Government

Odbor rovnosti žen a mužů (Úřad 

vlády ČR)

DK

Department of Gender Equality

Ligestillingsafdelingen

Division for Gender Equality 

DE

within the Federal Ministry for 

Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, 

Women and Youth

Abteilung ‘Gleichstellung’ im BMFSFJ

EE

Equality Policies Department

Võrdsuspoliitikate osakond

General Secretariat for 

Γενική Γραμματεία Δημογραφικής 

EL

Demographic and Family Policy 

και Οικογενειακής Πολιτικής και 

and Gender Equality

Ισότητας των Φύλων

Research Centre for 

Κέντρο Ερευνών για Θέματα 

Gender Equality

Ισότητας

ES

Ministry of Equality

Ministerio de Igualdad

HR

Office for Gender Equality

Ured za ravnopravnost spolova

IT

Department for Equal 

Opportunities

Dipartimento per le pari opportunità

34

Institute for the 

Equality of Women 

and Men

Commission for 

Protection against 

Discrimination

Public Defender of 

Rights

Danish Institute for 

Human Rights

Institut pour l’égalité entre les 

hommes et les femmes

комисия за защита от 

дискриминация

Veřejný ochránce práv

Institut for Menneskerettigheder

Federal Anti-

Antidiskriminierungsstelle  

Discrimination Agency

des Bundes

Gender Equality and 

Equal Treatment 

Commissioner

Greek Ombudsman 

(Sector of Equal 

Treatment)

Soolise võrdõiguslikkuse ja 

võrdse kohtlemise volinik

Συνήγορος του Πολίτη (Τομέας 

Ίσης Μεταχείρισης)

Institute of Women

Instituto de las Mujeres

Ombudsperson for 

Pravobranitelj/ica za 

Gender Equality

ravnopravnost spolova

National Equality 

Counsellor

Consigliera nazionale di parità

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportMember
State

Governmental 
body1

Governmental 
body1(nationallanguage)

Governmental 
body2

Governmental 
body2(national
language)

Independentbody1

Independentbody1 
(nationallanguage)

Independent
body2

CY

Gender Equality Unit

Μονάδα Ισότητας των Φύλων

Commissioner of 

Γραφείο Επιτρόπου Ισότητας 

Gender Equality

των Φύλων

Equality Body

Φορέας Ισότητας και 

Καταπολέμησης των Διακρίσεων

Annexes

Independent 
body2(national
language)

Ombudsman’s Office 

of Latvia

Office of the 

Ombudsperson for 

Equal Opportunities

Centre for Equal 

Treatment

Latvijas RepublikasTiesībsargs

Lygių galimybių kontrolieriaus 

tarnyba

Centre l’égalité de Traitement

Commissioner of 

Fundamental Rights

Ombudsman

National Commission 

for the Promotion of 

Equality

The Netherlands 

Institute for Human 

Rights

National Commission for the 

Promotion of Equality

College van de Rechten van de 

Mens

BMKOES/Sektion III/C9

Ombud for Equal 

Treatment

Gleichbehandlungsanwaltschaft

LV

Department of Social Policy 

Sociālās politikas plānošanas un 

Planning and Development

attīstības departaments

Department of Equal 

LT

Opportunities and Equality 

between Women and Men

Lygių galimybių, moterų ir vyrų 

lygybės skyrius

LU

Ministry of Equality between 

Ministère de l’égalité entre femmes 

Women and Men

et hommes

Department of Adoption and 

HU

Women’s Policy Women’s Policy 

Not provided

Unit, Prime Minister’s Office

MT

Human Rights Directorate

Human Rights Directorate

Directorate for Gender Equality 

and LGBTI Equality of the 

Ministry of Education, Culture 

and Science

Directie Emancipatie van het 

Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en 

Wetenschap

Division III: Women’s Affairs and 

Sektion III: Frauen und 

Equality

Gleichstellung

Department III/C/9 of 

the Federal Ministry 

for Arts, Culture, Civil 

Service and Sport

Goverment Plenipotentiary for 

Pełnomocnik Rządu do Spraw 

Equal Treatment

Równego Traktowania

NL

AT

PL

PT

Commission for Citizenship and 

Comissão para a Cidadania e a 

Gender Equality

Igualdade de Género

Commission for 

Equality in Labour and 

Employment

Comissão para a Igualdade 

noTrabalho e no Emprego

National Agency for Equal 

RO

Opportunities between Women 

and Men

Agentia Nationala pentru Egalitate 

de Sanse intre Femei si Barbati

SI

Gender Equality Division

Sektor za enake možnosti

SK

Department of Equality of 

Odbor rovnosti žien a mužov 

Women and Men

arovnosti príležitosti

Department of Equal 

Treatment in the Office 

of the Commissioner 

for Human Rights

Commission for 

Equality in Labour and 

Employment

National Council 

for Combating 

Discrimination 

Advocate of the 

Principle of Equality

Departament Równego 

Traktowania w Biurze Rzecznik 

Praw Obywatelskich

Comissão para a Igualdade no 

Trabalho e no Emprego

Consiliul National pentru 

Combaterea Discriminarii

Zagovornik načela enakosti

35

European Institute for Gender Equality 
 
Annexes

Member
State

Governmental 
body1

Governmental 
body1(nationallanguage)

Governmental 
body2

Governmental 
body2(national
language)

Independentbody1

Independentbody1 
(nationallanguage)

Independent
body2

Independent 
body2(national
language)

FI

Gender Equality Unit

Tasa-arvoyksikkö (TASY)

Centre of Gender 

Tasa-arvotiedon 

Ombudsman for 

Equality Information

keskuseuvottelukunta

Gender Equality 

Tasa-arvovaltuutettu 

The Council for 

Tasa-arvoasiain 

Gender Equality

neuvottelukunta

SE

Ministry of Employment, 

Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet, 

Swedish Gender 

Division for Gender Equality

Jämställdhetsenheten

Equality Agency

Jämställdhetsmyndigheten

Equality Ombudsman Diskrimineringsombudsmannen

36

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportAnnexes

Annex2.Contributingorganisations,includingnationalfocalpoints

The below table outlines the organisations that contributed to data collection.

