2024 data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming : methodological report.
Date: 2025-04-08
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

2024 data collection on 
institutional mechanisms 
for gender equality and 
gender mainstreaming
Methodological report

European Institute for Gender Equality

The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) produces independent research and shares best 
practice to promote gender equality and eliminate discrimination based on gender. As the EU agency for 
gender equality, we help people achieve equal opportunities so everyone can thrive, independent of their 
gender and background.

We combine research, data and tools to help policy makers design measures that are inclusive, 
transformative and promote gender equality in all areas of life. We communicate our expertise and 
research effectively. We work closely with partners to raise awareness. We do this at EU and national 
level, as well as with EU candidate and potential candidate countries.

Cite this publication:
EIGE (2025), 2024 data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender 
mainstreaming – Methodological report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

This methodological report is an update of the 2023 edition.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2025

© European Institute for Gender Equality, 2025

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by EIGE, permission may need to be sought 
directly from the respective rightholders.

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-9486-272-3  doi:10.2839/2707131  MH-01-25-002-EN-N

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

Tel. +370 52157444
Web: eige.europa.eu
Email: eige.sec@eige.europa.eu

Follow us

 
 
 
Country codes

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czechia

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

HR 

Croatia

IT 

CY 

LV 

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

LT 

LU 

Lithuania

Luxembourg

HU 

Hungary

MT 

Malta

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

RO 

Romania

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

3

Contents

Introduction  ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.  Background: previous data collection exercises  ................................................................................................ 7

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire  .................................................................................................... 9
2.1.  Overview  .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.  Indicator H1: Status of commitment to the promotion of gender equality  ...................................... 10
2.3.  Indicator H2: Human resources of national gender equality bodies  .................................................. 19
2.4.  Indicator H3: Gender mainstreaming  ........................................................................................................ 23
2.5.  Indicator H4: Production and dissemination of statistics disaggregated by sex  ............................. 30
2.6.  General points related to revisions to 2021 responses  ......................................................................... 33
2.7.  General points related to the scoring model  ........................................................................................... 37
2.8.  Comparability of data over time  ............................................................................................................... 38

3.  Method of data collection and analysis  ...........................................................................................................  40

4.  Reference metadata  ............................................................................................................................................. 42

Annexes  .......................................................................................................................................................................  46
Annex 1.  Bodies covered in the study  .............................................................................................................  46
Annex 2.  Contributing organisations, including national focal points ....................................................... 52
Annex 3.  Questionnaire  ......................................................................................................................................  54

4

Introduction

This report details the approach and 
methodology used in the 2024 data collection 
on institutional mechanisms for the promotion 
of gender equality and gender mainstreaming 
conducted by the European Institute for Gender 
Equality (EIGE).

Key definitions

Institutional mechanisms for gender 
equality and gender mainstreaming are 
bodies and processes that serve to 
promote, advocate and support gender 
equality and the mainstreaming of gender 
issues across all areas of policy.

For monitoring purposes, ‘bodies’ refers to 
gender equality bodies convened at the 
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 ministerial 
structures but can also be government 
agencies.
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 
promote the status of women was first 
proposed during the World Conference of the 
International 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 achieving gender equality. The 

BPfA also emphasised the importance of 
institutional mechanisms for developments in 
the 11 remaining areas of concern, since the 
existence of effective national initiatives to 
promote and mainstream gender as a universal 
issue strengthens capacity to implement 
relevant measures across all areas of concern.

The Council of the European Union has formally 
adopted a set of indicators, which were refined 
for the 2021 data collection (see The Pathway 
to Progress: Strengthening effective structures 
for gender equality and gender mainstreaming 
in the EU and Data collection on institutional 
mechanisms for gender equality and gender 
mainstreaming – Methodological report), to 
monitor the implementation of Area H of the 
BPfA in the EU Member States(1):

•  H1: Status of commitment to the promotion 

of gender equality;

•  H2a: Personnel resources of governmental 

gender equality bodies;

•  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.

Data collection covering all Member States was 
undertaken between April and May 2024. The 
data was compiled by researchers in each 
Member State; they collected data from 
national focal points appointed by Member 
State authorities. All Member States 
participated in the data collection process. 
There are some limited and isolated gaps in the 
data due to difficulties in collecting certain 
pieces of information (see Section 4).

The data collected underwent a comprehensive 
quality assurance process aimed at ensuring 
that the questions had been consistently 
interpreted and answered so that the data was 
as accurate and comparable as possible.

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

5

Introduction

The report is structured as follows.

•  Section 3 explains the method used to 

collect and analyse the data.

•  Section 1 details previous data collections 

•  Section 4 provides the reference metadata 

undertaken by EIGE in 2012, 2018 and 2021.

for the study.

•  Section 2 describes the measurement 

framework used in the 2024 data collection, 
including revisions made. Key issues and 
recommendations for future data collection 
are summarised in the context of each 
indicator.

•  The Annexes offer additional information on 
the bodies covered by the data collection, 
the questionnaire and the data gaps 
identified.

6

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 Member States and the 
European Commission to strengthen 
institutional mechanisms for promoting gender 
equality and to create a framework for the 
consistent and systematic 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 three previous data 
collection exercises on the indicators relevant 
to Area H of the BPfA: the first in 2012, with 
data published in a report in 2014(5), the second 
in 2018(6) and the third in 2021(7). The three 
collections were based on slightly different 
conceptual frameworks. The conceptual 
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 
conceptual framework, which introduced the 
concept of ‘substantive representation’, which 
is linked to the effectiveness of institutional 
mechanisms 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 further 
informed revisions to the conceptual and 
measurement framework used in the 2021 
study. Changes were made regarding the 
refinement of existing sub-indicators and the 
addition of new sub-indicators.

•  The refinement of existing sub-indicators 

aimed to increase their relevance to current 
circumstances, recognising how the context 
of and expectations for gender equality and 
mainstreaming structures have changed 
since the BPfA. This new framework 
emphasised the effectiveness of 
implementation over the mere existence of 
structures and processes. Therefore, two 
sub-indicators were dropped due to lack of 
relevance: H1b (permanence of the 
governmental body) and H4b (governmental 
commitment to gender statistics 
dissemination, covered instead under H4a).
•  Previously, the officially adopted indicators 
focused on the activities of governmental 
gender equality bodies. New sub-indicators 
were added to consider the involvement of 
independent gender equality bodies, 
aligning with Council Directive (EU) 
2024/1499 and Directive (EU) 2024/1500 on 
binding standards for equality bodies and 
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
and Development’s 2015 recommendation 

(2)  Council of the European Union, Review of the implementation by the Member States and the EU institutions of the Beijing 
Platform for Action – Indicators in respect of institutional mechanisms, document 14376/06 ADD 1 SOC 483, Brussels, 
2006, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14376-2006-ADD-1/en/pdf.

(3)  Council of the European Union, 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, Brussels, 2006, 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/91957.pdf.

(4)  Council of the European Union, Council conclusions on the effectiveness of institutional mechanisms for the advancement 
of women and gender equality, Brussels, 2013, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/
lsa/139978.pdf.

(5)  EIGE, 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, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2014, 
https://eige.europa.eu/publications/effectiveness-institutional-mechanisms-advancement-gender-equality-report.
(6)  Data from both exercises is published on EIGE’s Gender Statistics Database (https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/

browse/bpfa/bpfa_h).

(7)  EIGE, The Pathway to Progress: Strengthening effective structures for gender equality and gender mainstreaming in the 

EU, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/
publications/pathway-progress-strengthening-effective-structures-gender-equality-and-gender-mainstreaming-
eu?language_content_entity=en.

7

1.  Background: previous data collection exercises

on gender equality in public life(8). The two 
new sub-indicators examine the role of 
independent bodies (H1f on the scope of 
their mandate and functions) and their 
involvement in the development of national 
policies and programmes (H3d on the 
consultation of independent bodies).

No significant change to the measurement 
framework was made in 2024, except some 
minor refinements to some of the questions 
and how they are scored.

(8)  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015 OECD recommendation of the Council on gender equality 
in public life, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2016, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2016/03/2015-oecd-recommendation-
of-the-council-on-gender-equality-in-public-life_g1g65d3d.html.

8

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

This section describes the measurement 
framework applied for the collection of data on 
institutional mechanisms in 2024 and the 
subsequent calculation of indicator values. It 
provides, first, an overview of the measurement 
framework, and then has sections dealing with 
each of the four indicators and their respective 
sub-indicators. General points related to the 
revisions made to the 2021 data and the 
scoring model are addressed at the end of the 
section.

2.1.  Overview

The measurement framework for monitoring 
institutional mechanisms comprises four main 
indicators (H1 to H4), each with a number of 
sub-indicators (see Figure 2.1).

The value of each of the four indicators is 
calculated as the sum of its sub-indicator 
scores, resulting in different maximum values 
for each. For overall scoring, each indicator is 
given equal weight. Each indicator is scored as a 
percentage of its maximum value, and then the 
average of these percentages is taken.

Since only minor changes were made to the 
scoring model used in the 2021 data collection, 
2024 data is comparable with the previous 
iteration, with very few exceptions (as 
described below).

2.1.1.  Changes to the layout of the 

questionnaire

The software for the questionnaire was 
updated from Qualtrics to Excel to support the 
quality assurance process and the continuous 
exchange of questions/comments alongside the 
data. This change also enabled the inputting of 
the data from the 2021 data collection, making 
it easier for Member States to complete the 
questionnaire by enabling them to update the 
data previously provided. With the aim of 
making the Excel questionnaire more 
user-friendly, questions were reorganised and 
divided into five distinct sheets: (1) 
Governmental body 1, (2) Governmental 
body 2, (3) Laws, policies and practices, (4) 
Statistical infrastructure and (5) Independent 
bodies.

To differentiate the questions for different 
governmental or independent bodies from the 
same Member State, the first body answered 
questions labelled with ‘a’ (e.g. 1a, 2a, 3a), 
while the second body, if applicable, answered 
questions labelled with ‘b’. In the tables 
throughout this section, an asterisk (*) has 
been applied to question numbers to indicate 
that a question has both ‘a’ and ‘b’ versions.

9

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Figure 2.1  Indicators for monitoring institutional mechanisms for the promotion of gender equality 

and gender mainstreaming, 2021

H1: Status of 
commitment to the 
promotion of gender 
equality

H2: Human resources 
of national gender 
equality bodies

H3: Gender 
mainstreaming

H4: Production and 
dissemination of 
statistics 
disaggregated by sex

H2a: Personnel 
resources of 
governmental 
bodies 

H2b: Personnel 
resources of 
independent 
gender equality 
bodies

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

H4b: [not used]

H4c: Effectiveness 
of efforts to 
disseminate 
statistics 
disaggregated by 
sex

H3a: Status of 
governmental 
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 
gender equality 
bodies 

H1a: Highest 
responsibility for 
promoting gender 
equality at the 
governmental level

H1b: [not used]

H1c: Position of 
governmental  
bodies within the 
government  
structure

H1d: Mandate and 
functions of 
governmental 
bodies

H1e: Accountability 
of governmental 
bodies 

H1f: Mandate and 
functions of 
independent 
gender equality 
bodies

NB: Light-shaded boxes (H1f, H2b and H3d) represent data collected for independent gender equality bodies. Subtotals for 
indicators H1 and H3 excluding these sub-indicators provide data that focuses on governmental commitment in line with the 
formally adopted indicators.

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

The same list of sub-indicators under 
indicator H1 used for the 2021 data collection 

was used for the 2024 data collection. The 
sub-indicators are as follows:

a)  highest responsibility for promoting gender 

equality at the governmental level 
(maximum score of 2);

b)  permanence of governmental bodies (not 

used)(9);

c)  position of governmental gender equality 
bodies within the government structure 
(maximum score of 2);

(9)  This indicator has not been used, as it has not provided meaningful results. 

10

d)  mandate and functions of governmental 

gender equality bodies (maximum score of 
3);

e)  accountability of governmental gender 
equality bodies (maximum score of 5);
f)  mandate and functions of independent 

gender equality bodies (maximum score of 
3).

In the current measurement framework, 
indicator H1 overall has a maximum score of 15.

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

sub-indicator H1c and modifications to sub-
indicators H1d and H1f. Further details about 
these changes are provided in the relevant 
subsections below.

2.2.1.  Sub-indicator H1a: Highest 

responsibility for promoting 
gender equality at the 
governmental level

In the 2024 data collection, revisions to H1 
focused on slight changes to the scoring of 

Sub-indicator H1a comprises a single question 
with a maximum score of 2 (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1  Questions included in scoring of sub-indicator H1a

Question and options

Score

9

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 (member of the government who does not have a seat on the cabinet)

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

2

1

0

0

2

Don’t know

Maximum score

2.2.1.1.  Issues relating to 
sub-indicator H1a

There were challenges in ensuring that Member 
States accurately reported the minister directly 
responsible for gender equality. In several 
instances, Member States reported a senior 
minister, even when the responsibility actually 
lay with a junior minister. This misreporting 
occurred despite clear guidelines. Therefore, 
quality assurance checks were necessary to 
verify the accuracy of the responses.

2.2.2.  Sub-indicator H1c: Position of 
governmental gender equality 
bodies within the government 
structure

Sub-indicator H1c comprises a single question 
with a maximum score of 2 (Table 2.2).

11

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Table 2.2  Question included in scoring of sub-indicator H1c

Question and options

1 (*)

Level of location of each governmental body for the promotion of gender equality

Entire ministry

A section/department of a ministry

A government agency

No governmental body / no answer (1)

Don’t know

Maximum score

(*)  This question has both ‘a’ and ‘b’ versions.
(1)  Implicit, not explicit, option.

In 2021, the category of ‘government agency’ 
was given a value of 0 points. The 2006 Council 
conclusions require that ‘the national machinery 
should be located at the highest possible level of 
government, but also go on to clarify that the 
body should have clearly defined mandates, 
adequate resources, ability to influence policy, to 
formulate and review legislation and provide 
staff training. The location of the body is 
therefore primarily about ensuring that it is 
highly visible and has a suitably empowered 
mandate to deliver these functions effectively. 
The establishment of a government agency 
requires the adoption of relevant legislation that 
formally delegates specific functions to that 
body, a legal responsibility that remains intact 
until the legislation is changed. Accordingly, in 
2024, it was agreed that an agency should score 
points.

However, to align with the BPfA 
recommendation that the body be located at 
the ‘highest possible level of government’, it 
was agreed to keep the current hierarchy of 
scoring, and therefore an agency scores 
0.5 points in 2024. For example, in Belgium, the 
Institute for the Equality of Women and Men 
has a significant degree of responsibility for 
and influence on gender equality issues, 
provides advice, conducts research and 
promotes gender equality. However, since it 
does not have the same level of authority or 
integration within the government structure as 
a department/ministry or a section of a 
department/ministry, it does not merit as high 
a score. Nevertheless, examples such as 

12

Score

2

1

0.5

0

0

2

Belgium demonstrate that a further review of 
the scoring for this indicator is potentially 
needed. A potential avenue could be to assess if 
the body can ‘formulate and review legislation’, 
one of the basic requirements for a 
governmental gender equality body being that 
it should design and coordinate the 
implementation of gender equality policy.

For future data collection, it is recommended 
that the options ‘No governmental body / no 
answer’ and ‘Don’t know’ be removed. If there 
is no governmental body, respondents do not 
need to fill out the section. In addition, ‘Don’t 
know’ is not a viable option for this question.

2.2.3.  Sub-indicator H1d: 

Mandate and functions of 
governmental gender 
equality bodies

This sub-indicator assesses the scope of the 
mandate of governmental gender equality 
bodies, namely whether they are solely focused 
on gender equality or if gender equality is part 
of a wider equalities mandate, and the extent 
to which they have a mandate to implement 
key functions referred to under strategic 
objective H1 of the BPfA, which requires that 
the governmental gender equality body ‘should 
have clearly defined mandates and authority’.

In this respect, the 2021 questionnaire asked 
about a set of possible functions that 

governmental bodies might fulfil, split into 
‘main’ and ‘additional’ functions (Q2.3 and Q2.4, 
respectively). The list of functions considered 
main and additional was developed, firstly, 
from the list used previously (2018 data 
collection) and, secondly, from conceptual 
expectations of the fundamental requirements 
(main functions) and less critical activities 
(additional functions) for each type of body. 
Only four out of six of the main functions(10) 
were scored for the indicator.

However, in the 2021 collection, issues arose 
regarding the delineation of mandates between 
governmental and independent bodies and the 
associated list of functions specific to each type 
of body. To address this, the 2024 questionnaire 
introduced separate lists of functions for 
governmental and independent bodies. The list 
for each body was based on requirements set 
out in the BPfA and the equality directives(11), 
and effectively removed the distinction 
between main and additional functions.

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

The result was a list of six main functions for 
governmental bodies. Each function was 
assigned an equal share of the total score for 
the question (i.e. 2 / 6 = 0.33). The function 
related to cooperation was further divided into 
three levels, with each level receiving a score of 
0.11 (0.33 / 3). This led to a slight modification 
of the list and the score per function, but the 
total score for all functions remained the same, 
and the list of functions was broadly similar, 
resulting in limited overall change. The same 
approach was applied to independent bodies 
under section H1f.

Sub-indicator H1d comprises two questions 
with a maximum score of 3 (Table 2.3).

When a function has multiple sub-items 
indicated in bullet points, ‘Yes’ is the answer if 
all of the sub-functions are fulfilled. If at least 
one of the sub-functions is fulfilled, but not all, 
the answer is ‘Partly’. If none of the sub-
functions is fulfilled, the answer is ‘No’. Only a 
‘Yes’ response was scored.

Table 2.3  Questions included in scoring of sub-indicator H1d

Questions and options

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

Don’t know

3 (*)

Functions of each governmental body for the promotion of gender equality

3.1 (*)

Drafting gender equality policy for the government

3.2 (*)

Drafting general anti-discrimination policy, covering sex or gender together with other 
grounds, for the government

3.3 (*)

Conducting gender-sensitive analysis of policies and legislation

Score

1

0

0

0.33

0.33

0.33

(10)  Scored functions were as follows: drafting gender equality policy, reviewing other policies from a gender perspective, 

coordinating/implementing government decisions on gender equality and coordinating/implementing gender mainstreaming.
(11)  Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499 of 7 May 2024 on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment between 
persons irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin, equal treatment in matters of employment and occupation between 
persons irrespective of their religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, equal treatment between women and 
men in matters of social security and in the access to and supply of goods and services, and amending Directives 2000/43/
EC and 2004/113/EC (OJ L, 2024/1499, 29.5.2024, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1499/oj); Directive (EU) 2024/1500 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal 
treatment and equal opportunities between women and men in matters of employment and occupation, and amending 
Directives 2006/54/EC and 2010/41/EU (OJ L, 2024/1500, 29.5.2024, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1500/oj).

13

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Questions and options

3.4 (*)

Coordinating and/or implementing government decisions on gender equality

3.5 (*) Monitoring progress in achieving gender equality

3.6 (*)

Cooperation – international/EU

3.7 (*)

Cooperation – national/sub-national

3.8 (*)

Cooperation – civil society

Maximum score

(*)  This question has both ‘a’ and ‘b’ versions.

2.2.3.1.  Issues relating to sub-
indicator H1d

In a few cases (EL, AT, FI), the second 
governmental body from the list of bodies 
established in the 2021 data collection did not 
meet the BPfA’s definition of a governmental 
body, which is a body ‘whose purpose is to 
design, coordinate, and implement government 
policies for gender equality’. However, since 
these Member States consider these bodies an 
intrinsic part of their institutional architecture 
for gender equality and gender mainstreaming, 
it was decided to include these bodies in the 
scoring. Nevertheless, including these bodies in 
the data collection affected the overall scoring 
for these countries for H1d (and H2a)(12).

For example, Department III/C/10 of the Federal 
Ministry for Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport 
in Austria is responsible for performance 
management within the government and has 
the task of monitoring and reporting on the 
implementation of gender mainstreaming 
across the government and, possibly, the 
impact of gender equality policies. It therefore 
functions as a gender mainstreaming body with 
an oversight role. Categorising the scope of this 
body presented an issue for the scores for H1d 
and, relatedly, H2a. For example, recording the 
scope as gender equality alone would 
automatically include 100 % of the staff, which 
would not be accurate. However, recording the 

Score

0.33

0.33

0.11

0.11

0.11

3

scope as gender equality combined with other 
equality-related functions is also not accurate, 
since it has no other equality function. It was 
decided that the scope should be gender 
equality only; however, the percentage of staff 
working on gender equality was reported to be 
0–25 %, which is contradictory and does not 
align with the scoring model.

The second governmental body in Greece, the 
Research Centre for Gender Equality, is a 
research organisation, and the second 
governmental body in Finland, the Centre for 
Gender Equality Information(13), was a national 
information service that provided data on 
gender equality. When examining whether 
these bodies fulfilled the functions set out in 
H1d, it became apparent that they do not fulfil 
the definition of a governmental body. For 
future data collection, it is recommended that 
data on these bodies be collected separately. 
This approach acknowledges that, while these 
bodies are integral to the institutional 
framework of gender equality and gender 
mainstreaming, they are not governmental 
gender equality bodies per se.