Member
State

Jobtitleandinstitution 
ofnationalfocalpoint

Independentbody/ies 
andquestionscontributedto

Otherbodies,includingquestions
contributedto

Advisor, International relations

Institut pour l’égalité des femmes et des hommes – Federal 

BE

Institute for Equality between women and 

Institute for equality between women and men. Contributed 

men

to all parts. 

BG

CZ

Commission for protection against discrimination (Part 2). 

Ministry of Labour and Social Policy 

(most of Parts 1,2,4).

Head of the Secretary of the 

Public Defender of Rights (Part 2). 

Government Council for Equality of Men 

and Women; Equality dept..

Head of Section 

DK

Department for Gender Equality 

Danish Institute for Human Rights (Part 2). 

M 31 52 21 88 

Division 404 – European and international 

DE

gender equality policy  

Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior 

Citizens, Women and Youth

Head of Gender Equality Policy  

Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (FADA) (Part 2). 

EE

Equality Policies Department  

Gender Equality and Equal Treatment Commissioner (Part 2).  Statistics Estonia (Part 4)

Ministry of Social Affairs

Sociologist and policy officer of the 

Director of the Research Centre for 

Gender Equality (Part 1); Head of Legal 

Documentation and Process Support 

EL

Observatory for Gender Equality of the 

Senior Investigator in the Greek Ombudsman (Part 2). 

Department (Part 1); Director of the 

GSDFPGE

FR

ES

Deputy Director General for Studies and 

Cooperation in INMUJERES (Institute for 

Women)  

Senior Adviser in INMUJERES  

José Luis Burgos, Technical Adviser in 

INMUJERES

Special Service for Management and 

Implementation of the Ministry of 

Interior (Part 1)

The three national focal points are from the national 

independent body concerned with gender equality. The 

Information regarding the budget of the 

Women’s Institute, however, is ascribed and therefore 

national ministry was collected through 

formally part of the government body, which is the ministry 

their internal channels. 

of equality. 

HR

Governmental Office for Gender Equality

Office of the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality (Part 2). 

Equality and Gender Equality, 

IR

Department of Children, Equality, Disability, 

Integration and Youth

IT

Department for equal opportunities

Consigliera Nazionale di Parità (Part 2) 

National Statistical Institute (ISTAT) 

(Part 4)

CY

LV

Office of the Commissioner for Gender 

Equality

Senior Expert  

Department of Social Policy Planning and 

Development  

Ministry of Welfare of Republic of Latvia 

Advisor  

Equal Opportunities and Gender Equality 

Ombudsman (Part 2). 

Ministry of Justice Q1-6,11-25; 

Ombudsman’s Office of the Republic of Latvia (Part 2). 

LT

Division  

Office of the Ombudsperson of Equal Opportunities (Part 2).  Department of Statistics (Part 4)

Ministry of Social Security and Labor of 

Lithuania 

LU

Defender of Rights (independent body). 

at Ministry of Equality between Women 

General coordination, Equality Policies 

and Men (governmental body);

37

European Institute for Gender Equality 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes

Member
State

Jobtitleandinstitution 
ofnationalfocalpoint

Independentbody/ies 
andquestionscontributedto

Otherbodies,includingquestions
contributedto

Minister for Families 

HU

Prime Minister’s Office 

Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. 

H-1055 Budapest, Szalay u. 10-14.

Manager II (Research) Gender 

MT

Mainstreaming Unit – Human Rights 

Directorate 

NL

Coordinator Team International Affairs  

Directorate for gender equality and LGBTI 

equality  

Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

Head of Department  

Federal Chancellery 

National Commission for the Promotion of Equality (NCPE) 

(Part 2). 

National Statistics Office (Part 4)

Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (Part 2). 

Ministry of Education, Culture and 

Science (Q6)

AT

Division III – Women and Equality 

Ombud for Equal Treatment (Part 2). 

Statistics Austria (Part 4)

Department III/1 – Gender Equality 

Policies 

Commissioner for Equal Treatment (Part 2). 

CITE 

Office of the Government 

Plenipotentiary for Equal Treatment for 

questions 2 to 6.7; rest completed by 

country researcher.

Ana Martinho Fernandes, CIG 

(governmental body)

National Agency for Equal Opportunities 

National Council for Combating Discrimination (Part 2). 

between Women and Men (Part 1 and 

PL

PT

RO

SI

3); desk research (Part 4)

Statistical Office of the Republic of 

Slovenia (Part 4)

Ministry of labour, social affairs and 

family of the Slovak Republic (Parts 1, 

2, 4). NB: national focal point was a civil 

society representative.

Centre for Gender Equality Information 

(Part 4)

National Focal Point at the Ministry of 

Social Security and Labour (Part 1, 3); 

Department of Statistics (Part 4)

Head of Division  

Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs 

and Equal Opportunities  

Štukljeva 44, SI-1000 Ljubljana

Member of the Committee for Gender 

The Advocate of the Principle of Equality (Part 2). 

SK

Equality where she is one of the 

Slovak National Centre for Human Rights. 

representatives of the civil society

Senior Specialist  

FI

Gender Equality Unit 

Ombudsman for Equality (Part 2)

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health

Head of Section, Division for Gender 

SW

Equality  

Ministry of Employment 

Office of the Ombudsperson of the Equal Opportunities (Part 

2)

38

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report 
 
 
 
Annexes

Annex 3. Questionnaire

This Annex outlines the questionnaire used during data collection.

Part1:Responsibilitiesandresourcesofgovernmentalbody/iesforthepromotionof
genderequality

Question1:Whatisthehighestlevelofresponsibilityforgenderequalitywithinthenational
government?

 • Senior minister (member of the government who has a seat on the cabinet or council of ministers)

 •

Junior minister (members of the government who do not have a seat on the cabinet)

 • None: gender equality is not an explicit responsibility of the government

Please specify the title of the relevant Minister if applicable:

Question2:Governmentalbody/iesforthepromotionofgenderequality –existence,mandate
andfunctions

Question 2 and related sub-questions collect information on the existence of governmental body/ies 
for the promotion of gender equality, their mandate and functions.