There is also the question of whether the 
available 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. Although the 
guidelines specified that the body should have 

(12)  For Member States that have more than one governmental or independent body, the scoring for H1 considers the 

contributions of both bodies. Either this scoring is complementary, meaning functions are scored if performed by at least 
one of the bodies, or it reflects the highest score achieved by either body. In contrast, the scoring for H2 is additive, taking 
into account the relevant resources from both bodies.

(13)  The Centre for Gender Equality Information closed on 1 August 2024. Since the data collection took place from April to May 

2024, the body was included.

14

staff who undertake related tasks as a clearly 
defined part of their job role, there were several 
cases where this seems unlikely. For example, 
Bulgaria, Latvia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia 
reported carrying out seven out of eight 
functions under Q3, yet they have fewer than 
five people working on gender equality (after 
adjusting total staff numbers by the proportion 
of time spent on gender equality), making it 
unlikely that all these functions could be 
fulfilled effectively with so few resources. 
Nevertheless, the low level of resources will be 
evident in H2a even if the scores for H1d are 
overstated to some degree. Indeed, there is no 
practical way to measure the effort put into 
each function.

2.2.4.  Sub-indicator H1e: 

Accountability of 
governmental gender 
equality bodies

Sub-indicator H1e, on the accountability of 
governmental gender equality bodies, is 
captured through an analysis of the existence 
and effectiveness of national gender equality 
action plans and strategies, as well as 
mechanisms by which the governmental body 
reports to the national parliament.

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Minor changes were made to the questions for 
this sub-indicator. The response options for 
questions on strategies and action plans on 
specific aspects of gender equality (under Q11 
and Q12) were divided into two categories: one 
for strategies or action plans on specific 
aspects of gender equality in more than 50 % 
of departments or ministries (Q11.2 and Q12.3), 
and another for those in less than 50 % (Q11.3 
and Q12.4). This approach was used to better 
capture the situation in some Member States 
(e.g. SE) where there are action plans in all 
ministries, instead of one overall national action 
plan. Further, the word ‘sectoral’ was removed 
from these questions, as this often led to 
confusion, which affected comparability.

In the 2021 data collection, it was also 
identified that some Member States have 
gender mainstreaming strategies and not 
gender equality strategies (i.e. BE). Therefore, 
new questions were added under H1e to collect 
data on the existence of overall governmental 
strategies and action plans on gender 
mainstreaming, and whether they are 
applicable across government (under Q14 and 
Q15). However, these questions were not scored 
and therefore do not affect the overall scoring 
for H1.

Sub-indicator H1e comprises six questions with 
a maximum score of 5 (Table 2.4).

Table 2.4  Questions included in scoring of sub-indicator H1e

4 (*)

Reporting to parliament by the governmental body/bodies

Questions and options

Score

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 that 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

Don’t know

11

National strategy on gender equality 

11.1

There is an overall national strategy on gender equality 

1

0.5

0.5

0

1

15

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Questions and options

11.2

11.3

There are strategies on specific aspects of gender equality in all or most departments/
ministries (more than 50 %)

There are strategies on specific aspects of gender equality in some or a few departments/
ministries (less than 50 %)

11.4

There is no national strategy for gender equality

11.5

Don’t know

12

National action plan for gender equality

12.1

There is an overall national action plan on gender equality

12.2

12.3

12.4

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

There are national action plans on specific policy areas relating to gender equality in all or 
most departments/ministries (more than 50 %)

There are national action plans on specific policy areas relating to gender equality in some 
or a few departments/ministries (less than 50 %) 

12.5

There is no action plan in place

13.2

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

Yes

Partly

No

Don’t know

13.3

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

Yes

No

Don’t know

13.4

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

Score

0.5

0

0

0

1

0.5

0.5

0

0

1

0.5

0

0

0.5

0

0

0.5

0

0

5

Yes

No

Don’t know

Maximum score

(*)  This question has both ‘a’ and ‘b’ versions.

2.2.4.1.  Issues relating to sub-
indicator H1e

Q4.3 addresses whether there is a separate 
parliamentary committee that explicitly 
includes gender equality in its mandate and if 
this committee conducts regular monitoring (at 
least once a year) of the governmental body’s 
efforts to promote gender equality and reports 

16

this to parliament. Essentially, it seeks to 
confirm both the existence of such a committee 
and its active role in overseeing gender equality 
initiatives on a consistent basis. The question is 
intended to reflect an alternative oversight 
mechanism if there is no formalised system of 
regular reporting to parliament, and therefore 
acts as a secondary question to Q4.1 and Q4.2.

However, many Member States (BE, DK, DE, EL, 
FR(14), CY, LT, AT, RO, SI, SE) have selected ‘Yes’ 
based solely on the existence of a separate 
parliamentary committee dealing with gender 
equality, without providing information about 
regular monitoring of the gender equality body 
(oversight role). Conversely, other countries have 
selected ‘No’ because regular monitoring does 
not occur, even though the committee exists (IE).

By contrast, it was noted that, in Finland, 
government reporting to parliament on gender 
equality issues occurs once per governmental 
period, typically at the end of the term. 
Therefore, the survey’s regularity criterion, 
which only considers annual reporting, was 
limiting. For future data collection, it is 
recommended that different frequency options 
and a follow-up question on the scope of the 
reports be included. In addition, specifying the 
designated recipient of the reports – whether a 
specific committee, the parliament as a whole 
or another entity like the budget committee – 
will help fully capture the effectiveness of 
gender equality reporting.

It might also be worth considering the use of 
EIGE’s data collection on gender-sensitive 
parliaments to directly address this question to 
the parliament. However, since the two surveys 
are unlikely to be conducted simultaneously, 
this could lead to issues with the timeliness of 
the data.

There were also issues concerning whether a 
law, strategy or action plan covers gender 
equality only or gender equality together with 
other equality and non-discrimination issues. 
For example, in Malta, the same law was 
provided as evidence of both a law focusing 
exclusively on gender equality and a law 
dedicated to the promotion of gender equality 
together with other equality and non-
discrimination issues. Following quality 
assurance checks, it was decided that the law 
covers gender equality together with other 
equality and non-discrimination issues. For 
future data collection, the guidelines should 
clearly state that the question is asking for laws 

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

that fall into only one of the three specified 
categories.

There were other instances where the strategic 
framework for gender equality and gender 
mainstreaming was not outlined in one 
overarching strategy or action plan. For 
example, in Austria, there is currently no active 
strategy or action plan document for gender 
equality or gender mainstreaming. However, 
several legislative obligations and policy 
instruments represent a national strategic 
framework on gender mainstreaming, outlining 
the current goals and mechanisms within all 
ministries. As a result, each ministry 
independently decides how to implement 
gender equality and gender mainstreaming. 
Therefore, the scoring for Austria for H1e does 
not reflect its efforts in this area.

There was also some confusion between what 
constitutes a strategy versus an action plan. A 
strategy for gender equality provides an overall 
vision, mission, values, priorities and activities 
to achieve a policy objective or goal. It is 
different from an action plan, which 
operationalises a strategy and focuses on 
actions to achieve specific output and results, 
typically with targets, timelines and indicators 
to monitor progress over a specific period of 
time. An action plan also typically identifies 
who is responsible for the implementation of 
each action. In many cases (e.g. CZ, EL, ES, HR, 
CY, MT, RO), the strategy and action plan form 
one policy document. Therefore, for future data 
collection, the guidelines should provide 
examples of strategies and action plans that 
function as separate documents and as the 
same document to support Member States to 
select the correct answer.

2.2.5.  Sub-indicator H1f: Mandate 

and functions of independent 
gender equality bodies

As with sub-indicator H1d, in the 2021 
questionnaire, Q7.2 and Q7.3 asked about which 

(14)  Reported ‘regular’, but it was unclear if this means at least once a year.

17

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

of a set of ‘main’ and ‘additional’ functions, 
respectively, was carried out by each 
independent gender equality body. However, 
for the same reasons outlined under H1d, a 
single list of functions for independent bodies, 
based on the competences set out for these 
bodies in the equality directives(15), was 
developed for the 2024 questionnaire, 
eliminating the main/additional split. Table 2.5 
details a revised list of functions for 
independent gender equality bodies that were 
included in the 2024 questionnaire based on 
the new directives.

The same scoring method was used for H1f and 
H1d. Each function received an equal share of 
the total score (2 / 6 = 0.333). The cooperation 

function was further divided into three levels, 
each scoring 0.111 (0.333 / 3). Therefore, this 
slightly modified the list and scores per 
function, but the total score and overall list 
remained largely unchanged.

In a number of cases, the function covers two or 
more sub-functions, and it is possible for bodies 
to cover none, some or all of these. In order to 
accommodate this, the answer was changed 
from Yes/No to Yes/Partly/No, similarly to the 
response options for the functions under H1d. 
Only a ‘Yes’ response was scored.

Sub-indicator H1f comprises two questions with 
a maximum score of 3 (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5  Questions included in scoring of sub-indicator H1f

43 (*)

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

Questions and options

Score

Exclusively gender equality

Gender equality combined with other equality-related functions

Don’t know

44 (*)

Functions of the independent body for the promotion of gender equality

44.1 (*)

Prevention, promotion and awareness raising

44.2 (*)

Assistance to victims

44.3 (*)

Formal investigation of complaints and participation in related litigation

44.4 (*)

Cooperation – international/EU

44.5 (*)

Cooperation – national/sub-national

44.6 (*)

Cooperation – civil society

44.7 (*)

Consultation and recommendation

44.8 (*)

Data collection and research

Maximum score

(*)  This question has both ‘a’ and ‘b’ versions.

1

0

0

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.33

0.33

3

(15)  Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499 of 7 May 2024 on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment between 
persons irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin, equal treatment in matters of employment and occupation between 
persons irrespective of their religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, equal treatment between women and 
men in matters of social security and in the access to and supply of goods and services, and amending Directives 2000/43/
EC and 2004/113/EC (OJ L, 2024/1499, 29.5.2024, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1499/oj); Directive (EU) 2024/1500 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal 
treatment and equal opportunities between women and men in matters of employment and occupation, and amending 
Directives 2006/54/EC and 2010/41/EU (OJ L, 2024/1500, 29.5.2024, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1500/oj).

18

2.2.5.1  Issues relating to sub-indicator H1f

2.3.1.  Indicator H2a: Personnel 

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

There were instances in which the independent 
body had a scope of gender equality combined 
with other equality-related functions and the 
mandate specified gender but, in reality, very 
little work was done on gender equality (e.g. in 
IE). Therefore, when Member States have bodies 
with mixed mandates that score the maximum 
points for the question on functions, it may not 
accurately reflect the actual efforts made to 
promote gender equality.

In addition, similarly to the issues identified 
under H1d, it is unlikely that some of these 
bodies have sufficient resources to implement 
the functions effectively, despite guidelines 
specifying that staff should have clearly 
defined roles related to these tasks. Similarly to 
the situation with H1d, the low level of 
resources will be evident in H2b even if the 
scores for H1f may be overstated.

2.3.  Indicator H2: Human 
resources of national 
gender equality 
bodies

The same list of sub-indicators under indicator 
H2 used for the 2021 data collection was used 
for the 2024 data collection. The sub-indicators 
are as follows:

a)  personnel resources of governmental gender 

equality bodies (maximum score of 2);

b)  personnel resources of independent gender 

equality bodies (maximum score of 2).

Therefore, in the current measurement 
framework, H2 has a maximum score of 
4 points.

No changes have been made to the scoring 
model since the 2021 data collection. Further 
information on the scoring for these indicators 
is described below.

resources of governmental 
gender equality bodies

2.3.1.1.  Scoring of the data on personnel 

resources

Data on the total number of employees of 
governmental gender equality bodies is 
collected in Q5a/b. In the case of equality 
bodies with a wider remit, as established by 
Q2a/b, Q6a/b also collects data on the 
proportion of time that the total employees 
reported in Q5 work on gender equality issues. 
The data is collected as a broad range (0–25 %, 
25–50 %, 50–75 %, 75–100 %).

To calculate the total governmental personnel 
resources allocated to gender equality, the total 
employees reported under Q5 are (separately 
for each body) adjusted by the proportion 
reported under Q6 (always using the upper 
limit of the range) as per this formula:

(Total staff of governmental gender 
equality body, Q5) × (Proportion of time 
spent on gender equality, Q6)

In light of these challenges, the approach taken 
is to score based on the absolute numbers of 
personnel reported (as calculated using the 
formula above). However, for bodies with 
multiple mandates, it is difficult to estimate the 
time spent on gender equality, especially when 
individuals have roles that span multiple fields 
rather than separate departments for different 
fields. In such cases, using the upper limit of the 
percentage range may sometimes overestimate 
the number of people working on gender 
equality.

Fundamentally, a team of 2 or 3 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 reflects this (Table 2.6).

19

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Table 2.6  Questions included in scoring of indicator H2a

Questions and options

Maximum 
score

5 (*)
6 (*)

Combined results of:
5: What is the total number of employees in the governmental body?
6: If the mandate of the governmental body includes gender equality combined with 
other non-discrimination areas, approximately what percentage of time is spent on 
projects focused on gender equality?

100 or more

25–100

10–25

5–10

0–5

Don’t know

Maximum score

(*)  This question has both ‘a’ and ‘b’ versions.

2.3.1.2.  Issues relating to sub-
indicator H2a

Although data on personnel resources was 
collected, there was an overall lack of evidence 
provided. Without publicly available 
documents, it was difficult to verify the figures 
provided by national focal points. For future 
data collection, it is recommended that the 
guidelines on the question concerned specify 
the relevant documents where details on 
personnel resources might be found, such as 
annual reports, organisational charts and 
budget allocations that are accessible to the 
public.

This indicator measures the personnel of the 
governmental gender equality body. However, 

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

2

some Member States felt that the question did 
not allow them to accurately reflect the total 
number of personnel working on gender 
equality across the country.

2.3.2.  Indicator H2b: Personnel 
resources of independent 
gender equality bodies

Questions currently included in the scoring of 
indicator H2b are shown in Table 2.7. The 
scoring model applied is exactly the same as for 
indicator H2a (i.e. based on the absolute 
numbers of personnel).

20

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Table 2.7  Questions included in scoring of indicator H2b

Questions and options

Maximum 
score

45 (*)
45.1 (*)

Combined results of:
45: What is the total number of employees in the independent body?
45.1: If the mandate of the independent body includes gender equality combined 
with other non-discrimination areas, approximately what percentage of time is 
spent on projects focused on gender equality? 

100 or more

25–100

10–5

5–10

0–5

Don’t know

Maximum score

(*)  This question has both ‘a’ and ‘b’ versions.

2.3.2.1.  Issues relating to sub-
indicator H2b

As for sub-indicator H2a, there were instances 
where no evidence was provided for the data in 
H2b, making it difficult to verify the figures. 
Similarly, for future data collection, it is 
recommended that the guidelines on the 
question concerned specify the relevant 
documents where details on personnel 
resources might be found.

2.3.3.  Data on financial resources

Indicator H2 should ideally 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 relevant bodies 
are suitably equipped to fulfil their mandates. 
In the 2024 data collection, Member States 
were asked to provide data on the actual 
expenditure of the governmental and 
independent bodies for 2023. The reason for 
collecting data on the actual expenditure rather 
than the budget was to gain a more accurate 
picture of the resources that were actually 
spent on gender equality, rather than what was 
merely planned (the two tend to be quite 
disparate in some cases).

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

2

Although data on financial resources was 
collected, the data was in a few cases 
incomplete. For example, a number of Member 
States did not have the data on expenditure 
costs for 2023 at the time of data collection, as 
this data is contained in annual reports that are 
produced at the end of the following year (i.e. 
after the data collection has ended). As a result, 
many Member States reported budgets and 
data from either 2022 or 2024 (see Table 2.8 
and Table 2.9).

Another reason for incomplete data was that 
countries were unable to distinguish the costs 
of the gender equality section/department/unit 
from the wider costs of the parent ministry. For 
example, in Austria, the administrative costs of 
Division III: Women’s Affairs and Equality 
(governmental body 1) are part of the Federal 
Chancellery’s overall budget, making it hard to 
isolate the division’s expenditure. Similarly, 
other countries like Germany and Sweden did 
not have a breakdown between administrative 
and non-administrative costs. To accommodate 
these cases, it is recommended that a question 
on the way financial resources are allocated to 
the gender equality section/department/unit 
be added before the question asking for a 
breakdown of administrative and non-
administrative costs.

21

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Further consideration of this issue, more input 
from countries on the reasons why such data is 
so difficult, and o provide possibly 
recommendations on estimation methods are 
needed for future collections. In the meantime, 

the incompleteness of the data and concerns 
about data quality mean that financial data 
cannot currently be used for indicator H2a or 
H2b.

Table 2.8  Financial data reported by governmental gender equality bodies across Member States

Type of data

Governmental gender equality bodies

2023 annual expenditure

Evidence provided for: ES, IT,, PT (1), RO
No evidence provided for: EE, IE (2), EL (3), CY (1), MT, NL, PT (4), SI, SK, FI (3)

2022 annual expenditure

CZ

2024 budget

DK, DE, FR, LU, AT (4), PL, SE (3)

2023 budget

BG, HR, LT

Data unavailable

CY (4), LV, HU, AT (1)

(1)  The second governmental body.
(2)  The data provided was for the entire Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and therefore is 

not an accurate reflection of the resources spent on gender equality.

(3)  Both governmental bodies.
(4)  The first governmental body.

Table 2.9  Financial data reported by independent gender equality bodies across Member States

Type of data

Independent gender equality bodies

2023 annual expenditure

Evidence provided for: BG, CZ, IE, ES, FR, HR, HU, MT, NL, PT, SE
No evidence provided for: BE, DK, EE, IT, LV, LT

2022 annual expenditure

2024 budget

2023 budget

SI

DE

AT, PL, RO, FI (1)

2022 budget

LU

Data unavailable

EL, CY, SK

(1)  Both independent gender equality bodies.

2.3.4.  Funds distributed to 

non-governmental 
organisations

An additional question was added to the 2024 
data collection as per paragraph 350 of the 
BPfA, which states that governments should 
play a role in strengthening the capacity of 
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to 
mobilise resources for gender equality. Q8a/b 
asks whether governmental bodies have 

22

distributed funds to NGOs in the last five years. 
This question aims to capture the existence of 
funds to strengthen the capacity of NGOs to 
contribute towards gender equality and gender 
mainstreaming. This question was not scored, 
so the results are not included in the overall 
scores for indicator H2.

All Member States (for both governmental 
bodies) reported whether they had distributed 
funds to NGOs in the last five years. A total of 
18 Member States answered ‘Yes’, while the 

remaining nine answered ‘No’. Among those 
that answered ‘Yes’, five reported distributing 
funds for gender equality in general, while six 
reported distributing funds for specific gender 
equality issues (e.g. gender-based violence). 
The other seven Member States did not specify 
which issues they funded. In addition, only 12 
Member States reported the frequency and 
amount of funds distributed over the last five 
years.

This question was useful for understanding 
which Member States are actively distributing 
funds to NGOs, the organisations these funds 
are directed towards, and the frequency and 
amounts of these distributions, providing a 
clear picture of governmental support for 
gender equality initiatives. Repeating this 
question in future data collection can help build 
a more comprehensive dataset over time, 
allowing for better analysis and the 
identification of trends in support provided to 
NGOs.

2.4.  Indicator H3: Gender 
mainstreaming

The 2024 questionnaire maintains the revised 
measurement and conceptual framework 

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

adopted for the 2021 questionnaire. Therefore, 
the list of sub-indicators for H3 is as follows:

a)  status of governmental commitment to 

gender mainstreaming (maximum score of 
2);

b)  governmental gender mainstreaming 
structures and consultation processes 
(maximum score of 4);

c)  commitment to and use of methods and 

tools for gender mainstreaming (maximum 
score of 6);

d)  consultation of independent gender equality 

bodies (maximum score of 2).

The maximum total score for H3 is 14 points.

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

2.4.1.  Sub-indicator H3a: Status of 

governmental commitment to 
gender mainstreaming

Sub-indicator H3a comprises a single question 
with a maximum score of 2 (Table 2.10).

Table 2.10  Question included in scoring of sub-indicator H3a

16

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

Question and options

Score

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

Don’t know

Maximum score

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

2

23

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

2.4.1.1  Issues relating to sub-indicator H3a

An identified issue with Q16 pertains to 
assessing the actual enforceability of the legal 
obligation regarding the implementation of 
gender mainstreaming. None of the identified 
legal obligations to implement gender 
mainstreaming appears to have any 
enforcement mechanisms in the form of 
sanctions applicable in the case of non-
compliance. Therefore, no Member State 
achieved a score of 2, with the highest score 
being 1.5. It is thus recommended that the 
question be rephrased, the options clarified and 
the scoring criteria adjusted for future data 
collection.

There were also a few instances in which the 
response provided did not reflect the true 
nature of the commitment, largely because the 
documents provided as evidence were policies 
or laws that had not been fully implemented at 
the time of data collection. Therefore, for future 
data collection, the guidelines should be more 
explicit that a law regarding the 
implementation of gender mainstreaming must 
be in place at the specified date.

2.4.2.  Sub-indicator H3b: 

Governmental gender 
mainstreaming structures and 
consultation processes

Sub-indicator H3b covers governmental gender 
mainstreaming structures and consultation 
processes 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 
government, and thus a low or no score is given 
for partial efforts. Comparable to the 2021 data 
collection, the questions measure not only the 
existence of structures and consultation 
processes but also their extent/effectiveness 
(Table 2.11).

24

There are additional questions that seek more 
information on the gender mainstreaming 
structure (Q19: If there is a gender 
mainstreaming structure, what is the total 
number of staff (head count) who specifically 
support gender mainstreaming across all 
government departments/ministries, outside of 
the governmental body for the promotion of 
gender equality, if any?; Q20: If there is a 
gender mainstreaming structure, does it have 
an action plan?), and Q21 asks whether there is 
a procedure in place to ensure that the 
government and other public institutions can 
consult the governmental body on legislation, 
policy, procedure, programmes and practices in 
policy fields other than gender equality. 
However, these questions were not scored.

The only change made to the questions in 2024 
was to Q17, for which the response options 
were revised to better reflect the realities in 
Member States and to more effectively assess 
the structure’s effectiveness. The previous 
2021 top-scoring option for an 
‘Interdepartmental coordination structure that 
includes contact persons in ministries/
departments’ was split into two, namely 
‘Units / departments / working groups 
specifically dedicated to gender mainstreaming 
within each ministry’ and ‘Gender focal points 
in the ministries (contact persons for gender 
mainstreaming) and/or an interministerial 
group (a coordinating body or a network of 
contact persons)’ to address concerns that 
well-established systems in countries like 
Austria were not adequately taken into 
account. The decision was taken for both the 
new options to score the same (1) and the 
scoring of the other options was kept in 
alignment with the data provided in 2021 (so 
countries that previously scored 0.5 for some 
‘other’ structure still score the same).

Sub-indicator H3b comprises four questions 
with a maximum score of 4 (Table 2.11).

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Table 2.11  Questions included in scoring of sub-indicator H3b

17

Gender mainstreaming structures

Questions and options

Score

17.1

17.2

17.3

17.4

18

Units / departments / working groups specifically dedicated to gender mainstreaming 
within each ministry

Gender focal points in the ministries (contact persons for gender mainstreaming) and/or an 
interministerial group (a coordinating body or a network of contact persons)

Other structure

No structure

If there is a gender mainstreaming structure, 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 %)

Don’t know

22

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 %)

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 in only 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

Don’t know

23

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 %)

Don’t know

Maximum score

1

1

0.5

0

1

0.5

0

0

0

1

0.5

0

0

0

0

1

0.5

0

0

0

4

2.4.2.1.  Issues relating to sub-
indicator H3b

Defining what constitutes a gender 
mainstreaming structure was a common issue 
(Q17). Some Member States (e.g. EL, SK) 

included overarching gender equality bodies 
that primarily have a consultative function and 
are not responsible for coordinating gender 
mainstreaming actions. Therefore, for future 
data collection, the guidelines should clearly 

25

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

describe what constitutes a gender 
mainstreaming structure to avoid confusion.

There was the issue in Belgium where a ‘Yes’ 
was given to both Q17.1 and Q17.2. While this 
did not affect the overall scoring (as only the 
highest score is taken, and both questions 
scored the same), Q17 should be revised in 
future data collection to be a single question 
for which only one option can be selected.

Q19 asks (see Table 2.12) about the resources 
(number of staff members) allocated to the 
gender mainstreaming structure, and Q19.1 
asks for the proportion of time that the staff 
spend supporting gender mainstreaming work. 
However, the data remains incomplete. There is 
no data on resources for 2 (DE, EE) of the 20 
countries that report having some form of 
gender mainstreaming structure(16). The 
comparability of data on the number of 
personnel who make up gender mainstreaming 
structures is challenging due to the diverse 
organisational set-ups across Member States. In 
some instances, there are dedicated units 
within each ministry, which makes it easy to 

identify the number of staff. Conversely, other 
countries have interministerial groups that 
meet occasionally, with some or all participants 
not working on gender mainstreaming issues 
full-time. This variability complicates the task 
of making the data comparable. Therefore, it is 
necessary to identify additional methods to 
capture the real input that individuals 
contribute to gender mainstreaming work.

Another issue concerns Q20, which asks 
whether the gender mainstreaming structure 
has an action plan. Several Member States 
answered ‘Yes’ and provided evidence of an 
action plan for gender mainstreaming. The data 
indicates that there were no cases in which the 
gender mainstreaming structure had its own 
dedicated action plan. In practice, when there is 
a proper gender mainstreaming coordination 
body, it is unlikely to have its own dedicated 
action plan. Instead, these bodies typically work 
in accordance with an overall gender 
mainstreaming action plan, which may be part 
of a broader gender equality action plan. For 
this reason, it is advised that the question be 
removed for future data collection.

Table 2.12  Personnel resources of gender mainstreaming structures (as currently reported)

Total staff

Less than 5

5–10

10–25

Countries

FR, LT, SK

CZ, IT, CY, LU, PT, SI, FI, SE

More than 25

BE, BG, ES, HR, MT, AT, RO 

There were issues related to Q22 regarding how 
frequently governmental bodies are consulted 
about policies, laws or programmes in policy 
fields other than gender equality (similar issues 
occurred with the related Q33 on the impact of 
such consultation). Some Member States have 
indicated that, given the volume of policies 
requiring review, it seems nearly impossible for 
a gender equality body to properly examine all 
of them.

In addition, the response option ‘No consultation 
takes place, as departments or ministries have an 
internal mechanism for ensuring gender equality 
in new or existing policies, laws or programmes’ 
and its associated score of 0 appear problematic 
in some cases. Indeed, the four countries that 
selected this response(17) report having processes 
to embed (to a certain degree) gender equality 
considerations within their internal procedures, 
aiming for an integrated approach to gender 

(16)  The Member States with no gender mainstreaming structure are IE, EL, LV, HU, NL and PL. While the existence of such 

structure is confirmed in DK, no information has been provided on the number of personnel resources.

(17)  BG, ES, HR and LU.

26

mainstreaming. It is recommended that the 
question be reformulated and the scoring take 
into account the approach taken by countries 
that have established review processes within 
each ministry.

2.4.3.  Sub-indicator H3c: 

Commitment to and use of 
methods and tools for gender 
mainstreaming

The questions covered by sub-indicator H3c are 
shown in Table 2.13. These cover obligations to 
undertake gender impact assessments; 
obligations to use and the actual use of gender 
budgeting; awareness raising in relation to the 
use of gender-sensitive language; and the 
delivery of gender equality training to different 
groups of government employees and whether 
or not this is mandatory. Effectively these are 

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

eight 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.

Two further questions planned for inclusion in 
the sub-indicator (Q27 about the use of 
evaluations and Q28 about centralised 
initiatives to raise awareness of gender equality 
among ministries and other governmental 
bodies) that had been previously excluded from 
the scoring model because of concerns about 
the data quality have been refined and restored 
in the 2024 questionnaire, but they remain 
unscored.

Sub-indicator H3c comprises five questions with 
a maximum score of 6 (Table 2.13).

Table 2.13  Questions included in scoring of sub-indicator H3c

Questions and options

Score

24

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

Don’t know

25

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

Don’t know

26

How widespread is the use of gender budgeting in ministerial budgets and in 
the budgets of other governmental institutions?

Widely used in most ministries

Used by some ministries

Still in its foundational stages

Practically an unknown concept

1

0.5

0

0

1

0.5

0

0

1

0.5

0

0

27

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Questions and options

Score

Don’t know

29

Have there been any central initiatives to raise awareness of the importance of 
gender-sensitive language among ministries and other governmental bodies in 
the past two years?

Yes

No

Don’t know

0

1

0

0

30 and 31 Are governmental employees involved in gender equality training?

Is gender equality training mandatory?

For question 30, the highest single score is obtained from the matrix below.
The result for question 30 is then doubled for question 31 if the training for the 
relevant category of government employees is mandatory.

2 (maximum)

All or most 
government 
employees (1)

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

30.2 The 
employees of 
the 
governmental 
body for 
gender 
equality

30.3 Some of 
the 
employees of 
other 
ministries/
departments

1

0.75

0.5

0.5

0.5

0

0

0.375

0.25

0.25

0

0

0

0

0

0

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

Yes, on an ad 
hoc basis

No

Don’t know

Maximum score

6

(1)  Due to an error in the 2024 questionnaire, the option ‘All or most government employees’ was missing. No Member State 

could score 1 on this question.

2.4.3.1.  Issues relating to sub-indicator H3c

The data collected for Q24 did not always 
provide sufficient detail on what is required as 
part of the gender impact assessment and, 
therefore, it was difficult to assess the impact 
and effectiveness of this tool. It is 
recommended that future data collection seek 
more comprehensive information on the extent 
of the implementation of gender impact 
assessments (in a similar way to Q26 for gender 
budgeting), the scope and depth of these 
assessments, and details on who is responsible 
for reviewing and approving them (e.g. internal 
checks, parliamentary committees). In addition, 

it should include the potential impact of the 
gender impact assessment if it identifies issues.

Like in 2021, some of the data provided for Q28 
and Q29 on central initiatives referred to those 
aimed at the public, private companies and 
educational institutions rather than at raising 
capacity within government. Therefore, the 
guidelines should make clear that initiatives 
designed to raise awareness among companies, 
academia and the public are not to be included.

The option ‘All or most government employees’ 
was inadvertently missing from the 2024 
questionnaire. Consequently, the maximum 

28

score for the 2024 questions on training is 1.5 
(obligatory for the highest level) instead of 2 
(obligatory for all or most government 
employees). This should be corrected for the 
next data collection.

2.4.4.  Sub-indicator H3d: 

Consultation of independent 
gender equality bodies

As noted above, this indicator measures the 
input of independent gender equality bodies in 
the process of ensuring that gender issues are 
addressed across all areas of policy. Following 
the review carried out in 2023 (based on an 
analysis of the data received in 2021 and 
Article 13 of the then-proposed directive on 

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

binding standards for equality bodies), an 
additional question (Q47) was added to assess 
the existence of a procedure in place to ensure 
the independent gender equality bodies can be 
consulted on policy areas other than gender 
equality.

This question aimed to identify if gender 
considerations are mainstreamed in other 
policy areas through the involvement of 
independent bodies, but was not scored in 
order to maintain comparability with the 2021 
assessment. Scoring for the two remaining 
questions is exactly the same as for the 
equivalent questions for governmental bodies 
covered under sub-indicator H3b (Q22 and Q23).

Sub-indicator H3d comprises two questions 
with a maximum score of 2 (Table 2.14).

Table 2.14  Questions included in scoring of sub-indicator H3d

Questions and options

Score

48

How regularly are the 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)?

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 in only 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

Don’t know

49

If independent bodies for the promotion of gender equality are consulted about new or 
existing policies, laws or programmes, how often does their involvement lead to an 
adjustment in 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 %)

Don’t know

Not relevant

Maximum score

1

0.5

0

0

0

0

1

0.5

0

0

0

0

2

29

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

2.4.5.  Involvement of non-

governmental organisations

The actions identified for governments under 
Area H of the BPfA include ensuring the 
involvement of a ‘diverse range of institutional 
actors in the public, private and voluntary 
sectors’. Paragraph 201(b) mentions the 
following precondition for the effective 
functioning of the bodies: ‘Institutional 
mechanisms or processes that facilitate, as 
appropriate, decentralized planning, 
implementation and monitoring with a view to 
involving non-governmental organizations and 
community organisations from the grass-roots 
upwards.’ However, this is not yet adequately 
covered in the indicators.

The 2021 questionnaire included a free text 
question asking about formalised 
arrangements to ensure the involvement of 
civil-society actors. For coherence with other 
questions, the question was revised in 2024 to 
‘Is there a formal mechanism(s) for the 
involvement of civil-society organisations 
[CSOs] in the development of new or existing 
policies, laws or programmes in the area of 
gender equality policy?’ The question focuses 
on ‘new or existing policies, laws or 
programmes’ and on ‘formal mechanisms’, as a 
clear and objective way to assess civil-society 
involvement. As in 2021, this question was not 
scored for comparability reasons, so the results 
are not included in the overall scores for 
indicator H3.

All Member States responded to this question, 
with all except two reporting that there is a 
formal mechanism in place for the involvement 
of CSOs in the development of new or existing 
policies, laws or programmes on gender 
equality. Member States provided detail on the 
nature of this involvement and the mechanisms 
through which the CSOs are consulted. The data 
is indeed useful, as it provides a comprehensive 
overview of the involvement of CSOs in gender 
equality policy development across various 
Member States and helps to identify best 
practices, gaps and areas for improvement in 
the engagement of CSOs. For future data 
collection, scored questions could ask about the 

30

existence of formal mechanisms, as well as how 
regularly CSOs are consulted, helping to reveal 
trends and patterns in CSO engagement.

2.5.  Indicator H4: 

Production and 
dissemination of 
statistics 
disaggregated by sex

The currently adopted indicator H4 is calculated 
as the sum of scores for three aspects with an 
overall maximum score of 6.

In 2021, previous sub-indicators H4a and H4b 
were merged into a broadened H4a referring to 
governmental commitment to the production 
of statistics (i.e. covering collection and 
dissemination together). Meanwhile, sub-
indicator H4c was expanded to consider not 
only the methods used to disseminate gender 
statistics but also the intensity and accessibility 
of the efforts made.

The list of sub-indicators adopted for the 2021 
data collection and revised for 2024 is as 
follows:

a)  governmental commitment to the 

production of statistics disaggregated by 
sex (maximum score of 2);

b)  governmental commitment to the 

dissemination of statistics disaggregated by 
sex (not used – incorporated under H4a);

c)  effectiveness of efforts to disseminate 

statistics disaggregated by sex (maximum 
score of 4).

2.5.1.  Sub-indicator H4a: 

Governmental commitment to 
the production of statistics 
disaggregated by sex

Sub-indicator H4a was presented in the 
questionnaire as three separate sub-questions 
(33, 34, 35). 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, when 

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

multiple laws/agreements are reported, only 
the highest-scoring case is taken into account.

Sub-indicator H4a comprises three questions 
with a maximum score of 2 (Table 2.15).

Table 2.15  Questions included in scoring of sub-indicator H4a

33

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

Questions and options

Score

Yes

No

Don’t know

34

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

Yes

No

Don’t know

35

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

2

0

0

1.5

0

0

1

0.5

0

0

2

No

Don’t know

Maximum score

2.5.1.1.  Issues relating to sub-indicator H4a

For Q33, no major issues were identified. 
However, there was some inconsistency and 
lack of clarity in the evidence provided by 
respondents. This suggests a need for clearer 
guidelines and more specific examples to help 
respondents understand and accurately report 
the legal obligations for collecting data 
disaggregated by sex.

Several issues were identified with Q34. A 
notable problem is that a requirement for a 
single organisation (other than the respective 
national statistical institute) to collect data is 
scored the same as a general requirement for 
all ministries to collect data. This discrepancy 
appears unjustified. For example, in Estonia, the 

Ministry of Justice was required to collect 
sex-disaggregated data due to the Istanbul 
convention, and this was therefore scored. 
However, since this requirement probably 
applies to all countries that have signed and 
ratified the Convention, it raises the question of 
why it should be scored in one country but not 
others. A potential improvement to the 
questionnaire could be to clearly exclude data 
collection obligations linked to EU regulations 
and international conventions.

For Q35, there were issues related to clarity on 
the types of agreements. Respondents often 
found it challenging to distinguish between 
different types of agreements, such as regular 
data collection agreements and ad hoc 
agreements. To address this, it is recommended 

31

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

that the guidelines be revised to provide clearer 
definitions and examples of each type of 
agreement. This will help ensure that 
respondents can more accurately identify and 
report the relevant agreements governing the 
collection of sex-disaggregated data.

As previously mentioned, sub-indicator H4a was 
presented in the questionnaire as three 
separate sub-questions (33, 34, 35). From a user 
perspective, this approach may not be ideal. For 
future data collection, it is recommended that 
these be reframed as a single question 
presented in a table format with four rows (one 
for each item that is scored) and columns for 
‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Evidence’.

2.5.2.  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 
an entire website or a section of a website 
dedicated to gender statistics (up to 2 points) 
and the accessibility of the data presented 
there (maximum 1 additional point). In the case 
of a negative response to the existence of a 
website or section of a website devoted to 
gender statistics, an additional question 
enables reporting on the percentage of 
datasets with a breakdown by sex included on 
the national statistical office website (not 
included in the scoring). 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 outlined in 
Table 2.16.

Table 2.16  Questions included in scoring of sub-indicator H4c

36

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?

Questions and options

Score

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

Don’t know

Accessibility of the data on this website (each option scores one third of a point for a ‘Yes’ 
answer and zero for ‘No’ or ‘Don’t know’, giving a maximum of 1 for accessibility)

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

Does the relevant website or section of a website provide direct access to relevant 
datasets that can be both viewed online and downloaded?

Does the relevant website or section of a website provide direct access to relevant 
publications and/or online analyses of gender statistics?

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

2

2

1

0

0

0.33

0.33

0.33

37

38

39

41

32

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

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

Questions and options

There are only ad hoc publications

There are no publications on gender statistics

Don’t know

42

Are gender statistics disseminated on a regular basis?

Score

0.5

0

0

0

0.5

0

0

4

Yes

No

Don’t know

Maximum score

2.5.2.1.  Issues relating to sub-
indicator H4c

Several issues were identified regarding the 
existence and maintenance of specific websites 
or sections dedicated to gender statistics (Q36). 
The responses provided by the respondents 
often lacked clarity. In addition, some 
respondents reported the existence of websites 
or sections that were part of broader 
sustainable development goals (SDGs) 
monitoring websites. While these included 
gender equality as one of the SDGs (SDG 5), 
they were not specifically focused on gender 
statistics. This distinction should be made 
clearer in the guidelines.

Q37, Q38 and Q39 would be better formulated 
as sub-items of a single question asking about 
the coverage and offerings of the site, to 
increase user-friendliness.

In addition, for Q39, responses often directed 
users to general data repositories, which do not 
qualify as providing comprehensive analysis or 
detailed publications. The aim of this question 
is to identify sites that offer direct access to 
relevant analysis and publications, without 
requiring users to enter search terms, as is the 
case with general repositories. This suggests a 
need for clearer guidelines and examples to 
help respondents understand what constitutes 
adequate analysis and publication links.

Q40 is based on estimates from national focal 
points, which limits the accuracy of the 

responses. While it is not scored, the responses 
showed such varied interpretations that it 
might be advisable to remove this question 
from the next iteration.

The definition of ‘regular’ publications (Q41) 
posed challenges for some respondents. While 
the ideal frequency was suggested as ‘once a 
year’, this was not consistently understood or 
applied.

For Q42, the focus was on identifying 
dissemination vehicles beyond regular online 
statistics and publications. However, the 
evidence provided often reiterated information 
from the previous questions, without 
mentioning alternative dissemination methods, 
such as social media. The wording of the 
question could be improved, and some specific 
examples and clearer instructions on what 
constitutes additional dissemination methods 
could be added to the guidelines to help 
respondents provide more relevant 
information.

2.6.  General points related 

to revisions to 2021 
responses

In a limited number of cases, the collection of 
more detailed evidence in 2024 led to revisions 
of the 2021 responses. These revisions are 
reflected in the following table.

33

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Table 2.17  Revisions of 2021 data on the basis of metadata provided in 2024

Sub-
indicator

Question

Member 
State

Comparison issues between 2021 and 2024 data

H1a

9

PT

H1d

2

SE

H1d

3

AT, SK

H1e

13.3

LU

H1f

43a

HR

H1

The responsibility for gender equality was recorded as a change, as it 
was transferred in April 2024 to the Undersecretary of State for 
Equality, a junior minister operating under the Ministry of Youth and 
Modernisation. However, in 2021, this responsibility was mistakenly 
recorded as being allocated to a senior minister, when it was actually 
managed by the Secretary of State for Citizenship and Equality, also a 
junior minister. 2021 data has been revised accordingly, reducing the 
score for PT for indicator H1 by 1 point.

In 2021, the mandate of the Division for Gender Equality was classified 
as gender equality combined with other equality-related functions. In 
2024, more evidence was provided, which led to changing the response 
to ‘exclusively gender equality’. The mandate of the division did not 
change. The division takes an intersectional approach to gender equality 
but it primarily focuses on gender equality issues, while the Division for 
Human Rights and Discrimination Issues is responsible for broader 
discrimination issues. 2021 data has been revised accordingly but the 
change has no impact on scoring because the second governmental 
body (Swedish Gender Equality Agency) already has an exclusive 
mandate that achieves the maximum score.

Some functions for a governmental gender equality body were added to 
those reported in 2021. The improved evidence provided shows a better 
understanding of the questionnaire, but does not reflect ‘new’ functions 
(i.e. they should have been covered in 2021). The following changes 
were made to the 2021 data.
•  AT (government body 1): added ‘Drafting gender equality policy for 

the government’ and ‘Conducting gender-sensitive analysis of policies 
and legislation’. Increased score for indicator H1 by 1 point.
•  SK: added ‘Drafting gender equality policy for the government’. 