Question2.1:Please indicate the level of location of each governmental body for the promotion of 
gender equality.

  Entire ministry

  A section/department of a ministry

  A government agency

Question2.2: What is the scope of the mandate of each governmental body for the promotion of 
gender equality identified in question 2.1?

  Exclusively gender equality

   Gender equality combined with other equality – related functions, for example, the promotion of 
equal treatment of all people without discrimination on other grounds

Question2.3:Which of the functions in the table below fall within the mandate of each governmental 
body for the promotion of gender equality identified in question 2.1? [Please check all that apply]

   Drafting gender equality policy for the government

   Drafting anti-discrimination (on grounds other than sex or gender) policy for the government

39

European Institute for Gender EqualityAnnexes

   Conducting gender sensitive analysis of policies and legislation

   Coordinating and/or implementing government decisions on gender equality

   Coordinating and/or implementing gender mainstreaming processes and methodologies, includ-

ing gender budgeting

   Monitoring progress in achieving gender equality

Question 2.4: Which  of  the  additional  functions  in  the  table  below  fall  within  the  mandate  of  each 
governmental body for the promotion of gender equality? [Please check all that apply]

   Conducting research on gender equality issues

   Integrating gender equality considerations in EU and international affairs

   Publishing and disseminating gender equality related information and training

   Providing legal support for victims of discrimination on the grounds of sex or gender

   Deciding on complaints on discrimination on the grounds of sex

Please list any additional functions not listed:

Question3:Governmentallegalandpolicyframeworksforgenderequality

Question  3  and  related  sub-questions  collect  information  on  the  existence  of  laws,  governmental 
strategy and action plan(s) for the promotion of gender equality.

Question3.1: Is there a national law on gender equality? [please select all that apply]

 • There is a law exclusively on gender equality

 • There  is  a  law  dedicated  to  the  promotion  of  gender  equality,  together  with  other  equality  and 

non-discrimination issues

 • There are sectoral laws on specific aspects of gender equality (health, education, agriculture, etc.)

 • There are no laws on gender equality

Please provide a legal citation, if applicable:

Question3.2: Is there a national strategy for gender equality? [please select all that apply]

 • There is an overall national strategy on gender equality

 • There is a national strategy for equality covering gender equality, together with other equality and 

non-discrimination issues

40

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportAnnexes

 • There are sectoral strategies on specific aspects of gender equality (health, education, agriculture, etc.)

 • There is no strategy on gender equality

Please provide the name of the strategy and sectoral strategies and links/attachments to the docu-
ments, if applicable:

Question3.3: Is there a national action plan for gender equality? [please select all that apply]

 • There is an overall national action plan on gender equality

 • There is a national action for equality covering gender equality, together with other equality and 

non-discrimination issues

 • There are sectoral action plans on specific aspects of gender equality (health, education, agricul-

ture, etc.).

 • There is no action plan on gender equality [please proceed to question 5]

Please provide the names of the action plans and sectoral action plans and links/attachments to the 
documents, if applicable:

Question3.4:Has the national action plan for gender equality been costed or budgeted for the period 
covered by the action plan?

   Yes

   Partly

   No

Question3.5: Please indicate whether the overall and/or sectoral action plan(s) set specific targets to 
be achieved.

   Yes

   No

Please list the main targets, if applicable:

Question3.6:Using the table below, please indicate whether the action plans are regularly monitored, 
to assess whether the targets set out in the plan(s) are being achieved.

Nameofthegenderequalityplan

Istheplanregularlymonitored?

Yes(pleasespecifydetails)

No

Please check (x) if it applies.

Number of quantitative indicators for 

Please write name here in EN and national language

headline targets: ………

Please check (x) if it applies

Please write name here in EN and national language

Number of indicators monitored: ………

Frequency of monitoring: ………

41

European Institute for Gender EqualityAnnexes

Question4:Doesthegovernmentalbodyforthepromotionofgenderequalityregularlyreportto
theparliamentontheprogressmadeongenderequalityandgendermainstreaminginitiatives?

[Please  select  all  that  apply.  Responses  should  not  cover  any  monitoring  of  the  gender  equality  action 
plan(s) indicated in the previous question]

   There  is  a  system  of  regular  reporting  of  the  governmental  body  for  the  promotion  of  gender 
equality to the parliament, i.e. at least once a year

   There is a system of reporting of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality to 
the parliament, but it is not regular

   There  is  a  separate  parliamentary  committee  which  includes  gender  equality  as  a  specific  and 
named part of its brief that regularly (i.e. at least once a year) monitors the work of the governmen-
tal body for the promotion of gender equality

   None of the above

Please provide a brief description of the reporting mechanism, if applicable:

Question5:Personnelresourcesofthegovernmentalbody/iesdevotedtogenderequalityand
gendermainstreaming

Question  5  and  related  sub-questions  collect  information  on  the  total  employees  of  the  govern-
mental body/ies for the promotion of gender equality. Personnel resources should be reported as a 
headcount.

[Please answer question 5.1 or questions 5.2 and 5.3]

Question5.1: [If the mandate of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality encom-
passes only gender equality mandates (see answer to question 2.2)]

What is the total number of employees in each governmental gender equality body?

……… Total number of employees (headcount)

Question5.2:[If the mandate of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality encom-
passes other equality and non-discrimination mandates (see answer to question 2.2)]

What is the total number of employees in each governmental equality body?

……… Total number of employees (headcount)

Question5.3:[If the mandate of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality encom-
passes other equality and non-discrimination mandates (see answer to question 2.2)]

Approximately what percentage of personnel time is spent on projects focused on gender equality? 
Please note that this can include projects that take an intersectional approach and cover gender and 
other diversity characteristics,

   0–25 %

42

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportAnnexes

   25–50 %

   50–75 %

   75–100 %

Please indicate the sources and/or rationale used to answer question 6.3. Please provide a judgement 
on how accurate you think the answer is:

Question6:Financialresourcesofthegovernmentalbody/iesdevotedtogenderequalityand
gendermainstreaming

Question 6 and related sub-questions collect information on the resource budget and expenditure 
for administration and programme funding devoted to gender equality and gender mainstreaming 
by the national government. Preference is for actual expenditure, however where this information is 
not available, budget figures can be included. Budget figures should present separately resources for 
projects/programme funding and for administration (personnel and overheads). All figures should be 
reported in EUR.