Increased score for indicator H1 by 0.5 points.

The response to whether the national gender equality action plan had 
quantifiable targets to demonstrate progress was ‘Yes’ in 2021 but ‘No’ 
in 2024 because, although there are ‘targets’ mentioned in the plan, 
these are primarily political objectives that cannot be measured with 
data. Since 2021 data refers to the same action plan, the 2021 data has 
been revised to align with 2024, reducing the score for LU for 
indicator H1 by 0.5 points.

The remit of the independent body was classified as ‘exclusively gender 
equality’ in 2021. However, in 2024, a different response was provided. 
The evidence from 2024 indicates not a change in the mandate but 
rather a different interpretation of the question, which relates to the 
research methodology of the 2024 data collection. The 2021 response 
focused on the predominant field, while the 2024 response is more 
precise. The mandate and expertise of the Ombudsperson for Gender 
Equality encompass gender equality along with other equality-related 
functions. 2021 data has been revised accordingly, reducing the score 
for HR for indicator H1 by 1 point.

34

Sub-
indicator

Question

Member 
State

Comparison issues between 2021 and 2024 data

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

H3a 

16

BE, MT, SE

H3b

17 and 18

EL

18

EE

22 and 23

BG

23

SE

H3

BE’s response changed from ‘de facto binding decision’ to ‘legal 
obligation without enforcement’, but the evidence provided for both 
2021 and 2024 is identical. The 2021 response seemed incorrect, as the 
evidence for 2024 refers to the law of 12 January 2007, known as the 
‘Gender Mainstreaming Law’, which was already in force in 2021. 2021 
data has been revised accordingly, increasing the score for BE for 
indicator H3 by 0.5 points.
Similarly, for MT, the response changed from ‘some other kind of policy 
commitment’ to ‘de facto binding decision’, but the evidence provided is 
identical. The 2024 evidence mentions that gender mainstreaming has 
been official government policy since June 2000, reiterated in 2012 
through Office of the Prime Minister Circular 15/2000, which was 
missing from the 2021 response. 2021 data has been revised 
accordingly, increasing the score for MT for indicator H3 by 0.5 points.
For SE, the 2021 response was incorrect. There was, and still is, no legal 
obligation but rather a policy commitment. 2021 data has been revised 
accordingly, reducing the score for SE for indicator H3 by 1 point.

In 2021, EL reported the National Council for Gender Equality as being an 
interministerial gender mainstreaming body. In 2024, more detailed 
information determined that it was not really a gender mainstreaming 
body as per the guidelines in the questionnaire. 2021 data has been 
revised to align with the better information from 2024, reducing the 
score for indicator H3 for EL by 2 points.

In 2024, EE provided a different response with regard to the 
involvement of ministries in the gender mainstreaming structure (‘Very 
few ministries (less than 25 %)’), and evidence to sustain it. In 2021, 
while the same type of structure was reported, the response regarding 
ministries’ involvement indicated a higher rate, but no evidence was 
provided. 2021 data has been revised to align with the better 
information from 2024, reducing the score for indicator H3 for EE by 
0.5 points.

In 2021, BG reported that the governmental body was consulted on 
most new policies produced by various ministries (Q22) and that most of 
the consultations led to adjustments (Q23). However, in 2024, it was 
clarified that this referred to the National Council for Promotion of 
Equality between Women and Men, which oversees gender 
mainstreaming and can comment on new policies but is not the 
governmental body in question. There is no direct consultation with the 
governmental body because ministries have internal mechanisms, 
including gender impact assessments, to address gender equality. 
Gender coordinators from each ministry are members of the national 
council. Thus, while mechanisms exist to ensure gender issues are 
addressed in policy, the governmental body is not directly consulted. 
2021 data has been revised to align with better information from 2024, 
reducing the score for indicator H3 for BG by 2 points.

In SE, the evidence provided in 2021 to support the response (‘All or 
nearly all cases (more than 75 %)’) was limited. In 2024, it was clarified 
that it is not possible to provide an estimate, as there is no monitoring. 
Given that the ‘Don’t know’ response in 2024 is more correct, 2021 data 
has been revised to align with it, reducing the score for SE for 
indicator H3 by 1 point.

35

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

Sub-
indicator

Question

Member 
State

H3c

24

BE, BG

25

LV

27

PT

H4a

33

SI

H4c

36

BE

Comparison issues between 2021 and 2024 data

In 2021 for BE, the response was ‘In some cases’, which changed to ‘Yes’ 
in 2024. The 2024 evidence cites the 2007 Gender Mainstreaming Law, 
which makes the integration of the gender perspective obligatory, while 
the 2021 response referred to ‘the regulatory impact analysis that 
includes a gender equality component’. Evidence provided in 2024 
seems stronger than in 2021. 2021 data has been revised to align with 
2024, increasing the score for BE for indicator H3 by 0.5 points.
Conversely, in BG, the 2021 response was ‘Yes’ but no evidence was 
provided. In 2024, the response was downgraded to ‘In some cases’, with 
evidence explaining that impact assessments include a gender-based 
aspect, but not all laws/policies undergo an impact assessment. 2021 
data has been revised to align with 2024, reducing the score for BG for 
indicator H3 by 0.5 points. 

In LV, the 2021 response indicated that there was a legal obligation to 
implement gender mainstreaming (answer ‘Yes’) but no evidence was 
provided. In 2024, the response was downgraded to ‘No’, with evidence 
explaining that ministries do not compile sex-disaggregated statistics. 
Although there is a nominal requirement to use gender budgeting, the 
legislation has a get-out clause related to the availability of data, so it is 
not implemented. 2021 data has been revised to align with 2024, 
reducing the score for LV for indicator H3 by 1 point.

In PT, the 2021 response was ‘Some evaluations (25–50 %)’, but no 
evidence was provided. In 2024, the response was downgraded to ‘Never 
or in few evaluations (less than 25 %)’, with evidence explaining that PT 
is taking initial steps in the gender evaluation of programmes and 
projects. The change in the answer is due to a different perspective 
provided by the national focal point. The 2024 perspective offers a more 
realistic view of PT’s situation. The 2021 data has been aligned 
accordingly, but this has no impact on the indicators, as the question is 
not scored.

H4

The initial ‘Yes’ response in 2024 (the same as in 2021) was changed to 
‘No’ during the quality assurance process because the legal acts 
underpinning the activities of the national statistics institute do not 
themselves make any mention of the collection of data disaggregated 
by sex. The annual statistical programmes that define the data to be 
collected under each survey are not legislative acts as anticipated by the 
question. 2021 data has been updated to align with this change.

In 2024, BE’s response was changed to ‘The website of the governmental 
body has a section on gender statistics’ from ‘There is no website or 
section of a website devoted to gender statistics’ in 2021. However, the 
evidence provided in 2024 was already in place in 2021, so it is not new. 
The 2021 data has been aligned accordingly, increasing the score for 
indicator H4 for BE by 1 point.

36

2.7.  General points related 

to the scoring model

2.7.1.  Scoring of multiple bodies

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

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

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

•  Single-option questions. When the question 
allows just one answer per body (e.g. Q1a 
regarding the level of the body), the 
question is scored according to the highest 
score achieved by the bodies covered. In the 
example below, the country 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 overall is scored according to 
the highest scores from the unique sets of 
responses reported for all relevant bodies. In 
the example below (Q3.1a/b), the country 

would score the full 2 points available 
because all six of the scoring functions are 
carried out by at least one of the bodies 
covered, even though individually they only 
carry out four of the scoring functions 
each(18). 

Option

Score

Body 1

Body 2

Drafting gender equality policy for the government

Drafting general anti-discrimination policy, covering sex or gender 
together with other grounds, for the government

Conducting gender-sensitive analysis of policies and legislation

Coordinating and/or implementing government decisions on gender 
equality

Monitoring progress in achieving gender equality

Cooperation – international/EU

Cooperation – national/sub-national

Cooperation – civil society

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.11

0.11

0.11

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

The 2021 methodological report(19) addresses 
the comparability of the scoring approach over 
time. However, due to significant fundamental 

differences, it has been established that data 
from before 2021 cannot be used for 
comparison.

(18)  As mentioned in Section 2.2.3, there is a list of six main functions for governmental bodies. Each function was assigned an 
equal share of the total score for the question (i.e. 2 / 6 = 0.333). The function related to cooperation was further divided 
into three levels, with each level receiving a score of 0.111 (0.333 / 3) and the three levels scoring 1 in total.

(19)  EIGE, Data collection on institutional mechanisms for gender equality and gender mainstreaming – Methodological report, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/
Data%20collection%20on%20institutional.pdf.

37

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

2.7.2.  Scoring of multiple options for 

2.8.  Comparability of data 

multiple cases

over time

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

Data from questions on the frequency of 
gender equality training for different 
subgroups of government employees and 
whether or not it is mandatory (Q30, Q31) is 
combined into a single score, as described in 
Table 2.13.

The specification of each of the four indicators 
outlined above includes some minor changes 
from the 2021 version that was detailed in 
EIGE’s 2023 report. One of the primary 
objectives was to maintain comparability with 
the 2021 data as much as possible; thus (with 
the exception of the questions on functions), 
most changes were made to enhance clarity 
based on lessons learned from the 2021 data 
collection.

These changes are summarised in Table 2.18.

Table 2.18  Changes to indicators for monitoring institutional mechanisms, 2024 versus 2021

Indicator

2021

Changes in 2024

Status of commitment to the promotion of 
gender equality

Status of commitment to the promotion of 
gender equality

Highest responsibility for promoting gender 
equality at the governmental level

No change

Not used

No change (not used)

Position of governmental gender equality 
bodies within the government structure

Mandate and functions of governmental gender 
equality bodies

Accountability of governmental gender equality 
bodies

Mandate and functions of independent gender 
equality bodies

Some differences regarding the scoring of 
different levels; change in the scoring of 
‘government agency’ (now scored 0.5 points) 

List of functions refined, taking into account 
explicit requirements set out in the BPfA and 
the equality directives, and eliminating the 
main/additional split

Minor refinements to some of the questions 

Same as H1d; list of functions refined, taking 
into account the requirements set out in the 
BPfA and the equality directives, and 
eliminating the main/additional split

Human resources for the promotion of gender 
equality

Personnel resources of governmental gender 
equality bodies

Personnel resources of independent gender 
equality bodies

No change

No change

Gender mainstreaming

Status of governmental commitment to gender 
mainstreaming

No change

H1

H1a

H1b

H1c

H1d

H1e

H1f

H2

H2a

H2b

H3

H3a

38

Indicator

2021

Changes in 2024

2.  Measurement framework and questionnaire

H3b

H3c

H3d

H4

H4a

H4b

H4c

Governmental gender mainstreaming 
structures and consultation processes

Commitment to and use of methods and tools 
for gender mainstreaming

Consultation of independent gender equality 
bodies

Production and dissemination of statistics 
disaggregated by sex

Governmental commitment to the production 
of statistics disaggregated by sex

Not used

Minor refinements to some of the questions 

Minor refinements to some of the questions 

Addition of a question – not scored 

No change

No change

Effectiveness of efforts to disseminate 
statistics disaggregated by sex

Minor refinements to some of the questions 
and how they are scored

39

3.  Method of data collection and analysis

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

Who collected the data?

Data was primarily collected by national focal 
points, who were individuals appointed by the 
Member States. The organisations of the 
national focal points are detailed in Annex 2.

National researchers from each Member State 
were involved to work with national focal 
points. Their role was, firstly, to support the 
national focal point to collect data (e.g. by 
carrying out additional interviews) and reduce 
the administrative burden on them. Secondly, 
national researchers were trained on the data 
collection tools and guidelines and thus were 
able to support the national focal points to 
collect more accurate data.

As outlined in Annex 2, other institutions also 
contributed to data collection by providing 
data, primarily national statistical offices in 
relation to indicator H4.

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

How was the data collected?

Data was collected through an Excel 
questionnaire sent to the national focal points.

40

The questionnaire had been prepopulated with 
2021 data, reducing the administrative burden 
on the national focal points and enabling better 
data processing and exchanges between them 
and the national researchers.

The questionnaire was organised into four 
parts:

1.  governmental body/bodies,
2.  policies, laws, structures and practices,
3.  statistical infrastructure, 
4.  independent body/bodies.

National focal points liaised with national 
researchers to complete the questionnaire. 
National researchers went back to national 
focal points to clarify responses provided to the 
questions.

Data was collected between April and May 
2024.

How was data quality assured?

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

1.  Firstly, completeness was checked, ensuring 
all questions, including metadata, had been 
completed for each Member State.

2.  Secondly, metadata questions were used to 

check the data accuracy of the main 
questions, for example, whether a legal 
citation or relevant description of the 
measure had been provided when an answer 
indicated that legal measures were in place. 
When the question required a judgement by 
the national focal point, the reasoning 
provided was checked to establish whether 
it was logical and sound.

3.  Thirdly, data was compared and sense-
checked across Member States to help 
identify issues of non-comparability. This 
was done in response to assessments of the 
2021 data collection, which showed high 

degrees of variation between Member 
States, particularly regarding personnel and 
financial resources.

Quality assurance decisions strictly followed the 
guidelines shared with national researchers and 
focal points, which defined key terms and 
question interpretations. After initial quality 
assurance, national researchers worked with 
focal points to address issues and amend the 
questionnaire. Despite these efforts, many 
responses did not meet quality standards, 
requiring extensive checking and multiple 

3.  Method of data collection and analysis

revisions by the central quality assurance team 
to ensure data reliability and validity.

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(20).

(20)  The risk of bias occurs in the case of questions to 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 respondent’s choice of 
answer 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.

41

4.  Reference metadata

This section outlines reference metadata for 
the current data collection.

2021 (published in 2023) and 2024 (published 
in 2025).

Completeness

In the current data collection, there are limited 
data gaps due to a lack of or limited response 
from the relevant authorities and data quality 
concerns. However, overall completeness has 
improved compared with the previous data 
collection exercise.

All data gaps, by question, are outlined in 
Table 4.1 below.

Reference area

Member States.

Time coverage

Data was collected regarding the situation in 
May 2024.

Frequency of data collection and reference 
period

Data was collected in ad hoc collections in 2012 
(published in 2014), 2018 (published in 2019), 

Table 4.1  Data gaps

Question 

9

1 (*)

2 (*)

3 (*)

Highest level of responsibility for gender equality within the national 
government

Level of location of each governmental body for the promotion of 
gender equality

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

Functions of each governmental body for the promotion of gender 
equality

4 (*)

Reporting to parliament by the governmental body/bodies

12

National action plan for gender equality

13.2

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

13.3

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

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

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

13.4

43 (*)

44 (*)

Data gap

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

PT (government body 1) 
(‘Don’t know’)

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

Functions of the independent body for the promotion of gender 
equality

BE (44.8), LU (44.4, 44.6) 
(‘Don’t know’)

5 (*) What is the total number of employees in the governmental body?

No gaps

42

Question 

6 (*)

If the mandate of the governmental body includes gender equality 
combined with other non-discrimination areas, approximately what 
percentage of time is spent on projects focused on gender equality?

45 (*) What is the total number of employees in the independent body?

45.1 

If the mandate of the independent body includes gender equality 
combined with other non-discrimination areas, approximately what 
percentage of time is spent on projects focused on gender equality? 

16

17

18

22

23

24

25

26

29

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

Gender mainstreaming structures

If there is a gender mainstreaming structure, what proportion of 
ministries/departments are included in the structure?

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)? 

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?

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

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

How widespread is the use of gender budgeting in ministerial 
budgets and in the budgets of other governmental institutions?

Have there been any central initiatives to raise awareness of the 
importance of gender-sensitive language among ministries and 
other governmental bodies in the past two years?

30

Are governmental employees involved in gender equality training?

Is there a transparent procedure in place to ensure that the 
government and other public institutions can consult independent 
body 1/2 on legislation, policy, procedure, programmes and practices 
in policy fields other than gender equality?

How regularly are the independent body/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)?

If independent bodies for the promotion of gender equality are 
consulted about new or existing policies, laws or programmes, how 
often does their involvement lead to an adjustment in policies or 
legislative instruments?

47

48

49

33

4.  Reference metadata

Data gap

HU (‘Don’t know’)

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

FR (‘Don’t know’)

HU, PL (‘Don’t know’)

DK, DE, FR, HU, SK, SE (‘Don’t 
know’); CY (‘Not relevant’)

HU (‘Don’t know’)

HU (‘Don’t know’)

HU (‘Don’t know’)

IT, HU, SE (‘Don’t know’)

IE, FR, IT, AT, SK (‘Don’t know’ 
for some categories of 
employees)

No gaps

IT, LV, HU (‘Don’t know’)

CZ, LV, HU (‘Don’t know’)

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

No gaps

43

4.  Reference metadata

34

35

36

37

38

39

41

Question 

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

Data gap

MT (‘Don’t know’)

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

BG, DK, DE (‘Don’t know’)

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?

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

Does the relevant website or section of website provide direct access 
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?

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

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

No gaps

42

Are gender statistics disseminated on a regular basis?

FR (‘Don’t know’)

(*)  This question has both ‘a’ and ‘b’ versions.

There were some limited instances in which 
data was not considered accurate, and thus was 
not scored. Questions on financial resources 
under H2a and H2b were still incomplete for 
many countries. Moreover, even when data was 
provided, the quality assurance process raised 
significant concerns about data quality.

mandate not exclusively for gender equality 
(Q45.1);

•  how regularly governmental and 

independent bodies are consulted (Q22, 
Q48) and how often consultation leads to 
adjustments (Q23, Q49);

•  how widely gender budgeting is used (Q26).

Accuracy

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

The risk of inaccurate responses was mitigated 
to some extent by asking for percentages 
within four broad categories (0–25 %, 25–50 %, 
50–75 %, 75–100 %), rather than an exact 
percentage. This approach also encouraged a 
response rather than a ‘Don’t know’ when the 
exact data was not available. While information 
was asked for regarding how an estimate was 
made, when this was provided, the answers in 
nearly all cases referred to the national focal 
points’ experience, rather than a verifiable 
source.

Data accuracy is somewhat weaker in cases 
when it relied on an estimation by the national 
focal point. This includes questions about:

Sampling error

•  the percentage of personnel time allocated 

to gender equality for bodies with a 

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

44

4.  Reference metadata

Comparability across countries

Data is considered comparable between 
Member 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 have 
been honed over time to allow for and respond 
to this variation to ultimately produce data that 
is as comparable as possible.

Comparability over time

Data is considered comparable with the 2021 
data, given limited changes to the 
questionnaire that only marginally affect the 
scoring of the data.

Coherence with other datasets

None.

Data revision

In a limited number of cases, the collection of 
more detailed evidence in 2024 led to revisions 
of some of the 2021 responses. Those are 
described in Section 2.6.

Mapping tables

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

Independent bodies were identified based on 
membership of the European Network of 
Equality Bodies (Equinet) as a reliable source to 
validate findings. There are two exceptions, 
that is, two independent gender equality 
bodies covered in both the 2021 and 2024 data 
that are not members of Equinet.

• 

Italy: the National Equality Counsellor 
(Consigliera Nazionale di Parità) is not a 
current Equinet member but used to be. The 
current Equinet member for Italy (Ufficio 
Nazionale Antidiscriminazini Razziali) deals 
with racial discrimination only and has no 
responsibility for gender equality issues.
•  Finland: data covers the Ombudsman for 

Gender Equality (Equinet member) and the 
Council for Gender Equality (TANE), which is 
not an Equinet member. TANE is a unique 
body in the European context but has an 
important role in gender equality. It is 
formed of parliamentarians drawn from all 
parties in accordance with their 
representation in parliament, so does not 
represent the government only and is not 
obliged to follow government policy/
direction. TANE also has members / 
permanent advisors from NGOs.

In addition, in three Member States (EL, AT, FI), 
the second governmental body selected from 
the list of bodies established in the 2021 data 
collection did not meet the BPfA’s definition of 
a governmental body, which is a body ‘whose 
purpose is to design, coordinate, and implement 
government policies for gender equality’. 
However, since these Member States consider 
these bodies an intrinsic part of their 
institutional architecture for gender equality 
and gender mainstreaming, it was decided to 
include them in the scoring. Nevertheless, 
including these bodies in the data collection 
affected the overall scoring for these countries 
for H1d (and H2a).