Question 6.1:  Does  the  government  have  a  specific  budget  for  gender  equality  and  gender  main-
streaming (excluding the budget of the governmental gender equality body)?

   Yes

   No

Please specify the budget total amount in EUR ………

[Please answer questions 6.2 and 6.3 or questions 6.4 to 6.7]

Question6.2: [If the mandate of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality encom-
passes only gender equality issues (see answer to question 2.2)]

What is the annual budget and expenditure for the administration (personnel and overheads) of the 
governmental gender equality body? Please fill in the table below and specify which part of the budget 
and expenditure is funded by the national government and which part is funded by the EU.

Nameofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

Annual
budgetforthe
administration
ofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

Percentageof
totalbudget
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
totalbudget
fundedbytheEU

Annual
expenditure
forthe
administration
ofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

Percentageof
totalexpenditure
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
totalexpenditure
fundedbytheEU

[name auto 

inserted]

[name auto 

inserted]

Question6.3: [If the mandate of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality encom-
passes only gender equality issues (see answer to question 2.2)]

43

European Institute for Gender EqualityAnnexes

What is the annual budget and expenditure for project/programme funding of the national govern-
mental gender equality body? Please fill in the table below and specify which part of the budget is 
funded by the national government and which part is funded by the EU.

Nameofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

Annualbudget
forproject/
programme
fundingofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

Percentageof
totalbudget
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
totalbudget
fundedbytheEU

Annual
expenditure
forproject/
programme
fundingofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

Percentageof
totalexpenditure
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
totalexpenditure
fundedbytheEU

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

Value in EUR

(indicative) % of 

(indicative) % of 

Value in EUR

(indicative) % of 

(indicative) % of 

total budget

total budget

total expenditure

total expenditure

[name auto 

inserted]

[name auto 

inserted]

Question6.4: [if the mandate of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality encom-
passes other equality/non-discrimination mandates (see answer to question 2.2)]

What  is  the  total  budget  and  expenditure  for  the  administration  (personnel  and  overheads)  of  the 
national governmental equality body? Please fill in the table below and specify which part is funded by 
the national government and which part is funded by the EU.

Nameofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

Totalbudget
forthe
administration
ofthe
governmental
equalitybody

Percentageof
totalbudget
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
totalbudget
fundedbytheEU

Total
expenditure
forthe
administration
ofthe
governmental
equalitybody

Percentageof
totalexpenditure
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
totalexpenditure
fundedbytheEU

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

Value in EUR

(indicative) % of 

(indicative) % of 

Value in EUR

(indicative) % of 

(indicative) % of 

total budget

total budget

total expenditure

total expenditure

[to be inserted by 

study team]

[to be inserted by 

study team]

Question6.5: [if the mandate of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality encom-
passes other equality/non-discrimination mandates (see answer to question 2.2)]

What is the total budget and expenditure for project/programme funding of the governmental equal-
ity body? Please fill in the table below and specify which part is funded by the national government and 
which part is funded by the EU.

Nameofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

Totalbudget
forproject/
programme
fundingofthe
governmental
equalitybody

Percentageof
totalbudget
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
totalbudget
fundedbytheEU

Total
expenditure
forproject/
programme
fundingofthe
governmental
equalitybody

Percentageof
totalexpenditure
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
totalexpenditure
fundedbytheEU

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

Value in EUR

(indicative) % of 

(indicative) % of 

Value in EUR

(indicative) % of 

(indicative) % of 

total budget

total budget

total expenditure

total expenditure

[to be inserted by 

study team]

[to be inserted by 

study team]

44

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportAnnexes

Question6.6: [if the mandate of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality encom-
passes other equality/non-discrimination mandates (see answer to question 2.2)]

Please  indicate  the  percentage  of  the  budget  for  project/programme  funding  of  the  governmental 
equality body that is spent on projects specifically related to gender equality.

……… % in EUR

Question6.7: [if the mandate of the governmental body for the promotion of gender equality encom-
passes other equality/non-discrimination mandates (see answer to question 2.2)]

Please indicate the percentage of the expenditure for project/programme funding of the governmen-
tal equality body that is spent on projects specifically related to gender equality.

……… % in EUR

Please include links/attachments to relevant budgetary documents.

Please describe any challenges you have answering the questions in this part of the questionnaire 
because of the particular situation in your Member State:

Part2:Responsibilities,resourcesandconsultationofindependentbody/iesforthepromotion
ofgenderequality

Question7:Independentbody/iesforthepromotionofgenderequality –existence,mandate
andfunctions

Question  7  and  related  sub-questions  aim  to  investigate  the  existence,  mandate  and  functions  of 
independent body/ies for the promotion of gender equality.

Question7.1: What is the scope of the mandate of each independent body for the promotion of gen-
der equality?

   Exclusively gender equality

   Gender equality combined with other equality – related functions, for example, the promotion of 
equal treatment of all people without discrimination on other grounds.

Question7.2: Which of the following functions fall within the mandate of each independent body for 
the promotion of gender equality? [Please, select all that apply]

   Conducting research on gender equality issues

   Integrating gender equality considerations in EU and international affairs

   Publishing and disseminating gender equality related information and training

   Providing legal support for victims of discrimination on the grounds of sex or gender

   Deciding on complaints on discrimination on the grounds of sex

45

European Institute for Gender EqualityAnnexes

Question 7.3:  Which  of  the  additional  functions  in  the  table  below  fall  within  the  mandate  of  each 
independent body for the promotion of gender equality? [Please check all that apply]

   Drafting gender equality policy for the government

   Drafting anti-discrimination (on grounds other than sex or gender) policy for the government

   Conducting gender sensitive analysis of policies and legislation

   Coordinating and/or implementing gender mainstreaming processes and methodologies, includ-

ing gender budgeting

   Coordinating and/or implementing anti-discrimination (on grounds other than sex or gender) pol-

icies for the government

   Monitoring progress in achieving gender equality

Please list any additional functions not listed:

Question 8: Personnel resources of the independent body/ies for the promotion of gender
equality

Question 8 and its sub-questions measure the total staff of the independent body/ies for the promo-
tion of gender equality. Personnel resources should be reported as a headcount.