45

Annexes

Annex 1.  Bodies covered in the study

The table below lists the bodies covered in the study: the governmental and independent body/bodies 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 2

Independent 
body 2 (national 
language) 

Independent 
body 1 (national 
language) 

Institut pour 
l’égalité des 
femmes et des 
hommes 

Комисия за 
Комисия за 
защита от 
защита от 
дискриминация
дискриминация

Institute for the 
Equality of 
Women and Men

Commission for 
Protection 
against 
Discrimination

BE

BG

CZ

Institute for the 
Equality of 
Women and Men

Equal Opportuni-
ties, Antidiscrim-
ination and 
Social Assistance 
Benefits Depart-
ment, Policy for 
People with 
Disabilities, 
Equal Opportun-
ities and Social 
Benefits Direct-
orate, Ministry 
of Labour and 
Social Policy 

Department for 
Gender Equality, 
Office of the 
Czech 
Government

Institut pour 
l’égalité des 
femmes et des 
hommes

Отдел ‘Равни 
Отдел ‘Равни 
възможности, 
възможности, 
антидискрими-
антидискрими-
нация и социал-
нация и социал-
ни помощи’, 
ни помощи’, 
Дирекция 
Дирекция 
‘Политики за 
‘Политики за 
хората с увреж-
хората с увреж-
дания, равни 
дания, равни 
възможности и 
възможности и 
социални 
социални 
помощи’, 
помощи’, 
Министерство 
Министерство 
на труда и 
на труда и 
социалната 
социалната 
политика
политика

Odbor rovnosti 
žen a mužů, 
Úřad vlády České 
republiky

46

Public Defender 
of Rights

Veřejný ochránce 
práv

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) 

Annexes

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

Department of 
Gender Equality

Ligestillingsaf-
delingen

Division for 
Gender Equality, 
Federal Ministry 
for Family 
Affairs, Senior 
Citizens, Women 
and Youth

Abteilung 
‘Gleichstellung’, 
Bundesministe-
rium für Familie, 
Senioren, Frauen 
und Jugend

Equality Policies 
Department

Võrdsuspoliitika-
te osakond

Department of 
Children, 
Equality, 
Disability, 
Integration and 
Youth

General 
Secretariat for 
Equality and 
Human Rights, 
Ministry of Social 
Cohesion and 
Family

An Roinn Leanaí, 
Comhionannais, 
Míchumais, 
Lánpháirtíochta 
agus Óige

Γενική 
Γενική 
Γραμματεία 
Γραμματεία 
Ισότητας και 
Ισότητας και 
Ανθρωπίνων 
Ανθρωπίνων 
Δικαιωμάτων, 
Δικαιωμάτων, 
Υπουργείο 
Υπουργείο 
Κοινωνικής 
Κοινωνικής 
Συνοχής και 
Συνοχής και 
Οικογένειας
Οικογένειας

Ministerio de 
Igualdad

ES

Ministry of 
Equality

Danish Institute 
for Human 
Rights

Institut for 
Menneskerettig-
heder

Federal Anti-
discrimination 
Agency

Antidiskriminie-
rungsstelle des 
Bundes

Gender Equality 
and Equal 
Treatment 
Commissioner

Irish Human 
Rights and 
Equality 
Commission

Soolise 
võrdõiguslikkuse 
ja võrdse 
kohtlemise 
volinik

Coimisiún na 
hÉireann um 
Chearta an Duine 
agus 
Comhionannas

Research Centre 
for Gender 
Equality

Κέντρο Ερευνών 
Κέντρο Ερευνών 
για Θέματα 
για Θέματα 
Ισότητας
Ισότητας

Greek 
Ombudsman 
(Sector of Equal 
Treatment)

Συνήγορος του 
Συνήγορος του 
Πολίτη (Τομέας 
Πολίτη (Τομέας 
Ίσης 
Ίσης 
Μεταχείρισης)
Μεταχείρισης)

Institute of 
Women

Instituto de las 
Mujeres

47

Governmental 
body 2

Governmental 
body 2 (national 
language)

Independent 
body 1

Independent 
body 1 (national 
language) 

Independent 
body 2

Independent 
body 2 (national 
language) 

Annexes

Member 
State

Governmental 
body 1

Governmental 
body 1 (national 
language) 

Ministère 
délégué, chargé 
de l’égalité entre 
les femmes et 
les hommes et la 
lutte contre les 
discriminations

Ured za 
ravnopravnost 
spolova

Ministry 
Delegate for 
Gender Equality 
and the Fight 
against 
Discrimination

Office for Gender 
Equality

Commissioner of 
Gender Equality

Γραφείο 
Γραφείο 
Επιτρόπου 
Επιτρόπου 
Ισότητας των 
Ισότητας των 
Φύλων 
Φύλων 

Department for 
Equal 
Opportunities

Dipartimento 
per le Pari 
Opportunità

Gender Equality 
Unit

Μονάδα 
Μονάδα 
Ισότητας των 
Ισότητας των 
Φύλων
Φύλων

Department of 
Social Policy 
Planning and 
Development

Group of Equal 
Opportunities 
and Equality for 
Women and Men 

Sociālās politikas 
plānošanas un 
attīstības 
departaments

Lygių galimybių, 
moterų ir vyrų 
lygybės grupė

FR

HR

IT

CY

LV

LT

48

Defender of 
Rights

Défenseur des 
droits

Ombudsperson 
for Gender 
Equality

National Equality 
Counsellor

Commissioner 
for 
Administration 
and the 
Protection of 
Human Rights

Pravobranitelj/
ica za 
ravnopravnost 
spolova

Consigliera 
Nazionale di 
Parità

Φορέας Ισότητας 
Φορέας Ισότητας 
και και 
Καταπολέμησης 
Καταπολέμησης 
των Διακρίσεων
των Διακρίσεων

Ombudsman’s 
Office of Latvia

Latvijas Republi-
kasTiesībsargs

Office of the 
Equal 
Opportunities 
Ombudsperson

Lygių galimybių 
kontrolieriaus 
tarnyba

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) 

Annexes

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

Ministry for 
Gender Equality 
and Diversity

Women’s Policy 
Unit, 
Department of 
Adoption and 
Women’s Policy, 
Ministry of 
Culture and 
Innovation

Human Rights 
Directorate

Ministère de 
l’égalité des 
genres et de la 
diversité

Nőpolitikai 
Osztály, 
Örökbefogadási 
és Nőpolitikai 
Főosztály, 
Kulturális és 
Innovációs 
Minisztérium

Id-Direttorat 
għad-Drittijiet 
tal-Bniedem 

Directorate for 
Emancipation, 
Ministry of 
Education, 
Culture and 
Science

Directie 
Emancipatie, 
Ministerie van 
Onderwijs, 
Cultuur en 
Wetenschap

Division III: 
Women’s Affairs 
and Equality, 
Federal 
Chancellery

Sektion III: 
Frauen und 
Gleichstellung, 
Burghauptmann-
schaft Österreich

Centre for Equal 
Treatment

Centre l’égalité 
de traitement

Commissioner of 
Fundamental 
Rights

Alapvető Jogok 
Biztosának 
Hivatala

National 
Commission for 
the Promotion of 
Equality

Netherlands 
Institute for 
Human Rights

Il-Kummissjoni 
Nazzjonali 
għall-
Promozzjoni 
tal-Ugwaljanza 

College van de 
Rechten van de 
Mens

Depart-
ment III/C/10, 
Federal Ministry 
for Arts, Culture, 
Civil Service and 
Sport

Sektion III/C/10, 
Bundesministe-
rium Kunst, 
Kultur, öffentli-
cher Dienst und 
Sport 

Ombud for Equal 
Treatment

Gleichbehand-
lungsanwalt-
schaft

49

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) 

PL

Minister for 
Equality

Ministra ds 
Równości 

Task Force for 
Equal Treatment, 
Office of the 
Commissioner 
for Human 
Rights

Zespół ds 
Równego 
Traktowania, 
Biurze Rzecznik 
Praw 
Obywatelskich

PT

RO

SI

SK

Commission for 
Citizenship and 
Gender Equality

Comissão para a 
Cidadania e a 
Igualdade de 
Género

Commission for 
Equality in 
Labour and 
Employment

Comissão para a 
Igualdade no 
Trabalho e no 
Emprego

Commission for 
Equality in 
Labour and 
Employment

Comissão para a 
Igualdade no 
Trabalho e no 
Emprego

National Agency 
for Equal 
Opportunities 
between Women 
and Men

Agentia 
Nationala pentru 
Egalitate de 
Sanse intre 
Femei si Barbati

Gender Equality 
Division

Sektor za enake 
možnosti

Human Rights 
Section, 
Department of 
Gender Equality 
and Equal 
Opportunities, 
Ministry of 
Labour, Social 
Affairs and 
Family

Sekcia ľudských 
práv, Odbor 
rodovej rovnosti 
a rovnosti 
príležitosti, 
Ministerstvo 
práce, sociálnych 
vecí a rodiny

National Council 
for Combating 
Discrimination 

Consiliul National 
pentru 
Combaterea 
Discriminarii

Advocate of the 
Principle of 
Equality

Slovak National 
Centre for 
Human Rights

Zagovornik 
načela enakosti

Slovenské 
národné 
stredisko pre 
ľudské práva

FI

Gender Equality 
Unit

Tasa-
arvoyksikkö 

Centre for 
Gender Equality 
Information

Tasa-arvotiedon 
keskuseuvotte-
lukunta

Ombudsman for 
Gender Equality 

Tasa-
arvovaltuutettu 

Council for 
Gender Equality

Tasa-arvoasiain 
neuvottelukunta

50

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) 

SE

Division for 
Gender Equality, 
Ministry of 
Employment 

Arbetsmark-
nadsdeparte-
mentet, Jäm-
ställdhetsenhe-
ten

Swedish Gender 
Equality Agency

Jämställdhets-
myndigheten

Equality 
Ombudsman

Diskriminerings-
ombudsmannen

Annexes

51

Annexes

Annex 2.  Contributing organisations, including national focal points

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

Member State

National focal point

Independent body 

Other bodies

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

HR

IT

CY

LV

LT

Institute for the Equality of Women and Men

Institute for the Equality of Women and Men

Ministry of Labour and Social Policy 

Commission for Protection against 
Discrimination 

Government of the Czech Republic

Office of the Ombudsman

Department of Gender Equality

Danish Institute for Human Rights 

Statistics Denmark

European and International Gender Equality 
Policy, Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior 
Citizens, Women and Youth

Gender Equality Policy, Equality Policies 
Department, Ministry of Social Affairs

Gender Equality and Equal Treatment 
Commissioner

Statistics Estonia

Department of Children, Equality, Disability, 
Integration and Youth

General Secretariat for Equality and Human 
Rights, Ministry of Social Cohesion and Family

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

Central Statistics Office 

Advocate for Human Rights

Research Centre for Gender Equality 

Institute of Women

Institute of Women

Ministry Delegate for the Rights of Women 

Defender of Rights 

Governmental Office for Gender Equality

Ombudsperson for Gender Equality

Department for Equal Opportunities

National Equality Counsellor 

Office of the Commissioner for Gender Equality

Department of Social Policy Planning and 
Development, Ministry of Welfare 

Ombudsman’s Office, Civil and Political Rights 
Division

Ministry of Social Security and Labour 

Office of the Equal Opportunities 
Ombudsperson

State Data Agency

52

 
 
 
 
Annexes

Member State

National focal point

Independent body 

Other bodies

Ministry for Gender Equality and Diversity

Women’s Policy Unit, Department of Adoption 
and Women’s Policy, Ministry of Culture and 
Innovation

Human Rights Directorate 

Commissioner of Fundamental Rights

Central Statistical Office

National Commission for the Promotion of 
Equality

Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

Netherlands Institute for Human Rights

Department III/1 – Strategy, Policy Affairs and 
Knowledge Management, Division III – Women’s 
Affairs and Equality, Federal Chancellery 

Ombud for Equal Treatment 

Statistics Austria 

Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy

Ombudsman Office

Commission for Citizenship and Gender Equality

National Agency for Equal Opportunities 
between Women and Men 

Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and 
Equal Opportunities 

President, Commission for Equality in Labour 
and Employment

National Council for Combating Discrimination 

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family

Slovak National Centre for Human Rights 

Gender Equality Unit, Ministry of Social Affairs 
and Health

Division for Gender Equality, Ministry of 
Employment

Equality Ombudsman 

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

53

Annex 3.  Questionnaire

This annex outlines the questionnaire used 
during data collection.

Part 1: Governmental bodies

Governmental body 1

Annexes

age, and how those may impact on women’s 
experience of inequalities). However, the focus 
must remain primarily on gender (i.e. gender 
and race, not only race). Similarly, issues of 
discrimination against people identifying as 
LGBT+ should follow the same rule, as this 
relates to gender identity and sexual 
orientation, not sex.

Level and scope of governmental body 1

[Please select one of the three options]

Question 1a: What is the level of location of 
governmental body 1?

•  Exclusively gender equality
•  Gender equality combined with other 

A governmental gender equality body is 
defined as a body within the government 
whose purpose is to design, coordinate and 
implement government policies for gender 
equality. It is normally located in the 
government hierarchy. A governmental gender 
equality body can be a separate ministry, 
paired with other portfolios within a single 
ministry, or located within the office of the 
head of government or state. It can also be a 
government agency. It refers not to individual 
ministers or gender focal points / coordinators 
in other government bodies, but to the body/
institution itself.

[Please select one of the five options]

•  Entire ministry
•  A section/department of a ministry
•  A government agency
•  No government body
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide the name of 
the government website.

Question 2a: What is the scope of the 
mandate of governmental body 1?

A body can be considered exclusively mandated 
to promote gender equality, even if it takes an 
intersectional approach to gender equality 
(meaning that it considers the intersection or 
interplay of gender and other diversity 
characteristics, such as gender and race/
ethnicity, gender and disability or gender and 

equality-related functions

•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide the name of 
the government website.

Functions of governmental body 1

This question asks about the functions of 
governmental body 1. Eight functions are listed 
below.

For the answer ‘Yes’ to be applied, the function 
should be a clearly defined (and ideally 
documented) part of the mandate of the body, 
and the body should have staff who undertake 
related tasks as a clearly defined part of their 
job role.

If this is not the case, it should be interpreted 
that any activities relevant to the function are 
undertaken on an ad hoc basis, and the answer 
‘No’ should be applied.

When a function has multiple sub-items 
indicated in bullet points, answer ‘Yes’ only if 
all of the sub-functions are fulfilled. If at least 
one, but not all, of the sub-functions is fulfilled, 
answer ‘Partly’. If none of the sub-functions is 
fulfilled, answer ‘No’.

Question 3.1a: Drafting gender equality policy 
for the government.

This function covers the preparatory work for, 
and drafting of, government policies, 

54

strategies, action plans and programmes with a 
specific focus on gender equality. Note that this 
would normally be expected to be an either/or 
option with the next item on general anti-
discrimination policy. If both are selected, 
please provide a clear justification. If you select 
‘Yes’, please indicate if the gender equality 
policy for the government takes an 
intersectional approach to gender equality (e.g. 
gender and race, gender and disability, gender 
and age, gender and sexual orientation) to 
address the specific needs and challenges that 
women with different diversity characteristics 
face.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.2a: Drafting general anti-
discrimination policy, covering sex or gender 
together with other grounds, for the 
government.

This function covers the preparatory work for, 
and drafting of, government policies, 
strategies, action plans and programmes aimed 
at tackling discrimination on any grounds, 
including sex or gender but not the intersection 
between them.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Annexes

Question 3.3a: Conducting gender-sensitive 
analysis of policies and legislation.

This function covers gender-sensitive analysis 
and review of policies, laws, strategies, action 
plans and programmes in areas not specifically 
related to gender equality and the production 
of relevant recommendations for improvement.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.4a: Coordinating and/or 
implementing government decisions on 
gender equality.

This function covers the coordination of actions 
required across government to implement 
government policies, strategies and action 
plans on gender equality.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.5a: Monitoring progress in 
achieving gender equality.

This function covers:

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

•  monitoring of targets set in gender equality 
action plans or other policy and reporting on 
progress;

55

Annexes

•  production of regular reports on the state of 

gender equality;

•  ensuring collection of data disaggregated by 

sex through coordination with national 
statistical authorities and other public 
bodies.

This function covers regular/routine 
cooperation in a formalised and structured 
manner (e.g. through the establishment of 
networks or boards) with other equality bodies 
and relevant public/private bodies at the 
national or sub-national level.

If you select ‘Yes’, please indicate whether the 
disaggregated data and the analysis included in 
monitoring reports take an intersectional 
approach to gender equality (e.g. gender and 
race, gender and disability, gender and age, 
gender and sexual orientation) to address the 
specific needs and challenges that women with 
different diversity characteristics face. If 
possible, please provide examples of this.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.6a: Cooperation – international/EU.

This function covers regular/routine 
cooperation in a formalised and structured 
manner (e.g. through the establishment of 
networks or boards) with other equality bodies 
and relevant public/private bodies at the EU or 
international level.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.8a: Cooperation – civil society.

This function covers regular/routine 
cooperation in a formalised and structured 
manner (e.g. through the establishment of 
networks or boards) with civil society. 

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

[Please select one of the four options]

Question 3.9a: Additional functions.

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.7a: Cooperation – national/
sub-national.

56

If governmental body 1 undertakes any 
functions not covered by the list above, please 
provide information here.

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Reporting to parliament by governmental 
body 1

This question (in three parts) asks about how 
governmental body 1 reports to parliament on 
the progress made on gender equality and 
gender mainstreaming initiatives.

‘Reporting’ refers to annual reports or other 
reports that inform the parliament of the 
activities, resources and impact of the agency.

‘Regular’ means at least once a year.

Question 4.1a: 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).

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a brief 
description of the reporting mechanism, if 
applicable, and include any links to any 
relevant government websites.

Question 4.2a: There is a system of reporting 
of the governmental body for the promotion 
of gender equality to the parliament, but it is 
not regular.

[Please select one of the three options]

[NB: If you answered ‘Yes’ to Question 4.1a, the 
answer to this question must be ‘No’]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a brief 
description of the reporting mechanism, if 
applicable, and include any links to any 
relevant government websites.

Question 4.3a: There is a separate 
parliamentary committee that includes 

Annexes

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.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a brief 
description of the reporting mechanism, if 
applicable, and include any links to any 
relevant government websites.

Personnel resources of governmental 
body 1

Question 5a: What is the total number of 
employees in governmental body 1?

Please note the headcount is the total number 
of staff working within the body (covering all 
mandates). Part-time staff should be counted 
the same as full-time staff and the total 
includes all support/administrative staff. If 
some staff work across different bodies, please 
discuss this with the national researcher.

For a designated body, information about the 
number of staff working within the body 
should be readily available. Where 
governmental bodies are a unit/section within 
a ministry and the exact number of staff 
cannot be identified, the number should be 
estimated.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
descriptions of sources used to calculate the 
number of employees.

Question 6a: If the mandate of governmental 
body 1 includes gender equality combined 
with other non-discrimination areas, 
approximately what percentage of personnel 
time is spent on projects focused on gender 
equality?

57

Annexes

This question attempts to identify what 
percentage of time is spent on projects related 
to gender equality where the mandate of the 
governmental body is wider than only gender 
equality. If the mandate is only gender equality, 
do not answer this question.

We understand that calculating an exact 
percentage may not be possible, which is why 
only four broad response options are included. 
Please provide a best estimate, based on the 
knowledge of the national focal point or other 
representative of the governmental body. If 
this information is not provided, it will not be 
possible to include any information from this 
section on personnel resources of the 
governmental body.

[Please select one of the five options]

•  0–25 %
•  25–50 %
•  50–75 %
•  75–100 %
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
descriptions of sources used to estimate the 
percentage of time spent on projects focused 
on gender equality.

Financial resources of governmental body 1

This question asks first about the annual 
expenditure of governmental body 1 in euro 
and then about:

•  the proportion (%) of that expenditure that 
was used (spent) for different purposes;
•  the proportion (%) of that expenditure that 
was provided (funded) by the EU or national 
sources.

currency, please use this calculator and the 
annual exchange rates published by Eurostat.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 7.1a: What percentage of the total 
annual expenditure is administrative costs 
(personnel and overheads)?

‘Administrative costs’ refers to costs such as 
personnel and overheads. If information is only 
available in the national currency, please use 
this calculator and the annual exchange rates 
published by Eurostat.

If there is no readily available data, please make 
an estimate to the nearest 10 %.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 7.2a: What percentage of the total 
annual expenditure is non-administrative 
costs related to gender equality?

Non-administrative costs include all other costs, 
such as project and programme costs, and 
relate to activities undertaken by the relevant 
body. If information is only available in the 
national currency, please use this calculator and 
the annual exchange rates published by 
Eurostat.

If there is no readily available data, please make 
an estimate to the nearest 10 %.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 7.3a: What percentage of the total 
administrative costs for governmental body 1 
is funded by the EU?

In all cases, if the information is not readily 
available, please provide estimates.

Question 7a: What is the total annual 
expenditure of governmental body 1?

If EU funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of EU funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Financial figures should be provided in euro. If 
information is only available in the national 

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

58

Question 7.4a: What percentage of the total 
administrative costs for governmental body 1 
is funded by the government?

organisations and networks, feminist groups, 
the private sector and other actors in civil 
society.

Annexes

If national funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of national funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 7.5a: What percentage of the total 
non-administrative costs for governmental 
body 1 is funded by the EU?

If EU funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of EU funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 7.6a: What percentage of the total 
non-administrative costs for governmental 
body 1 is funded by the national government?

If national funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of national funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Distribution of funding to non-
governmental organisations

Question 8a: Has governmental body 1 
distributed funds to NGOs in the last five 
years?

This question aims to capture the existence of 
funds to strengthen the capacity of NGOs to 
contribute towards gender equality and gender 
mainstreaming. NGOs include women’s 

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: If yes, did the funds relate 
to gender equality only or to other non-
discrimination areas? Please provide a source 
for your answer.