Question8.1:[if the mandate of the independent body for the promotion of gender equality encompasses 
only gender equality issues (see answer to question 7.1)]

Using  the  table  below,  please  report  the  total  number  of  employees  in  each  independent  gender 
equality body.

……… Total number of employees (headcount)

Question 8.2:  [If  the  mandate  of  the  independent  body  for  the  promotion  of  gender  equality  encom-
passes other equality and non-discrimination issues (see answer to question 7.1)]

For each independent equality body, approximately what percentage of personnel time is spent on 
projects specifically focused on gender equality?

   0–25 %

   25–50 %

   50–75 %

   75-100 %

Please indicate the sources and/or rationale used to answer question 8.2. Please provide a judgement 
on how accurate you think the answer is:

46

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportAnnexes

Question9:Financialresourcesoftheindependentbody/iesforthepromotionofgenderequality

Question 9 and its sub-questions concern the financial resources of independent bodies for the pro-
motion of gender equality. Budget figures should include both the total budget for projects and the 
budget for personnel resources/overheads. They should be reported in EUR.

[Please answer questions 9.1 and 9.2 or questions 9.3 to 9.6]

Question 9.1:  [If  the  mandate  of  the  independent  body  for  the  promotion  of  gender  equality  encom-
passes only gender equality issues (see answer to question 7.1)]

What is the total budget and expenditure for administration (personnel and overheads) of each inde-
pendent  gender  equality  body?  Please  report  in  the  table  below.  Please  specify  which  part  of  the 
budget is funded by the national government and which part is funded by the EU.

Nameofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

Totalbudgetfor
administration

Percentageof
budgetfunded
bythenational
government

Percentageof
budgetfunded
bytheEU

Total
expenditurefor
administration

Percentageof
expenditure
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
expenditure
fundedbytheEU

Value in EUR

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

as % of total

as % of total

Value in EUR

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

as % of total

as % of total

[name auto 

inserted]

[name auto 

inserted]

[name auto 

inserted]

Question 9.2:  [If  the  mandate  of  the  independent  equality  body  for  the  promotion  of  gender  equality 
encompasses only gender equality issues (see answer to question 7.1)]

What is the total budget and expenditure for programme/project funding of each independent gen-
der equality body? Please report in the table below and specify which part of the budget is funded by 
the national government and which part is funded by the EU.

Percentage
ofbudget
fundedby
thenational
government

Value (in EUR) 

or as % of total

Nameofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

Totalbudgetfor
programme/project
funding

Value in EUR

[name auto 

inserted]

[name auto 

inserted]

[name auto 

inserted]

Percentage
ofbudget
fundedby
theEU

Value (in EUR) 

Totalexpenditurefor
programme/project
funding

Percentageof
expenditure
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
expenditure
fundedbytheEU

or as % of 

Value in EUR

total

Value (in EUR) 

Value (in EUR) or 

or as % of total

as % of total

Question 9.3:  [If  the  mandate  of  the  independent  body  for  the  promotion  of  gender  equality  encom-
passes other equality and non-discrimination issues, as specified in question 7.1]

What is the total budget and expenditure for administration (personnel and overheads) of each inde-
pendent equality body? Please fill in the table below and specify which part of the budget is funded by 
the national government and which part is funded by the EU.

47

European Institute for Gender EqualityAnnexes

Nameofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

TotalBudgetfor
administration

Percentageof
budgetfunded
bythenational
government

Percentageof
budgetfunded
bytheEU

Totalexpenditure
foradministration

Percentageof
expenditure
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
expenditure
fundedbytheEU

Value in EUR

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) 

as % of total

or as % of total

Value in EUR

Value (in EUR) or 

Value (in EUR) or 

as % of total

as % of total

[name auto 

inserted]

[name auto 

inserted]

[name auto 

inserted]

Question 9.4:  [If  the  mandate  of  the  independent  body  for  the  promotion  of  gender  equality  encom-
passes other equality and non-discrimination issues, as specified in question 7.1]

What is the total budget and expenditure for programme/project funding of each independent equal-
ity  body?  Please  report  in  the  table  below  and  specify  which  part  of  the  budget  is  funded  by  the 
national government and which part is funded by the EU.

Nameofthe
governmental
genderequality
body

Totalbudgetfor
programme/project
funding

Percentage
ofbudget
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentage
ofbudget
fundedby
theEU

Totalexpenditurefor
programme/project
funding

Percentageof
expenditure
fundedby
thenational
government

Percentageof
expenditure
fundedbytheEU

[name auto 

inserted]

[name auto 

inserted]

[name auto 

inserted]

Question 9.5:  [If  the  mandate  of  the  independent  body  for  the  promotion  of  gender  equality  encom-
passes other equality/non-discrimination mandates (see answer to question 7.1)]

Please  indicate  the  percentage  of  the  budget  for  project/programme  funding  of  the  independent 
equality body that is spent on projects specifically related to gender equality.

……… % in EUR

Question 9.6:  [If  the  mandate  of  the  independent  body  for  the  promotion  of  gender  equality  encom-
passes other equality/non-discrimination mandates (see answer to question 7.1)]

Please indicate the percentage of the expenditure for project/programme funding of the independent 
equality body that is spent on projects specifically related to gender equality.

……… % in EUR

Please include links/attachments to relevant budgetary documents.

48

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportQuestion10:Frequencyandeffectivenessofconsultationswithindependentbodiesforthepro-
motionofgenderequalityaboutpolicies,lawsandprogrammes

Question10.1:How regularly are independent bodies for the promotion of gender equality consulted 
by departments or ministries about new or existing policies, laws or programmes (in policy fields other 
than gender equality)?

Annexes

   For all or nearly all policies, laws or programmes developed (more than 75 %)

   For the majority of policies, laws or programmes developed (50 %–75 %)

   For some policies, laws or programmes developed (25 %–50 %)

   Never consulted, or consulted only in a few cases (less than 25 %)

   No consultation takes place as departments or ministries have an internal mechanism for ensuring 
gender equality in new or existing policies, laws or programmes

If no consultation takes place because there is an internal mechanism, please specify the nature of 
this mechanism:

Question10.2: If independent bodies for the promotion of gender equality are consulted about new 
or existing policies, laws or programmes, how often does their involvement leads to adjustment of 
policies or legislative instruments?

   All or nearly all cases (more than 75 %)

   Majority of cases (50 %–75 %)

   Some cases (25 %–50 %)

   Never or in few cases (less than 25 %)

Please indicate the sources and/or rationale used to answer question 10. Please provide a judgement 
on how accurate you think the answer is:

Please describe any challenges you have answering the questions in this part of the questionnaire 
because of the particular situation in your Member State:

Part3:Gendermainstreaming

Question11:Whatisthestatusofthegovernment’scommitmenttogendermainstreamingin
thenationalpublicadministrationinyourcountry?

 • There is an enforceable legal obligation regarding the implementation of gender mainstreaming

 • There is a legal obligation regarding the implementation of gender mainstreaming without provi-

sions for enforcement or sanctions

 • There is a de facto binding decision of the government regarding gender mainstreaming

49

European Institute for Gender EqualityAnnexes

 • There  is  some  other  kind  of  policy  commitment  from  the  government  regarding  gender 

mainstreaming

 • There is no commitment from the government regarding gender mainstreaming

Please provide a legal citation or describe the policy commitments, if applicable:

Question12:Whatstructuresareinplacetocoordinategendermainstreamingacrossgovern-
mentministries/departments?

Question12.1 What structures are in place to coordinate gender mainstreaming across government 
ministries/departments? [please select all that apply]

1.  Interdepartmental coordination structure that includes contact persons in ministries/departments

2.  Other structures for gender mainstreaming across the different government ministries/departments

3.  External coordination structure

4.  No coordination structure

Please provide a description of the structures in place, if applicable:

Question12.2 If 1 or 2 selected above, what proportion of ministries/departments are included in the 
structure?

   All ministries (more than 75 %)

   Most ministries (50 %–75 %)

   Some ministries (25 %–50 %)

   Very few ministries (less than 25 %)

Question12.3 What is the total number of staff (headcount) who specifically support gender-main-
streaming across all government departments/ministries, outside of the governmental body for the 
promotion of gender equality, if any?

……………………… (headcount)

For questions 12.2 and 12.3 please indicate the sources and/or rationale used to answer. Please pro-
vide a judgement on how accurate you think the answer is.

Question 13: Frequency and effectiveness of consultations with governmental bodies for the
promotionofgenderequalityaboutpolicies,lawsandprogrammes

Question 13 and related sub-questions seek to understand how regularly governmental body/ies for 
the promotion of gender equality are consulted by departments or ministries about new or existing 
policies, laws or programmes (in policy fields other than gender equality) and what the impact of these 
consultations is. Consultations can include as a minimum the request of an opinion about a policy or 
legislative initiative.

50

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportQuestion 13.1:  How  regularly  are  governmental  bodies  for  the  promotion  of  gender  equality  con-
sulted  by  departments  or  ministries  about  new  or  existing  policies,  laws  or  programmes  (in  policy 
fields other than gender equality)?

Annexes

   For all or nearly all policies, laws or programmes developed (more than 75 %)

   For the majority of policies, laws or programmes developed (50 %–75 %)

   For some policies, laws or programmes developed (25 %–50 %)

   Never consulted, or consulted only in a few cases (less than 25 %)

   No consultation takes place as departments or ministries have an internal mechanism for ensuring 
gender equality in new or existing policies, laws or programmes.

If no consultation takes place because there is an internal mechanism, please specify the nature of 
this mechanism:

Question13.2: If the governmental bodies for the promotion of gender equality are consulted about 
new or existing policies, laws or programmes, how often does the involvement of the governmental 
body lead to relevant adjustments?

   All or nearly all cases (more than 75 %)

   Majority of cases (50 %–75 %)

   Some cases (25 %–50 %)

   Never or in few cases (less than 25 %)

Please indicate the sources and/or rationale used to answer question 13. Please provide a judgement 
on how accurate you think the answer is:

Question14:Istherealegalobligationtoundertakeanexantegenderimpactassessmentwhen
draftinglawsand/orpolicies/plans/programmes(excludinggenderbudgeting)?

   Yes

   In some cases

   No

If ‘in some cases’, please specify in what way:

Please provide a legal citation:

Question15:Istherealegalobligationtoundertakegenderbudgetingforaministerialbudget
orthebudgetofothergovernmentalinstitutions?

   Yes

51

European Institute for Gender EqualityAnnexes

   In some cases

   No

If ‘in some cases’, please specify in what way:

Please provide a legal citation:

Question16:Genderbudgetinginministerialbudgetsandinthebudgetsofothergovernmental
institutionsis:

   Widely used in most ministries

   Used by some ministries

   Still in its foundational stages

   Practically an unknown concept

Please indicate the sources and/or rationale used to answer question 16. Please provide a judgement 
on how accurate you think the answer is:

Question17:Howregularlyisevaluationusedasamethodforgendermainstreamingthrough
theintegrationofgenderequalityconcernsintoevaluationobjectives?

   All or nearly all evaluations (more than 75 %)

   Majority of evaluations (50 %-75 %)

   Some evaluations (25 %-50 %)

   Never or in few evaluations (less than 25 %)

Please indicate the sources and/or rationale used to answer question 17. Please provide a judgement 
on how accurate you think the answer is:

Question18:Havetherebeenoneormoreofthefollowingcentralinitiativestoraiseawareness
ongenderequalityamongministriesandothergovernmentalbodiesinthepast3years?