Question 8.1a: If yes, please describe how 
often in the last five years funds have been 
distributed and the total amount distributed 
in each distribution. Please provide a source 
for your answer.

Evidence question: If yes, please describe how 
often in the last five years funds have been 
distributed and the total amount distributed 
in each distribution. Please provide a source 
for your answer.

Governmental body 2

Level and scope of governmental body 2

Question 1b: What is the level of location of 
governmental body 2?

A governmental gender equality body is 
defined as a body within the government 
whose purpose is to design, coordinate and 
implement government policies for gender 
equality. It is normally located in the 
government hierarchy. A governmental gender 
equality body can be a separate ministry, 
paired with other portfolios within a single 
ministry, or located within the office of the 
head of government or state. It can also be a 
government agency. It refers not to individual 
ministers or gender focal points / coordinators 
in other government bodies, but to the body/
institution itself.

[Please select one of the five options]

59

Annexes

•  Entire ministry
•  A section/department of a ministry
•  A government agency
•  No government body
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide the name of 
the government website.

Question 2b: What is the scope of the 
mandate of governmental body 2?

A body can be considered exclusively mandated 
to promote gender equality, even if it takes an 
intersectional approach to gender equality 
(meaning that it considers the intersection or 
interplay of gender and other diversity 
characteristics, such as gender and race/
ethnicity, gender and disability or gender and 
age, and how those may impact on women’s 
experience of inequalities). However, the focus 
must remain primarily on gender (i.e. gender 
and race, not only race). Similarly, issues of 
discrimination against people identifying as 
LGBT+ should follow the same rule, as this 
relates to gender identity and sexual 
orientation, not sex.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Exclusively gender equality
•  Gender equality combined with other 

equality-related functions

•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide the name of 
the government website.

Functions of governmental body 2

This question asks about the functions of 
governmental body 2. Eight functions are listed 
below.

For the answer ‘Yes’ to be applied, the function 
should be a clearly defined (and ideally 
documented) part of the mandate of the body, 
and the body should have staff who undertake 
related tasks as a clearly defined part of their 
job role.

60

If this is not the case, it should be interpreted 
that any activities relevant to the function are 
undertaken on an ad hoc basis, and the answer 
‘No’ should be applied.

When a function has multiple sub-items 
indicated in bullet points, answer ‘Yes’ only if 
all of the sub-functions are fulfilled. If at least 
one, but not all, of the sub-functions is fulfilled, 
answer ‘Partly’. If none of the sub-functions is 
fulfilled, answer ‘No’.

Question 3.1b: Drafting gender equality policy 
for the government.

This function covers the preparatory work for, 
and drafting of, government policies, 
strategies, action plans and programmes with a 
specific focus on gender equality. Note that this 
would normally be expected to be an either/or 
option with the next item on general anti-
discrimination policy. If both are selected, 
please provide a clear justification. If you select 
‘Yes’, please indicate if the gender equality 
policy for the government takes an 
intersectional approach to gender equality (e.g. 
gender and race, gender and disability, gender 
and age, gender and sexual orientation) to 
address the specific needs and challenges that 
women with different diversity characteristics 
face.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.2b: Drafting general anti-
discrimination policy, covering sex or gender 
together with other grounds, for the 
government.

This function covers the preparatory work for, 
and drafting of, government policies, 
strategies, action plans and programmes aimed 

at tackling discrimination on any grounds, 
including sex or gender but not the intersection 
between them.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.3b: Conducting gender-sensitive 
analysis of policies and legislation.

This function covers gender-sensitive analysis 
and review of policies, laws, strategies, action 
plans and programmes in areas not specifically 
related to gender equality and the production 
of relevant recommendations for improvement.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.4b: Coordinating and/or 
implementing government decisions on 
gender equality.

This function covers the coordination of actions 
required across government to implement 
government policies, strategies and action 
plans on gender equality.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No

Annexes

•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.5b: Monitoring progress in 
achieving gender equality.

This function covers:

•  monitoring of targets set in gender equality 
action plans or other policy and reporting on 
progress;

•  production of regular reports on the state of 

gender equality;

•  ensuring collection of data disaggregated by 

sex through coordination with national 
statistical authorities and other public 
bodies.

If you select ‘Yes’, please indicate if the 
disaggregated data and the analysis included in 
monitoring reports take an intersectional 
approach to gender equality (e.g. gender and 
race, gender and disability, gender and age, 
gender and sexual orientation) to address the 
specific needs and challenges that women with 
different diversity characteristics face. If 
possible, please provide examples of this.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.6b: Cooperation – international/EU.

This function covers regular/routine 
cooperation in a formalised and structured 
manner (e.g. through the establishment of 
networks or boards) with other equality bodies 

61

Annexes

and relevant public/private bodies at the EU or 
international level.

[Please select one of the four options]

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.7b: Cooperation – national/
sub-national.

This function covers regular/routine 
cooperation in a formalised and structured 
manner (e.g. through the establishment of 
networks or boards) with other equality bodies 
and relevant public/private bodies at the 
national or sub-national level.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 3.8b: Cooperation – civil society.

This function covers regular/routine 
cooperation in a formalised and structured 
manner (e.g. through the establishment of 
networks or boards) with civil society.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

62

Question 3.9b: Additional functions.

If governmental body 2 undertakes any 
functions not covered by the list above, please 
provide information here.

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Reporting to parliament by governmental 
body 2

This question (in three parts) asks about how 
governmental body 2 reports to parliament on 
the progress made on gender equality and 
gender mainstreaming initiatives.

‘Reporting’ refers to annual reports or other 
reports that inform the parliament of the 
activities, resources and impact of the agency.

‘Regular’ means at least once a year.

Question 4.1b: 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).

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a brief 
description of the reporting mechanism, if 
applicable, and include any links to any 
relevant government websites.

Question 4.2b: There is a system of reporting 
of the governmental body for the promotion 
of gender equality to the parliament, but it is 
not regular.

[Please select one of the three options]

[NB: If you answered ‘Yes’ to Question 4.1b, the 
answer to this question must be ‘No’]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a brief 
description of the reporting mechanism, if 
applicable, and include any links to any 
relevant government websites.

Question 4.3b: There is a separate 
parliamentary committee that 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.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a brief 
description of the reporting mechanism, if 
applicable, and include any links to any 
relevant government websites.

Personnel resources of governmental 
body 2

Question 5b: What is the total number of 
employees in governmental body 2?

Please note the headcount is the total number 
of staff working within the body (covering all 
mandates). Part-time staff should be counted 
the same as full-time staff and the total 
includes all support/administrative staff. If 
some staff work across different bodies, please 
discuss this with the national researcher.

For a designated body, information about the 
number of staff working within the body 
should be readily available. Where 
governmental bodies are a unit/section within 

Annexes

a ministry and the exact number of staff 
cannot be identified, the number should be 
estimated.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
descriptions of sources used to calculate the 
number of employees.

Question 6b: If the mandate of governmental 
body 2 includes gender equality combined 
with other non-discrimination areas, 
approximately what percentage of personnel 
time is spent on projects focused on gender 
equality?

This question attempts to identify what 
percentage of time is spent on projects related 
to gender equality where the mandate of the 
governmental body is wider than only gender 
equality. If the mandate is only gender equality, 
do not answer this question.

We understand that calculating an exact 
percentage may not be possible, which is why 
only four broad response options are included. 
Please provide a best estimate, based on the 
knowledge of the national focal point or other 
representative of the governmental body. If 
this information is not provided, it will not be 
possible to include any information from this 
section on personnel resources of the 
governmental body.

[Please select one of the five options]

•  0–25 %
•  25–50 %
•  50–75 %
•  75–100 %
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please includes links to or 
descriptions of sources used to estimate the 
percentage of time spent on projects focused 
on gender equality.

63

Annexes

Financial resources of governmental body 2

This question asks first about the annual 
expenditure of governmental body 2 in euro 
and then about:

•  the proportion (%) of that expenditure that 
was used (spent) for different purposes;
•  the proportion (%) of that expenditure that 
was provided (funded) by the EU or national 
sources.

In all cases, if the information is not readily 
available, please provide estimates.

Question 7b: What is the total annual 
expenditure of governmental body 2?

Financial figures should be provided in euro. If 
information is only available in the national 
currency, please use this calculator and the 
annual exchange rates published by Eurostat.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 7.1b: What percentage of the total 
annual expenditure is administrative costs 
(personnel and overheads)?

‘Administrative costs’ refers to costs such as 
personnel and overheads. If information is only 
available in the national currency, please use 
this calculator and the annual exchange rates 
published by Eurostat.

If there is no readily available data, please make 
an estimate to the nearest 10 %.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 7.2b: What percentage of the total 
annual expenditure is non-administrative 
costs related to gender equality?

Non-administrative costs include all other costs, 
such as project and programme costs, and 
relate to activities undertaken by the relevant 
body. If information is only available in the 
national currency, please use this calculator and 

64

the annual exchange rates published by 
Eurostat.

If there is no readily available data, please make 
an estimate to the nearest 10 %.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 7.3b: What percentage of the total 
administrative costs for governmental body 2 
is funded by the EU?

If EU funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of EU funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 7.4b: What percentage of the total 
administrative costs for governmental body 2 
is funded by the government?

If national funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of national funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 7.5b: What percentage of the total 
non-administrative costs for governmental 
body 2 is funded by the EU?

If EU funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of EU funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 7.6b: What percentage of the total 
non-administrative costs for governmental 
body 2 is funded by the national government?

If national funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of national funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Distribution of funding to non-
governmental organisations

Question 8b: Has governmental body 2 
distributed funds to NGOs in the last five 
years?

This question aims to capture the existence of 
funds to strengthen the capacity of NGOs to 
contribute towards gender equality and gender 
mainstreaming. NGOs include women’s 
organisations and networks, feminist groups, 
the private sector and other actors in civil 
society.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: If yes, did the funds relate 
only to gender equality or to other non-
discrimination areas? Please provide a source 
for your answer.

Question 8.1b: If yes, please describe how 
often in the last five years funds have been 
distributed and the total amount distributed 
in each distribution. Please provide a source 
for your answer.

Evidence question: If yes, please describe how 
often in the last five years funds have been 
distributed and the total amount distributed 
in each distribution. Please provide a source 
for your answer.

Annexes

Part 2: Policies, laws and practices

Level of commitment to the promotion of 
gender equality

Question 9: What is the highest level of 
responsibility for gender equality within the 
national government?

A list of the titles used to refer to senior and 
junior ministers in each Member State (as used 
in EIGE’s data collection on decision-making) 
can be found here.

If the governmental gender equality body is a 
department/unit within a ministry that has 
both a senior minister and junior minister (e.g. 
a deputy minister or state secretary) and the 
junior minister has designated responsibility for 
gender equality, the junior minister should be 
indicated in the answer. This is because the 
junior minister has the day-to-day 
responsibility for gender equality, even if they 
report to a more senior minister.

[Please select one of the four options]

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

•  Junior minister (member of the government 
who does not have a seat on the cabinet)

•  None: gender equality is not an explicit 

responsibility of the government

•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please specify the title of 
the relevant minister if applicable.

National law on gender equality

This question refers to whether there is a law 
exclusively on gender equality (first option), or 
a law dedicated to the promotion of gender 
equality together with other equality and 
non-discrimination issues (second option).

65

Annexes

In both cases, the focus on equality or non-
discrimination should normally be evident from 
the name of the law.

If neither of these exists, then consider the 
third option of laws dealing with specific 
aspects of gender equality. To be considered, 
laws dealing with a specific policy area (e.g. 
health, education, agriculture, gender pay gap) 
should have a clear focus on gender equality 
issues.

A general law about the policy area with 
occasional articles/provisions relevant to 
gender equality should not be counted.

For reference, see the summary of information 
collected by EIGE in 2021 regarding overall 
gender equality laws.

Note also that the question is about laws to 
promote/ensure gender equality and not about 
laws/rules to promote gender mainstreaming, 
which is often (but not always) covered by 
separate legislation/regulations; see here. 

Question 10.1: There is a law exclusively on 
gender equality.

If you select ‘Yes’, please explain if the relevant 
law takes an intersectional approach to gender 
equality (e.g. gender and race, gender and 
disability, gender and age, gender and sexual 
orientation) to address the specific needs and 
challenges faced by women with different 
diversity characteristics.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide the name of 
the law and/or sectoral laws and links to / 
attachments of the documents, if applicable.

Question 10.2: There is a law dedicated to the 
promotion of gender equality together with 
other equality and non-discrimination issues.

66

If you select ‘Yes’, please explain if and how the 
relevant law takes an intersectional approach 
to equality, acknowledging the intersections 
between gender and other grounds of 
discrimination within its scope. Here gender/sex 
is considered as a diversity characteristic like 
any other, not the main one.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide the name of 
the law and/or sectoral laws and links to / 
attachments of the documents, if applicable.

Question 10.3: There are laws on specific 
aspects of gender equality (health, education, 
agriculture, gender pay gap, etc.).

If you select ‘Yes’, please explain if and how the 
relevant law takes an intersectional approach 
to gender equality, to address the specific 
needs and challenges faced by women with 
different diversity characteristics in the specific 
policy area within its scope (e.g. the needs of 
women with disabilities in the labour market).

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide the name of 
the law and/or sectoral laws and links to / 
attachments of the documents, if applicable.

Question 10.4: There are no laws on gender 
equality.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

National strategy for gender equality

A strategy for gender equality provides an 
overall vision, mission, values, priorities and 
activities to achieve a policy objective or goal.

It is different from an action plan, which 
operationalises a strategy and focuses on 
actions to achieve specific outputs and results, 
typically with targets, timelines and indicators 
to monitor progress over a specific period of 
time. An action plan also typically identifies 
who is responsible for the implementation of 
each action.

It is important to distinguish a strategy from 
an action plan. Classification of the policy 
documents should be made based on an 
assessment of the content of the document 
according to the above definitions, not based 
on the name of the document alone. In a 
minority of cases, action plans and strategies 
may be the same document, but it must comply 
with the requirements set out in both 
definitions.

Strategies addressing gender equality in policy 
areas include the following.

•  Strategies that focus on policy areas outside 
of gender equality policy (e.g. transport, 
education or health). The strategy must be 
focused on promoting gender equality 
within the policy area – not only mentioned 
in one or two parts of the strategy but 
forming its core focus.

•  Strategies that focus on gender equality 

concerns in a particular gender-related policy 
area (e.g. the gender pay gap). The strategy 
must be focused on promoting gender 
equality, not only mentioned in one or two 
parts but forming a core component.

Annexes

If you select ‘Yes’, please explain if and how the 
relevant strategy takes an intersectional 
approach to gender equality (e.g. gender and 
race, gender and disability, gender and age, 
gender and sexual orientation) to address the 
specific needs and challenges faced by women 
with different diversity characteristics.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide the name of 
the strategy and/or sectoral strategies and 
links to / attachments of the documents, if 
applicable.

Question 11.2: There are strategies on specific 
aspects of gender equality in all or most 
departments/ministries (more than 50 %).

If you select ‘Yes’, please explain if and how the 
relevant strategies in departments/ministries 
take an intersectional approach to gender 
equality (e.g. gender and race, gender and 
disability, gender and age, gender and sexual 
orientation) to address the specific needs and 
challenges faced by women with different 
diversity characteristics.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide the name of 
the strategy and/or sectoral strategies and 
links to / attachments of the documents, if 
applicable.

Please do not include strategies exclusively 
related to gender-based violence or violence 
against women.

Question 11.3: There are strategies on specific 
aspects of gender equality in some or a few 
departments/ministries (less than 50 %).

Question 11.1: There is an overall national 
strategy on gender equality.

If you select ‘Yes’, please explain if and how the 
relevant strategies in departments/ministries 
take an intersectional approach to gender 
equality (e.g. gender and race, gender and 

67

Annexes

disability, gender and age, gender and sexual 
orientation) to address the specific needs and 
challenges faced by women with different 
diversity characteristics.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide the name of 
the strategy and/or sectoral strategies and 
links to / attachments of the documents, if 
applicable.

Question 11.4: There is no national strategy 
for gender equality.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

National action plan for gender equality

It is important to distinguish a strategy from 
an action plan. Classification of the policy 
documents should be made based on an 
assessment of the content of the document 
according to the below definitions, not based 
on the name of the document alone. In a 
minority of cases, action plans and strategies 
may be the same document, but it must comply 
with the requirements set out in both 
definitions.

A strategy provides an overall vision, mission, 
values and priorities to achieve a policy 
objective or goal.

An action plan operationalises a strategy and 
focuses on actions to achieve specific output 
and results, typically with targets and 
indicators to monitor progress over a specific 
period of time. An action plan also typically 
identifies who is responsible for the 
implementation of each action.

68

Action plans addressing gender equality in 
policy areas include the following.

•  Action plans that focus on policy areas 
outside of gender equality policy (e.g. 
transport, education or health). The action 
plan must be focused on promoting gender 
equality within the policy area – not only 
mentioned in one or two parts of the policy, 
but forming a core focus.

•  Action plans that focus on gender equality 

concerns in a particular gender-related policy 
area (e.g. the gender pay gap). The action 
plan must be focused on promoting gender 
equality, not only mentioned in one or two 
parts but forming a core component.

Actions plans must be in place by the end of the 
data collection exercise (10 May 2024). If a 
previous action plan is being evaluated before a 
new action is adopted, this must not be 
included, unless the action plan is still in force.

Please do not include action plans related to 
gender-based violence or violence against 
women.

Question 12.1: There is an overall national 
action plan on gender equality.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

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

Question 12.2: There is a national action plan 
for equality covering gender equality, 
together with other equality and non-
discrimination issues.

If you select ‘Yes’, please explain if and how the 
relevant action plan takes an intersectional 
approach to gender equality (e.g. gender and 
race, gender and disability, gender and age, 
gender and sexual orientation) to address the 

Annexes

specific needs and challenges faced by women 
with different diversity characteristics.

challenges faced by women with different 
diversity characteristics.

[Please select one of the three options]

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

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

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

Question 12.3: There are national action plans 
on specific policy areas relating to gender 
equality in all or most departments/ministries 
(more than 50 %).

If you select ‘Yes’, please explain if and how the 
relevant actions plans in departments/
ministries take an intersectional approach to 
gender equality (e.g. gender and race, gender 
and disability, gender and age, gender and 
sexual orientation) to address the specific 
needs and challenges faced by women with 
different diversity characteristics.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

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

Question 12.4: There are national action plans 
on specific policy areas relating to gender 
equality in some or a few departments/
ministries (less than 50 %).

If you select ‘Yes’, please explain if and how the 
relevant action plans in departments/ministries 
take an intersectional approach to gender 
equality (e.g. gender and race, gender and 
disability, gender and age, gender and sexual 
orientation) to address the specific needs and 

Question 12.5: There is no action plan in place.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Question 13: Name of the gender equality 
action plan – name in English.

Question 13.1: Name of the gender equality 
action plan – name in local language.

Question 13.2: Has the national action plan for 
gender equality been costed or budgeted for 
the period covered by the action plan?

This question refers to whether an estimate has 
been made of the amount of money needed to 
either implement or make progress towards 
objectives defined in the plan, for the period 
outlined in the action plan. Please note this 
question only applies to the national action 
plan, not action plans for specific policy areas.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please indicate where in 
the action plan details about the costing/
budgeting are provided or provide additional 
documentation.

69

Annexes

Questions 13.3: Indicate whether the national 
action plan sets specific targets to be 
achieved.

Please only select ‘Yes’ if the targets are 
measurable against specific indicators within 
the period of the action plan. Typically, they will 
be targets that can be measured with 
quantitative data, such as a certain percentage 
increase within the time period of the action 
plan or qualitative targets to adopt specific 
measures within the time period of the action 
plan. General goals or aims should not be 
included. This is because the ability to 
concretely measure progress is important for 
the effectiveness and accountability of the 
action plan. Please note this question only 
applies to the national action plan, not action 
plans for specific policy areas.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please list the main 
targets, if applicable.

Question 13.4: Indicate whether the action 
plan is regularly monitored, to assess whether 
the targets set out in the plan(s) are being 
achieved.

‘Regularly monitored’ means that there is an 
assessment at least once a year (preferably 
through the examination and publication of 
specific indicators) of the progress that the 
country is making on achieving the targets set 
out in the action plan.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide the number 
of quantitative indicators for headline 
targets.

70

Question 13.5: Please provide the number of 
indicators monitored.

Question 13.6: Please detail the frequency of 
monitoring.

Question 13.7: Please indicate which specific 
part of the action plan outlines all the targets, 
the details of how they are monitored and the 
frequency of the monitoring, or provide links 
to another document that outlines this.

Governmental strategy for gender 
mainstreaming

Gender mainstreaming is the (re)organisation, 
improvement, development and evaluation of 
policy processes, so that a gender equality 
perspective is incorporated into all policies at all 
levels and all stages, by the actors normally 
involved in policymaking. The focus is on the 
promotion of gender mainstreaming as a 
mechanism for promoting gender equality 
within government processes.

It is important to distinguish a strategy from 
an action plan. Classification of the policy 
documents should be made based on an 
assessment of the content of the document 
according to the below definitions, not based 
on the name of the document alone. In a 
minority of cases, action plans and strategies 
may be the same document, but it must comply 
with the requirements set out in both 
definitions.

A strategy provides an overall vision, mission, 
values and priorities to achieve a policy 
objective or goal.

An action plan operationalises a strategy and 
focuses on actions to achieve specific output 
and results, typically with targets and 
indicators to monitor progress over a specific 
period of time. An action plan also typically 
identifies who is responsible for the 
implementation of each action.

A gender mainstreaming strategy may be a 
dedicated gender mainstreaming strategy or 
integrated within an existing strategy on 

Annexes

gender equality. It may also be included within 
an ‘equality mainstreaming’ strategy, but the 
strategy must include a focus on gender 
mainstreaming specifically (i.e. it must not be 
gender blind).

Question 14.3: Separate strategies on gender 
mainstreaming in all or most ministries (more 
than 50 %).

[Please select one of the three options]

Please do not include strategies exclusively 
related to gender-based violence or violence 
against women.

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Question 14.1: Overall governmental strategy 
on gender mainstreaming applicable across 
government.

If you select ‘Yes’, please try to reflect upon 
how the strategy aims to have a transformative 
impact, by addressing the root causes of 
gender inequalities and/or by targeting specific 
issues in relation to distribution of power, 
allocation of resources, etc.

Evidence question: Please provide a link to the 
relevant strategy/strategies. If it is not a 
dedicated strategy, please indicate where in 
the document it can be found. Please indicate 
where in the document the voluntariness and 
applicability across ministries is indicated.

Question 14.4: Separate strategies on gender 
mainstreaming in some or a few ministries 
(less than 50 %).

[Please select one of the three options]

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a link to the 
relevant strategy/strategies. If it is not a 
dedicated strategy, please indicate where in 
the document it can be found. Please indicate 
where in the document the voluntariness and 
applicability across ministries is indicated.

Evidence question: Please provide a link to the 
relevant strategy/strategies. If it is not a 
dedicated strategy, please indicate where in 
the document it can be found. Please indicate 
where in the document the voluntariness and 
applicability across ministries is indicated.

Question 14.2: Overall governmental strategy 
on gender mainstreaming but application is 
optional.

[Please select one of the three options]

Question 14.5: There is no governmental 
strategy.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a link to the 
relevant strategy/strategies. If it is not a 
dedicated strategy, please indicate where in 
the document it can be found. Please indicate 
where in the document the voluntariness and 
applicability across ministries is indicated.

Governmental action plan for gender 
mainstreaming

Gender mainstreaming is the (re)organisation, 
improvement, development and evaluation of 
policy processes, so that a gender equality 
perspective is incorporated into all policies at all 

71

Annexes

levels and all stages, by the actors normally 
involved in policymaking. The focus is on the 
promotion of gender mainstreaming as a 
mechanism for promoting gender equality 
within government processes.

It is important to distinguish a strategy from 
an action plan. Classification of the policy 
documents should be made based on an 
assessment of the content of the document 
according to the below definitions, not based 
on the name of the document alone. In a 
minority of cases, action plans and strategies 
may be the same document, but it must comply 
with the requirements set out in both 
definitions.

A strategy provides an overall vision, mission, 
values and priorities to achieve a policy 
objective or goal.

An action plan operationalises a strategy and 
focuses on actions to achieve specific output 
and results, typically with targets and 
indicators to monitor progress over a specific 
period of time. An action plan also typically 
identifies who is responsible for the 
implementation of each action.

A gender mainstreaming action plan may be a 
dedicated gender mainstreaming action plan or 
integrated within an existing action plan on 
gender equality. It may also be included within 
an ‘equality mainstreaming’ plan, but the plan 
must include a focus on gender mainstreaming 
specifically (i.e. equality between women and 
men must be an integral dimension of the 
document).

Please do not include action plans exclusively 
related to gender-based violence or violence 
against women.

Question 15.1: Overall governmental action 
plan applicable across government.

Please try to reflect upon how the action plan 
aims to have a transformative impact, by 
addressing the root causes of gender 
inequalities and/or by targeting specific issues 
in relation to distribution of power, allocation of 
resources, etc.

72

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

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

Question 15.2: Overall governmental action 
plan but application is optional.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

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

Question 15.3: Separate action plan in all or 
most ministries (more than 50 %).

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

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

Question 15.4: Separate action plan in some or 
a few ministries (less than 50 %).

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

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

Level of commitment to the promotion of 
gender mainstreaming

Question 16: What is the status of the 
government’s commitment to gender 
mainstreaming in the national public 
administration in your country?

This question refers to laws on gender 
mainstreaming specifically, rather than laws on 
gender equality in general. For examples of this 
distinction, see here. 

[Please select one of the six options]

•  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

Annexes

Question 17.1: Units / departments / working 
groups specifically dedicated to gender 
mainstreaming within each ministry.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a 
description of the structures in place, 
including resources available to each structure 
and any information available about its 
effectiveness, if applicable.

Question 17.2: Gender focal points in the 
ministries (contact persons for gender 
mainstreaming) and/or an interministerial 
group (a coordinating body or a network of 
contact persons).

•  There is a de facto binding decision of the 

[Please select one of the three options]

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

•  Don’t know

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

Question 16.1: Please provide a translation of 
the relevant section of the law in English.

Gender mainstreaming structures

This question refers to the structures that are 
in place to coordinate gender mainstreaming 
across government ministries/departments.

A gender mainstreaming structure is used to 
support the coordination of gender 
mainstreaming across government.

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a 
description of the structures in place, 
including resources available to each structure 
and any information available about its 
effectiveness, if applicable.

Question 17.3: Other structure.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a 
description of the structures in place, 
including resources available to each structure 
and any information available about its 
effectiveness, if applicable.

Question 17.4: No structure.

[Please select one of the three options]

73

Annexes

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Question 18: If there is a gender 
mainstreaming structure, what proportion of 
ministries/departments are included in the 
structure?

If you select less than 75–100 %, please 
describe the nature of the involvement of the 
ministries in the mainstreaming structure and 
explain why some ministries are excluded.

[Please select one of the five options]

•  All ministries (more than 75 %)
•  Most ministries (50–75 %)
•  Some ministries (25–50 %)
•  Very few ministries (less than 25 %)
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Where possible, please 
provide an indication of how much time the 
staff included in the headcount spend on 
supporting gender mainstreaming (e.g. 
full-time, one day per week, one day per 
month, less).

Question 20: If there is a gender 
mainstreaming structure, does it have an 
action plan?

An action plan for gender mainstreaming 
entails the operationalisation of gender 
mainstreaming and typically includes measures, 
output and results (or equivalent) in order to 
implement strategic gender mainstreaming 
objectives. Actions could be included in a wider 
gender equality action plan or as a specific 
gender mainstreaming action plan, but must 
include actions specific to the implementation 
of gender mainstreaming strategic objectives.

Question 18.1: Please include/describe sources 
used to answer this question.

[Please select one of the four options]

Question 19: If there is a gender 
mainstreaming structure, what is the total 
number of staff (headcount) who specifically 
support gender mainstreaming across all 
government departments/ministries, outside 
of the governmental body for the promotion 
of gender equality, if any?

The headcount of staff should not include any 
alternates (to avoid double counting) and no 
adjustments should be made for part-time staff 
(i.e. full-time and part-time staff should both 
be counted the same). Please note the gender 
mainstreaming structure cannot be the same as 
the governmental body for the promotion of 
gender equality, even where the focus of the 
body is on gender mainstreaming across 
ministries.

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

Question 19.1: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

74

•  Yes, there is an action plan and it has targets 

against which progress is measured

•  Yes, there is an action plan but it does not 
have targets against which progress is 
measured

•  No action plan is in place
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please describe the 
procedure in place and provide links to 
relevant documentation.

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

These questions aim to understand how 
regularly governmental bodies 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 for an opinion about a policy or 
legislative initiative.

Question 21: Is there a procedure in place to 
ensure that the government and other public 
institutions can consult the governmental 
body on legislation, policy, procedure, 
programmes and practices in policy fields 
other than gender equality?

This question is about the consultation of the 
governmental body, which is important in 
ensuring that its expertise on gender equality 
and gender mainstreaming is incorporated to 
identify and address the gendered impacts of 
initiatives.

Note the focus is on policies other than gender 
equality, as this question aims to identify if 
gender considerations are mainstreamed in 
other policy areas. Please only assess policy 
areas as identified by EIGE.

The existence of the procedure for consultation 
should be set out in a binding document, such 
as the mandate of the independent body.

This question can refer to either or both of the 
governmental bodies (if there are more than 
one in the Member State). The governmental 
body/bodies referred to should be made clear in 
the response.

The third response option refers to cases where 
no consultation takes place, as departments or 
ministries have an internal mechanism for 
ensuring gender equality in legislation, policy, 
procedure, programmes and practices in fields 
other than gender equality.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  No consultation takes place, as departments 
or ministries have an internal mechanism for 
ensuring gender equality in legislation, 
policy, procedure, programmes and practices 
in fields other than gender equality

•  Don’t know

Annexes

Evidence question: Please state the name of 
the governmental body/bodies this answer 
refers to. Please describe the procedure in 
place and provide links to relevant 
documentation.

Question 22: 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)?

We expect the national focal point to be able to 
make an assessment. Please provide details of 
how they reached their assessment and any 
available evidence.

This question can refer to either or both of the 
governmental bodies (if there are more than 
one in the Member State).

[Please select one of the six options]

•  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 in only 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

•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please state the name of 
the governmental body/bodies this answer 
refers to. If no consultation takes place 
because there is an internal mechanism (e.g. 
for each ministry to undertake a gender-
oriented review), please specify the nature of 
this mechanism.

Question 23: 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?

75

Annexes

This question can refer to either or both of the 
governmental bodies (if there are more than 
one in the Member State). The governmental 
body/bodies referred to should be made clear.

[Please select one of the six options]

•  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 %)
•  Don’t know
•  Not relevant

Evidence question: Please include/describe 
sources used to answer this question.

Gender mainstreaming methods and tools

These questions aim to collect information on 
how the government includes a gender 
perspective in the design, implementation and 
evaluation of policies, laws and programmes.

This includes the use of gender mainstreaming 
methods and tools (gender impact assessment, 
gender budgeting, gender evaluation, gender 
awareness raising and gender equality 
training).

Question 24: Is there a legal obligation to 
undertake an ex ante gender impact 
assessment when drafting laws and/or 
policies/plans/programmes (excluding gender 
budgeting)?

Please refer to the following definition when 
answering this question: gender impact 
assessment is a policy tool for the screening of 
a given policy proposal, in order to detect and 
assess its differential impact or effects on 
women and men, so that these imbalances can 
be redressed before the proposal is endorsed.

[Please select one of the four options]

In some cases

•  Yes
• 
•  No
•  Don’t know

76

Evidence question: If ‘In some cases’, please 
specify in what way.

Question 24.1: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Evidence question: Please provide a legal 
citation.

Question 24.2: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Evidence question: Please provide a 
translation of the relevant section of the law 
in English.

Question 25: Is there a legal obligation to 
undertake gender budgeting for a ministerial 
budget or the budget of other governmental 
institutions?

Please refer to the following definition when 
answering this question.

Gender budgeting is the application of gender 
mainstreaming in the budgetary process. It 
entails a gender-based assessment of budgets, 
incorporating a gender perspective at all levels 
of the budgetary process and restructuring 
revenues and expenditures in order to promote 
gender equality.

[Please select one of the four options]

In some cases

•  Yes
• 
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: If ‘In some cases’, please 
specify in what way.

Question 25.1: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Evidence question: Please provide a legal 
citation.

Question 25.2: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Evidence question: Please provide a 
translation of the relevant section of the law 
in English.

Question 26: How widespread is the use of 
gender budgeting in ministerial budgets and 
in the budgets of other governmental 
institutions?

Please refer to the following definition when 
answering this question.

Gender budgeting is the application of gender 
mainstreaming in the budgetary process. It 
entails a gender-based assessment of budgets, 
incorporating a gender perspective at all levels 
of the budgetary process and restructuring 
revenues and expenditures in order to promote 
gender equality.

[Please select one of the five options]

•  Widely used in most ministries
•  Used by some ministries
•  Still in its foundational stages
•  Practically an unknown concept
•  Don’t know

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

Question 26.1: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Evidence question: Answers to these 
questions will require an expert judgement by 
the national focal point. Please provide details 
of how they reached their assessment and 
any available evidence.

Question 27: How regularly do evaluations of 
interventions (e.g. policies, programmes and 
projects) include an assessment of the 

Annexes

gendered impact of the policy/programme/
project?

This question assesses the use of gender-
responsive evaluation as a tool for gender 
mainstreaming. For detailed information on 
gender-responsive evaluation, see here.

[Please select one of the five options]

•  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 %)
•  Don’t know

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

Question 27.1: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Evidence question: Answers to these 
questions will require an expert judgement by 
the national focal point. Please provide details 
of how they reached their assessment and 
any available evidence.

Question 28: Have there been one or more of 
the following central initiatives to raise 
awareness of gender equality among 
ministries and other governmental bodies in 
the past two years?

The question is focused on initiatives organised 
centrally, which thus apply to all, or nearly all, 
ministries. Initiatives within specific ministries 
are not included. The focus must be on raising 
awareness of gender equality issues among 
government employees, not the general public.

Question 28.1: Public events (e.g. public 
speeches) that government employees were 
invited to attend.

[Please select one of the three options]

77

Annexes

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: If ‘Yes’, please provide a 
brief description of the activity and links to a 
source indicating its existence.

Question 28.2: Distribution of printed material 
(e.g. leaflets, brochures, books, audiovisual 
resources).

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: If ‘Yes’, please provide a 
brief description of the activity and links to a 
source indicating its existence.

Question 28.3: Workshops.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: If ‘Yes’, please provide a 
brief description of the activity and links to a 
source indicating its existence.

Question 28.4: Other.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: If ‘Yes’, please provide a 
brief description of the activity and links to a 
source indicating its existence.

Question 29: Have there been any central 
initiatives to raise awareness of the 
importance of gender-sensitive language 
among ministries and other governmental 
bodies in the past two years? 

78

The question is focused on initiatives organised 
centrally, which thus apply to all, or nearly all, 
ministries. Initiatives within specific ministries 
are not included. Examples of initiatives include 
gender-sensitive language guidelines or 
toolkits. The focus must be on raising 
awareness of gender-sensitive language among 
government employees, not others, such as 
journalists or the general public. Examples 
could include dissemination of a gender-
sensitive language toolkit or training.

Gender-sensitive language is defined as gender 
equality made manifest through language. 
Language plays an important role in how 
women’s and men’s positions in society are 
perceived and interpreted, which in turn 
influences attitudes towards women and men. 
Certain words or the use of the masculine form 
as the generic one (common in most languages) 
can overshadow women in legal acts, contribute 
to stereotypes (e.g. in professions) and make 
women’s roles and needs invisible, among other 
things. In this way, language contributes to, 
produces and reproduces sexist and biased 
thoughts, attitudes and behaviours.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: If ‘Yes’, please provide a 
brief description of the activity and links to a 
source indicating its existence.

Question 30: Are governmental employees 
involved in gender equality training? (See list 
below by category of employee.) 

We expect the national focal point to be able to 
make an assessment. Please provide details of 
how they reached their assessment and any 
available evidence.

Please refer to the following definitions when 
answering this question. 

Gender equality training is any educational tool 
or process that aims to make policymakers and 
other actors in the EU and Member States more 

aware of gender equality issues, build their 
gender competence and enable them to 
promote gender equality goals in their work at 
all levels.

‘Regular’ means at least once a year.

Question 30.1: The employees at the highest 
political level (ministers, vice ministers and 
senior cabinet members).

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes, on a regular basis (at least once a year) 
•  Yes, on an ad hoc basis 
•  No 
•  Don’t know 

Evidence question: Please provide evidence 
that gender equality training occurs (e.g. law 
or policy reference, action plans or basis of 
the information provided by the national 
focal point).

Annexes

Evidence question: Please describe the 
training, including its regularity, who 
organises it and its content.

Question 30.3: Some of the employees of 
other ministries/departments.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes, on a regular basis (at least once a year)
•  Yes, on an ad hoc basis
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide evidence 
that gender equality training occurs (e.g. law 
or policy reference, action plans or basis of 
the information provided by national focal 
point).

Question 30.3.1: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Question 30.1.1: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Evidence question: Please describe the 
training, including its regularity, who 
organises it and its content.

Evidence question: Please describe the 
training, including its regularity, who 
organises it and its content.

Question 31: Is gender equality training 
mandatory? (See list below by category of 
employee.)

Question 30.2: The employees of the 
governmental body for gender equality.

Please refer to the following definition when 
answering this question.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes, on a regular basis (at least once a year)
•  Yes, on an ad hoc basis
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide evidence 
that gender equality training occurs (e.g. law 
or policy reference, action plans or basis of 
the information provided by the national 
focal point).

Gender equality training is any educational tool 
or process that aims to make policymakers and 
other actors in the EU and Member States more 
aware of gender equality issues, build their 
gender competence and enable them to 
promote gender equality goals in their work at 
all levels.

Question 31.1: The employees at the highest 
political level (ministers, vice ministers and 
senior cabinet members).

[Please select one of the three options]

Question 30.2.1: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

•  Yes
•  No

79

Annexes

•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide evidence 
that gender equality training is mandatory 
(e.g. law or policy reference or the basis of the 
information provided by the national focal 
point).

Question 31.2: The employees of the 
governmental body for gender equality.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

the role of mediator between public authorities 
and citizens (see EIGE’s glossary and thesaurus).

Formal mechanisms are regular and systematic 
ways to consult or otherwise involve CSOs in 
gender equality policy areas, enforced by law or 
policy. This could be through inclusion of 
representatives of CSOs as formal members of 
the gender equality body. It does not include ad 
hoc consultations. It also does not include 
consultations that are open to the public, with 
no specific mechanism for civil society. It also 
does not include funding for projects for CSOs 
unrelated to the development of policies, laws 
or programmes.

[Please select one of the three options]

Evidence question: Please provide evidence 
that gender equality training is mandatory 
(e.g. law or policy reference or the basis of the 
information provided by the national focal 
point).

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Question 31.3: Some of the employees of 
other ministries/departments.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide evidence 
that gender equality training is mandatory 
(e.g. law or policy reference or the basis of the 
information provided by the national focal 
point).

Involvement of civil-society actors in 
governmental work on gender equality

Question 32: Is there a formal mechanism(s) 
for the involvement of CSOs in the 
development of new or existing policies, laws 
or programmes in the area of gender equality 
policy?

Civil society includes all organisational 
structures, such as NGOs and social partners, 
whose members serve the general interest 
through a democratic process, and who take on 

80

Evidence question: Please provide link(s) to 
sources indicating the existence of the formal 
mechanism(s).

Question 32.1: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Evidence question: Please describe the focus 
area or sectors of the CSOs included in the 
formal mechanism (e.g. women’s rights only, 
women’s rights and LGBT+ issues, youth, 
unions).

Part 3: Statistical infrastructure

Governmental commitment to the 
production of statistics disaggregated by 
sex

Question 33: Is there a legal obligation 
(besides EU regulations) for the national 
statistical office to collect data disaggregated 
by sex?

EU law in this area relates to data collections 
coordinated by Eurostat, which comply with 
regulations requiring sex-disaggregated data. 

Annexes

For example, the EU Labour Force Survey is 
conducted in accordance with Regulation (EU) 
2019/1700 on a common framework for 
European statistics relating to persons and 
households. For further information, see here.

Please also provide additional information as to 
whether the existing legal obligation to collect 
data disaggregated by sex also encompasses 
an obligation to collect additional variables (e.g. 
age, residency status, disability, social status) 
for each individual, and enables those multiple 
characteristics to be analysed together (e.g. sex 
and age, sex and residency status).

Evidence question: Please provide a legal 
citation, with a link to the law, and a 
translation of the relevant provisions in 
English.

Question 35: Are there other kinds of 
agreements (i.e. policy) to collect data 
disaggregated by sex?

Other kinds of agreements could include, for 
example, cooperation agreements or 
memorandums of understanding.

[Please select one of the four options]

[Please select one of the three options]

•  There is an agreement on regular data 

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a legal 
citation, with a link to the law, and a 
translation of the relevant provisions in 
English.

Question 33.1: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Evidence question: Please provide any 
additional information on the content of 
these legal obligations, such as specific 
sectors from which to collect sex-
disaggregated data and the type of data to be 
collected (e.g. survey or administrative data).

Question 34: Is there a legal obligation for 
other public institutions to collect data 
disaggregated by sex?

‘Public institutions’ refers to social benefit 
authorities, public employment services and 
local government services, for example.

collection

•  There is an ad hoc agreement to collect data 

disaggregated by sex

•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a legal 
citation, with a link to the law, and a 
translation of the relevant provisions in 
English.

Effectiveness of governmental 
commitment to producing statistics 
disaggregated by sex

Question 36: 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?

The purpose of this question is to assess the 
effectiveness of the commitment(s) to 
producing statistics disaggregated by sex 
through assessment of the most relevant 
website, such as the national statistical office 
website.