[Please, select all that apply]

   Public events, for example, public speeches that governmental employees were invited to attend

   Distribution of printed material, for example, leaflets, brochures, books and audiovisual resources

   Workshops

   Other

52

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportIf ‘other’, please specify:

Please provide a brief description of the awareness raising initiatives:

Question 19: Havetherebeenanycentralinitiativestoraiseawarenessontheimportanceof
gender-sensitivelanguageamongministriesandothergovernmentalbodiesinthepast3years?

Annexes

   Yes

   No

If ‘Yes’ please provide a brief description of the activity, for example, the dissemination of a gender-sen-
sitive language toolkit or training course:

Question 20: Are governmental employees involved in gender equality training on a regular
basis?

Frequencyoftraining

Allormostof
governmentemployees

Categoriesofemployees

Theemployeesat
thehighestpolitical
level(ministers,vice
ministersandsenior
cabinetmembers)

Theemployeesofthe
governmentalbodyfor
genderequality

Someoftheemployeesof
otherministries/departments

Please check (X) if applies

Please check (X) if it 

Please check (X) if it 

applies

applies

Please check (X) if it applies

Yes, on a regular basis 

(at least once a year)

Yes, on an ad hoc 

basis

No

Question21:Isgenderequalitytrainingmandatory?

[Please specify whether training is mandatory and for which category of employees]

Mandatorygender
equalitytraining

Allormostof
governmentemployees

Categoriesofemployees

Theemployeesatthehighest
politicallevel(ministers,vice
ministersandseniorcabinet
members)

Theemployeesofthe
governmentalbodyfor
genderequality

Someofthe
employees
ofother
ministries/
departments

Yes

No

Please check (X) if applies Please check (X) if it applies

Please check (X) if it 

Please check (X) if 

applies

it applies

Question22:Involvementofcivilsocietyactorsingovernmentalworkongenderequality

In  the  box  below,  please  describe  the  formal  involvement  of  civil  society  actors,  such  as  women’s 
NGOs,  other  non-governmental  organisations,  and  social  partners  in  the  work  to  promote  gender 
equality in governmental work at national level. Please focus on laws and policies that set out how civil 
society are to be involved.

53

European Institute for Gender EqualityAnnexes

Insertdescription:

The  description  could  cover  policies  and  laws  regarding  the  following  types  of  involvement 
(please include reference to the policies and laws).

 • Represented on a legally established advisory body attached to the ministry responsible for 

gender equality.

 •

Invited to participate in various kinds of temporary bodies, committees, commissions, working 
groups, etc. developing policy proposals for the government or monitoring and/or assessing 
the status of various gender equality efforts.

 • Regularly  participate  in  consultations  during  the  process  of  preparing  gender  equality 
reforms, for example, for legal reforms, national action plans on gender equality and report-
ing on the status of gender equality efforts.

 • Regularly participate in meetings, hearings, etc. on the government’s efforts and policies on 

gender equality.

 • Participate in conferences, seminars, etc.

 • Receive information, publications, etc.

Please describe any challenges you have answering the questions in this part of the questionnaire 
because of the particular situation in your Member State:

Part4:Collectionanddisseminationofstatisticsdisaggregatedbysex

Part 4 of the questionnaire collects information on whether and how often statistics disaggregated by 
sex are produced and disseminated in a country and assesses the effectiveness of commitments in 
this area.

Question23:Governmentcommitmenttotheproductionofstatisticsdisaggregatedbysex

This set of questions aim to measure whether there is a commitment to produce and disseminate 
statistics disaggregated by sex.

Question23.1: Is there a legal obligation (besides the EU regulations) for the national statistical office 
to collect data disaggregated by sex?

   Yes

   No

If yes, please provide a legal citation

Question23.2: Is there a legal obligation for other public institutions to collect data disaggregated by 
sex?

54

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportAnnexes

   Yes

   No

If yes, please provide a legal citation:

Question23.3: Are there other kinds of agreements (i.e. policy) to collect data disaggregated by sex?

   There is an agreement on regular data collection

   There is an ad hoc agreement to collect data disaggregated by sex

   No

If yes, please specify the nature of the agreement:

Question24:Effectivenessofgovernmentcommitment(s)toproducingstatisticsdisaggregated
bysex

Question24.1:Is there a specific website or section of a website (e.g. of national statistical offices and/
or other governmental bodies) that is devoted to providing gender statistics? [please select all that apply]

   There is a specific website

   The national statistical office website has a section on gender statistics

   The website of the governmental body has a section on gender statistics

   There is no website or section of a website devoted to gender statistics [if selected, go to question 

24.5]

Question24.2 Does the relevant website or section of website include a thematic breakdown of the 
statistics it covers?

   Yes

   No

Question24.3 Does the relevant website or section of website provide access directly to relevant data-
sets that can be both viewed online and downloaded?

   Yes

   No

Question24.4 Does the relevant website or section of website provide direct access to relevant pub-
lications and/or online analyses of gender statistics?

   Yes

   No

55

European Institute for Gender EqualityAnnexes

Question24.5If there is no website or section of a website devoted to gender statistics, what per-
centage of datasets included on the national statistical office website for which sex is relevant include 
a breakdown by sex?

   More than 75 %

   50–75 %

   25–50 %

   Less than 25 %

   None

   N/A

Please indicate the sources and/or rationale used to answer question 24.5. Please provide a judge-
ment on how accurate you think the answer is:

Please provide links to the website or section of websites used to answer question 24, if applicable:

Question25:Intensityofdisseminationeffortsofgenderstatistics

Question25.1:Are there regular publications (e.g. reports, infographics) that analyse gender statistics 
by national/federal statistical offices and/or other governmental bodies?

   Yes, there are regular publications, i.e. at least once a year

   There are only ad hoc publications

   There are no publications on gender statistics

Please provide links to the publications, if applicable:

Question25.2: Are gender statistics disseminated on a regular basis?

   Yes

   No

If yes, please specify the method of dissemination, for example, through regular newsletters and on 
social media:

Please describe any challenges you have answering the questions in this part of the questionnaire 
because of the particular situation in your Member State:

56

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportAnnex4.Datagaps

Questioninquestionnaire

Question 1: What is the highest level of responsibility for gender 

equality within the national government?