[Please select one of the three options]

[Please select one of the five options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

•  There is a specific website
•  The national statistical office website has a 

section on gender statistics

81

Annexes

•  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

•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide a link to the 
website or section of a website used to 
answer.

Question 37: Does the relevant website or 
section of a website include a thematic 
breakdown of the statistics it covers?

Please specify what thematic breakdowns are 
featured, including if other variables (e.g. age, 
residency status, disability, social status) in 
addition to sex are available.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Question 38: Does the relevant website or 
section of a website provide direct access to 
relevant datasets that can be both viewed 
online and downloaded?

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Question 39: Does the relevant website or 
section of a website provide direct access to 
relevant publications and/or online analyses 
of gender statistics?

Details on datasets for which sex is relevant 
can be found in the United Nations Minimum 
Set of Gender Indicators, which provides a list 
of indicators mapped onto the BPfA. These 
include economic structures, participation in 
productive activities and access to resources; 
education; health and related services; public 
life and decision-making; and human rights of 
women and girl children.

[Please select one of the seven options]

•  More than 75 %
•  50–75 %
•  25–50 %
•  Less than 25 %
•  None
•  Not applicable
•  Don’t know

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

Intensity of dissemination efforts of 
gender statistics

Question 41: Are there regular publications 
(e.g. reports, infographics) that analyse 
gender statistics by national/federal 
statistical offices and/or other governmental 
bodies?

The focus on publications is to show whether 
governments analyse and explain the statistics, 
rather than only producing the raw statistics.

‘Regular’ means at least once a year.

[Please select one of the three options]

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Question 40: 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?

82

•  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
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide links to the 
publications, if applicable.

Question 42: Are gender statistics 
disseminated on a regular basis? 

Please focus on the dissemination of gender 
equality information and statistics outside 
publications, as publication information is 
captured in the previous question. Methods of 
dissemination here could include newsletters 
and social media posts.

The methods of dissemination must be regular 
(i.e. at least once a year).

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: If yes, please specify the 
method of dissemination and provide links to 
the dissemination methods showing they are 
regular.

Part 4: Independent bodies

Independent body 1

Scope of independent body 1

Question 43a: What is the scope of the 
mandate of independent body 1?

Independent bodies are defined as national 
bodies for the promotion, analysis, monitoring 
and support of equal treatment of all persons 
without discrimination (including discrimination 
on the grounds of sex). Their competences 
include providing independent assistance to 
victims of alleged discrimination (including 
sex- and gender-based discrimination), 
conducting independent surveys concerning 
discrimination, publishing independent reports 
and making recommendations on any issue 
relating to such discrimination.

A list of recognised independent bodies can be 
found on the website of the European Network 
of Equality Bodies.

Annexes

Please indicate whether the mandate of the 
independent body is exclusively focused on 
gender equality (and whether and how it 
adopts an intersectional approach) or whether 
it also covers other grounds of discrimination 
separately.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Exclusively gender equality
•  Gender equality combined with other 

equality-related functions

•  Don’t know

Functions of independent body 1

This question asks about the functions of 
independent body 1. Eight functions are listed 
below. Please respond to each of these by 
selecting one of the four options.

For the answer ‘Yes’ to be applied, the function 
should be a clearly defined (and ideally 
documented) part of the mandate of the body, 
and the body should have staff who undertake 
related tasks as a clearly defined part of their 
job role.

If this is not the case, it should be interpreted 
that any activities relevant to the function are 
undertaken on an ad hoc basis, and the answer 
‘No’ should be applied.

When a function has multiple sub-items 
indicated in bullet points, answer ‘Yes’ only if 
all of the sub-functions are fulfilled. If at least 
one, but not all, of the sub-functions is fulfilled, 
answer ‘Partly’. If none of the sub-functions is 
fulfilled, answer ‘No’.

Question 44.1a: Prevention, promotion and 
awareness raising.

This covers two sub-functions:

•  public awareness, that is, raising awareness 
among the general population of gender 
equality issues and the existence of the 
(independent) gender equality body and the 
services it offers (self-publicity);

83

Annexes

•  preventative activities, including the 

provision of training and guidance to public 
and private institutions.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

of sex, and requires that the body have 
legislated rights to fulfil these roles:

•  formally investigating complaints/breaches, 
including through the collection of evidence 
from both sides of any dispute;

•  actively participating in litigation aimed at 

resolving complaints/breaches.

[Please select one of the four options]

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Question 44.2a: Assistance to victims.

This function covers the initial steps in the 
handling of complaints from victims of 
discrimination on the grounds of sex before 
entering into any legal process:

•  receiving complaints about discrimination on 

the grounds of sex;

•  providing targeted advice to the victim 
about their specific situation, the legal 
framework, relevant support and procedures 
for moving forwards with the complaint;
•  producing a preliminary assessment of the 

complaint and whether there are grounds to 
pursue it further.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.3a: Formal investigation of 
complaints and participation in related 
litigation.

This function covers steps after the initial 
assessment of a complaint or other breach of 
the principle of equal treatment on the grounds 

84

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.4a: Cooperation – international/
EU.

This covers regular/routine cooperation in a 
formalised and structured manner (e.g. through 
the establishment of networks or boards) with 
other equality bodies and relevant public/
private bodies at the EU or international level.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.5a: Cooperation – national/
sub-national.

This covers regular/routine cooperation in a 
formalised and structured manner (e.g. through 
the establishment of networks or boards) with 
other equality bodies and relevant public/
private bodies at the national or sub-national 
level.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.6a: Cooperation – civil society.

This covers regular/routine cooperation in a 
formalised and structured manner (e.g. through 
the establishment of networks or boards) with 
civil society.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.7a: Consultation and 
recommendation.

Annexes

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.8a: Data collection and research.

This function covers regular and ongoing 
activities in relation to:

•  collecting and publishing data on own 

activities, disaggregated by sex and any 
other grounds for discrimination covered by 
the mandate of the body;

•  undertaking surveys and research on gender 
equality issues and publishing the findings.

These do not have to be undertaken in-house 
and may be commissioned from third-party 
providers.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

This function covers:

Personnel resources of independent body 1

•  regularly reviewing gender equality issues in 

legislation, policy, procedures and 
programmes for government and other 
public institutions;

•  making and publishing recommendations 

derived from these reviews.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Question 45a: What is the total number of 
employees in independent body 1?

Please note the headcount is a simple total of 
all staff working within the body. Part-time 
staff should be counted the same as full-time 
staff and the total includes all support/
administrative staff. If some staff work across 
different bodies, please discuss this with the 
national researcher.

As a designated body, information about the 
number of staff working within the body 
should be readily available. If the exact number 

85

Annexes

of staff cannot be identified, the number 
should be estimated.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
descriptions of sources used to calculate the 
number of employees.

Question 45.1a: If the mandate of 
independent body 1 includes gender equality 
combined with other non-discrimination 
areas, approximately what percentage of 
personnel time is spent on projects focused 
on gender equality?

This question attempts to identify what 
percentage of time is spent on projects related 
to gender when the mandate of the 
independent body is wider than gender 
equality. If the mandate is only gender equality, 
do not answer this question.

We understand that calculating an exact 
percentage may not be possible, which is why 
only four broad response options are included. 
Please provide a best estimate, based on the 
knowledge of the national focal point or 
another representative of the independent 
body. If this information is not provided, it will 
not be possible to include any information 
regarding indicator H2b in the data collection.

[Please select one of the five options]

•  0–25 %
•  25–50 %
•  50–75 %
•  75–100 %
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
descriptions of sources used to estimate the 
percentage of time spent on projects focused 
on gender equality.

Financial resources of independent body 1

This question asks first about the annual 
expenditure of independent body 1 in euro, and 
then about:

86

•  the proportion (%) of that expenditure that 
was used (spent) for different purposes;
•  the proportion (%) of that expenditure that 
was provided (funded) by the EU or national 
sources.

In all cases, if the information is not readily 
available, please provide estimates and make 
this clear.

Question 46a: What is the total annual 
expenditure of independent body 1?

Financial figures should be provided in euro. If 
information is only available in the national 
currency, please provide details regarding how 
the conversion was made (i.e. the exchange 
rate used, the source of the exchange rate).

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 46.1a: What percentage of the total 
annual expenditure is administrative costs 
(personnel and overheads)?

‘Administrative costs’ refers to costs such as 
personnel and overheads. If information is only 
available in the national currency, please 
provide details regarding how the conversion 
was made (i.e. the exchange rate used, the 
source of the exchange rate).

If there is no readily available data, please make 
an estimate to the nearest 10 %.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 46.2a: What percentage of the total 
annual expenditure is non-administrative 
costs related to gender equality? 

Non-administrative costs include all other costs, 
such as project and programme costs, and 
relate to activities undertaken by the relevant 
body. If information is only available in the 
national currency, please provide details 
regarding how the conversion was made (i.e. 
the exchange rate used, the source of the 
exchange rate).

If there is no readily available data, please make 
an estimate to the nearest 10 %.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 46.3a: What percentage of the total 
administrative costs for independent body 1 
is funded by the EU?

If EU funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of EU funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 46.4a: What percentage of the total 
administrative costs for independent body 1 
is funded by the national government?

If national funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of national funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 46.5a: What percentage of the total 
non-administrative costs for independent 
body 1 is funded by the EU?

If EU funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of EU funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Annexes

then apply the share of national funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Frequency and effectiveness of 
consultations with independent bodies for 
the promotion of gender equality about 
policies, laws and programmes

These questions aim to understand how 
regularly independent bodies 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 for an opinion about a policy or 
legislative initiative.

Question 47a: Is there a transparent 
procedure in place to ensure that the 
government and other public institutions can 
consult independent body 1 on legislation, 
policy, procedure, programmes and practices 
in policy fields other than gender equality?

This question is about the consultation of the 
independent body, which is important in 
ensuring that its expertise on gender equality 
and gender mainstreaming is incorporated to 
identify and address the gendered impacts of 
initiatives.

Note the focus is on policy topics other than 
gender equality, as this question aims to 
identify if gender considerations are 
mainstreamed in other policy areas. Please only 
assess policy areas as identified by EIGE.

Question 46.6a: What percentage of the total 
non-administrative costs for independent 
body 1 is funded by the national government?

The existence of the procedure for consultation 
should be set out in a binding document, such 
as the mandate of the independent body.

If national funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 

[Please select one of the four options]

87

Annexes

•  Yes
•  No
•  No consultation takes place, as departments 
or ministries have an internal mechanism for 
ensuring gender equality in legislation, 
policy, procedure, programmes and practices 
in fields other than gender equality

•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide links to 
sources outlining the procedure for 
consultation of the independent body.

Question 47.1a: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Evidence question: If no consultation takes 
place because there is an internal mechanism, 
please describe the nature of this mechanism.

Question 48: How regularly are the 
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)?

We expect the national focal point to be able to 
make an assessment. Please provide details of 
how they reached their assessment and any 
available evidence.

This question can refer to either or both of the 
independent bodies (if there are more than one 
in the Member State). The governmental body/
bodies referred to should be made clear.

[Please select one of the six options]

•  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 %)

•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please state the name of 
the independent body/bodies this answer 
refers to. Please indicate the sources and/or 
rationale used to answer this question. Please 
provide a judgement on how accurate you 
think the answer is.

Question 49: If independent bodies for the 
promotion of gender equality are consulted 
about new or existing policies, laws or 
programmes, how often does their 
involvement lead to an adjustment in policies 
or legislative instruments?

This question should be answered based on an 
assessment of the legal mandate of the 
independent body and any related law/policy, 
not an assessment of if this happens in 
practice.

This question can refer to either or both of the 
independent bodies (if there are more than one 
in the Member State). The governmental body/
bodies referred to should be made clear.

[Please select one of the six options]

•  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 %)
•  Don’t know
•  Not relevant

Evidence question: Please state the name of 
the independent body/bodies this answer 
refers to. Please indicate the sources and/or 
rationale used to answer this question. Please 
provide a judgement on how accurate you 
think the answer is.

Independent body 2

•  Never consulted, or consulted in only a few 

Scope of independent body 2

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

88

Question 43b: What is the scope of the 
mandate of independent body 2?

Independent bodies are defined as national 
bodies for the promotion, analysis, monitoring 
and support of equal treatment of all persons 
without discrimination (including discrimination 
on the grounds of sex). Their competences 
include providing independent assistance to 
victims of alleged discrimination (including 
sex- and gender-based discrimination), 
conducting independent surveys concerning 
discrimination, publishing independent reports 
and making recommendations on any issue 
relating to such discrimination.

A list of recognised independent bodies can be 
found on the website of the European Network 
of Equality Bodies.

Please indicate whether the mandate of the 
independent body is exclusively focused on 
gender equality (and whether and how it 
adopts an intersectional approach) or whether 
it also covers other grounds of discrimination 
separately.

[Please select one of the three options]

•  Exclusively gender equality
•  Gender equality combined with other 

equality-related functions.

•  Don’t know

Functions of independent body 2

This question asks about the functions of 
independent body 2. Eight functions are listed 
below. Please respond to each of these by 
selecting one of the four options.

For the answer ‘Yes’ to be applied, the function 
should be a clearly defined (and ideally 
documented) part of the mandate of the body, 
and the body should have staff who undertake 
related tasks as a clearly defined part of their 
job role.

If this is not the case, it should be interpreted 
that any activities relevant to the function are 
undertaken on an ad hoc basis, and the answer 
‘No’ should be applied.

Annexes

When a function has multiple sub-items 
indicated in bullet points, answer ‘Yes’ only if 
all of the sub-functions are fulfilled. If at least 
one, but not all, of the sub-functions is fulfilled, 
answer ‘Partly’. If none of the sub-functions is 
fulfilled, answer ‘No’.

Question 44.1b: Prevention, promotion and 
awareness raising.

This covers two sub-functions:

•  public awareness, that is, raising awareness 
among the general population of gender 
equality issues and the existence of the 
(independent) gender equality body and the 
services it offers (self-publicity);
•  preventative activities, including the 

provision of training and guidance to public 
and private institutions.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.2b: Assistance to victims.

This function covers the initial steps in the 
handling of complaints from victims of 
discrimination on the grounds of sex before 
entering into any legal process:

•  receiving complaints about discrimination on 

the grounds of sex;

•  providing targeted advice to the victim 
about their specific situation, the legal 
framework, relevant support and procedures 
for moving forwards with the complaint;
•  producing a preliminary assessment of the 

complaint and whether there are grounds to 
pursue it further.

[Please select one of the four options]

89

Annexes

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.3b: Formal investigation of 
complaints and participation in related 
litigation.

This function covers steps after the initial 
assessment of a complaint or other breach of 
the principle of equal treatment on the grounds 
of sex, and requires that the body have 
legislated rights to fulfil these roles:

•  formally investigating complaints/breaches, 
including through the collection of evidence 
from both sides of any dispute;

•  actively participating in litigation aimed at 

resolving complaints/breaches.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.4b: Cooperation – international/
EU.

This covers regular/routine cooperation in a 
formalised and structured manner (e.g. through 
the establishment of networks or boards) with 
other equality bodies and relevant public/
private bodies at the EU or international level.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No

90

•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.5b: Cooperation – national/
sub-national.

This covers regular/routine cooperation in a 
formalised and structured manner (e.g. through 
the establishment of networks or boards) with 
other equality bodies and relevant public/
private bodies at the national or sub-national 
level.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.6b: Cooperation – civil society.

This covers regular/routine cooperation in a 
formalised and structured manner (e.g. through 
the establishment of networks or boards) with 
civil society.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.7b: Consultation and 
recommendation.

This function covers:

•  regularly reviewing gender equality issues in 

Personnel resources of independent body 2

Annexes

legislation, policy, procedures and 
programmes for government and other 
public institutions;

•  making and publishing recommendations 

derived from these reviews.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 44.8b: Data collection and research.

This function covers regular and ongoing 
activities in relation to:

•  collecting and publishing data on own 

activities, disaggregated by sex and any 
other grounds for discrimination covered by 
the mandate of the body;

•  undertaking surveys and research on gender 
equality issues and publishing the findings.

These do not have to be undertaken in-house 
and may be commissioned from third-party 
providers.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  Partly
•  No
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide 
justification, where applicable. If the function 
is not clearly indicated in the body’s mandate, 
please provide a source for the answer.

Question 45b: What is the total number of 
employees in independent body 2?

Please note the headcount is a simple total of 
all staff working within the body. Part-time 
staff should be counted the same as full-time 
staff and the total includes all support/
administrative staff. If some staff work across 
different bodies, please discuss this with the 
national researcher.

As a designated body, information about the 
number of staff working within the body 
should be readily available. If the exact number 
of staff cannot be identified, the number 
should be estimated.

Evidence question: Please includes links to or 
descriptions of sources used to calculate the 
number of employees.

Question 45.1b: If the mandate of 
independent body 2 includes gender equality 
combined with other non-discrimination 
areas, approximately what percentage of 
personnel time is spent on projects focused 
on gender equality?

This question attempts to identify what 
percentage of time is spent on projects related 
to gender when the mandate of the 
independent body is wider than gender 
equality. If the mandate is only gender equality, 
do not answer this question.

We understand that calculating an exact 
percentage may not be possible, which is why 
only four broad response options are included. 
Please provide a best estimate, based on the 
knowledge of the national focal point or 
another representative of the independent 
body. If this information is not provided, it will 
not be possible to include any information 
regarding indicator H2b in the data collection.

[Please select one of the five options]

•  0–25 %
•  25–50 %

91

Annexes

•  50–75 %
•  75–100 %
•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
descriptions of sources used to estimate the 
percentage of time spent on projects focused 
on gender equality.

Financial resources of independent body 2

This question asks first about the annual 
expenditure of independent body 2 in euro, and 
then about:

•  the proportion (%) of that expenditure that 
was used (spent) for different purposes;
•  the proportion (%) of that expenditure that 
was provided (funded) by the EU or national 
sources.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 46.2b: What percentage of the total 
annual expenditure is non-administrative 
costs related to gender equality? 

Non-administrative costs include all other costs, 
such as projects and programme costs, and 
relate to activities undertaken by the relevant 
body. If information is only available in the 
national currency, please provide details 
regarding how the conversion was made (i.e. 
the exchange rate used, the source of the 
exchange rate).

If there is no readily available data, please make 
an estimate to the nearest 10 %.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

In all cases, if the information is not readily 
available, please provide estimates and make 
this clear.

Question 46.3b: What percentage of the total 
administrative costs for independent body 2 
is funded by the EU?

Question 46b: What is the total annual 
expenditure of independent body 2?

Financial figures should be provided in euro. If 
information is only available in the national 
currency, please provide details regarding how 
the conversion was made (i.e. the exchange 
rate used, the source of the exchange rate).

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 46.1b: What percentage of the total 
annual expenditure is administrative costs 
(personnel and overheads)?

‘Administrative costs’ refers to costs such as 
personnel and overheads. If information is only 
available in the national currency, please 
provide details regarding how the conversion 
was made (i.e. the exchange rate used, the 
source of the exchange rate).

If there is no readily available data, please make 
an estimate to the nearest 10 %.

92

If EU funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of EU funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 46.4b: What percentage of the total 
administrative costs for independent body 2 
is funded by the national government?

If national funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of national funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 46.5b: What percentage of the total 
non-administrative costs for independent 
body 2 is funded by the EU?

If EU funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of EU funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Question 46.6b: What percentage of the total 
non-administrative costs for independent 
body 2 is funded by the national government?

If national funding cannot be divided into 
administrative and non-administrative costs, 
then apply the share of national funding in the 
overall budget to both administrative and 
non-administrative costs.

Evidence question: Please include links to or 
attach all relevant budgetary documents.

Frequency and effectiveness of 
consultations with independent bodies for 
the promotion of gender equality about 
policies, laws and programmes

These questions aim to understand how 
regularly independent bodies 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.

Annexes

consult independent body 2 on legislation, 
policy, procedure, programmes and practices 
in policy fields other than gender equality?

This question is about the consultation of the 
independent body, which is important in 
ensuring that its expertise on gender equality 
and gender mainstreaming is incorporated to 
identify and address the gendered impacts of 
initiatives.

Note the focus is on policy topics other than 
gender equality, as this question aims to 
identify if gender considerations are 
mainstreamed in other policy areas. Please only 
assess policy areas as identified by EIGE.

The existence of the procedure for consultation 
should be set out in a binding document, such 
as the mandate of the independent body.

[Please select one of the four options]

•  Yes
•  No
•  No consultation takes place, as departments 
or ministries have an internal mechanism for 
ensuring gender equality in legislation, 
policy, procedure, programmes and practices 
in fields other than gender equality

•  Don’t know

Evidence question: Please provide links to 
sources outlining the procedure for 
consultation of the independent body.

Consultations can include as a minimum the 
request for an opinion about a policy or 
legislative initiative.

Question 47.1b: Please provide additional 
details as requested under the evidence 
question.

Question 47b: Is there a transparent 
procedure in place to ensure that the 
government and other public institutions can 

Evidence question: If no consultation takes 
place because there is an internal mechanism, 
please describe the nature of this mechanism.

93

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  
(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 (europa.eu).

EU publications
You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple 
copies of free publications 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 (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.

eige.europa.eu