Question 2.1: Please indicate the level of location of each 

governmental body for the promotion of gender equality.

Question 2.2: What is the scope of the mandate of each 

governmental body for the promotion of gender equality?

Question 2.3: Which of the functions in the table below fall within 

the mandate of each governmental body for the promotion of 

gender equality?

Question 2.4: Which of the additional functions in the table 

below fall within the mandate of each governmental body for the 

promotion of gender equality? 

Question 3.1: Is there a national law on gender equality?

Question 3.2: Is there a national strategy for gender equality? 

Question 3.3: Is there a national action plan for gender equality?

Question 3.4: Has the national action plan for gender equality been 

costed or budgeted for the period covered by the action plan?

Question 3.5: Please indicate whether the overall and/or sectoral 

action plan(s) set specific targets to be achieved.

Annexes

Datagaps

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

Hungary

Hungary

No gaps

Austria

No gaps

No gaps in relation to national plans
(Austria; Croatia; Germany report sectoral plans but data on 

costing is missing)

No gaps in relation to national plans

(Croatia and Germany report sectoral plans but data on targets 

is missing)

No gaps in relation to national plans

Question 3.6: Is the plan regularly monitored?

(Croatia and Germany report sectoral plans but data on 

Question 3.6: Number of quantitative indicators for headline targets.

Question 3.6: Frequency of monitoring.

Question 5.1/5.2: What is the total number of employees in each 

governmental (gender) equality body?

Question 7.1 What is the scope of the mandate of each independent 

body for the promotion of gender equality?

Question 8.1/8.2: The total number of employees in each 

independent gender equality body.

Question 10.1: How regularly are independent bodies for the 

promotion of gender equality consulted by departments or 

ministries about new or existing policies, laws or programmes (in 
policy fields other than gender equality)? 

Question 10.2: If independent bodies for the promotion of gender 

equality are consulted about new or existing policies, laws or 

programmes, how often does their involvement leads to adjustment 

of policies or legislative instruments? 

Question 11: What is the status of the government’s commitment to 

monitoring is missing)

Latvia, Luxembourg 

No gaps

No gaps 

Slovakia

Slovakia

Hungary, Slovakia

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia

gender mainstreaming in the national public administration in your 

Hungary

country?

Question 12.1 What structures are in place to coordinate gender 

mainstreaming across government ministries/departments?

Question 12.2 What proportion of ministries/departments are 

included in the structure?

Question 12.3 What is the total number of staff (headcount) who 

specifically support gender mainstreaming across all government 

departments/ministries, outside of the national government body 

for the promotion of gender equality, if any?

Hungary, Poland

Hungary, Poland

Hungary, Malta, Poland

57

European Institute for Gender EqualityAnnexes

Questioninquestionnaire

Datagaps

Question 13.1: How regularly are governmental bodies for the 

promotion of gender equality consulted by departments or 

ministries about new or existing policies, laws or programmes (in 

policy fields other than gender equality)?

Question 13.2: If the governmental bodies for the promotion of 

gender equality are consulted about new or existing policies, laws or 

programmes, how often does the involvement of the governmental 

body lead to relevant adjustments?

Question 14: Is there a legal obligation to undertake an ex ante 

Hungary, Poland

Denmark, Hungary, Poland

gender impact assessment when drafting laws and/or policies/

Hungary, Poland

plans/programmes (excluding gender budgeting)?

Question 15: Is there a legal obligation to undertake gender 

budgeting for a ministerial budget or the budget of other 

governmental institutions?

Question 16: Gender budgeting in ministerial budgets and in the 

budgets of other governmental institutions is:

Question 19: Have there been any central initiatives to raise 

Hungary

Hungary

awareness on the importance of gender-sensitive language among 

Bulgaria, Denmark

ministries and other governmental bodies in the past 3 years?

Question 20: Availability of training.

Question 21: Mandatory training.

Question 23.1: Is there a legal obligation (besides the EU 

Partial gaps: Italy, Cyprus, Malta

Partial gaps: Italy

regulations) for the national statistical office to collect data 

Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary

disaggregated by sex?

Question 23.2: Is there a legal obligation for other public institutions 

to collect data disaggregated by sex?

Question 23.3: Are there other kinds of agreements (i.e. policy) to 

collect data disaggregated by sex?

Question 24.1: Is there a specific website or section of a website (e.g. 

of national statistical offices and/or other governmental bodies) that 

is devoted to providing gender statistics?

Question 24.2 Does the relevant website or section of website 

include a thematic breakdown of the statistics it covers?

Question 24.3 Does the relevant website or section of website 

provide access directly to relevant datasets that can be both viewed 

online and downloaded?

Question 24.4 Does the relevant website or section of website 

provide direct access to relevant publications and/or online analyses 
of gender statistics?

Question 24.5 If there is no website or section of a website devoted 

to gender statistics, what percentage of datasets included on the 

national statistical office website for which sex is relevant include a 

breakdown by sex?

Question 25.1: Are there regular publications (e.g. reports, 

infographics) that analyse gender statistics by national/federal 

statistical offices and/or other governmental bodies?

Question 25.2: Are gender statistics disseminated on a regular 

basis?

58

Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta

Denmark, Germany, Hungary

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

Bulgaria, Hungary

Hungary

Hungary

Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological reportGETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU

In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of 
the centre nearest you online (https://european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en).

On the phone or in writing
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.

You can contact this service:
— by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
— at the following standard number: +32 22999696,  
— via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en.

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU

Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website (https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en).

EU publications
You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publica-
tions can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre  
(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

Open data from the EU
The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and 
agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial 
purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023

PDF

ISBN 978-92-9486-086-6

doi:10.2839/120351

MH-09-23-133-EN-N

© European Institute for Gender Equality, 2023
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged, the original meaning is not distorted and EIGE is not 
liable for any damage caused by that use. The reuse policy of EIGE is implemented by the Commission Decision of 12 
December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (2011/833/EU).

www.eige.europa.eu