SDG Metadata

16-6-2

	Language	Approved	Translated	Unfinished	Unfinished words	Unfinished characters	Untranslated	Checks	Suggestions	Comments
	English MIT	0%		0	0	0	0	0	0	0

	Arabic MIT	0%	0%	32	9,482	83,744	32	0	0	0

	French MIT	0%	6%	30	9,477	83,688	28	2	0	0

	Portuguese MIT	0%	0%	32	9,482	83,744	32	0	0	0

	Russian MIT	0%	0%	32	9,482	83,744	32	0	0	0

	Spanish MIT	0%	0%	32	9,482	83,744	32	0	0	0

Please sign in to see the alerts.

Overview

Project website	github.com/worldbank/sdg-metadata
Instructions for translators	This project is limited to Russian translation only, for now. More detailed instructions to come.
Project maintainers	brockfanning
Translation license	MIT License
Translation process	Translations can be made directly. Translation suggestions are turned off. Any authenticated user can contribute. The translation uses monolingual files. The translation base language can not be edited.
Source code repository	`https://github.com/worldbank/sdg-metadata`
Repository branch	master
Last remote commit	Merge pull request #543 from worldbank/harvest-20230803 `1bee05e3537` brockfanning authored a month ago
Last commit in Weblate	Translated using Weblate (French) `ebc5492b568` deblsyl authored a year ago
Weblate repository	`https://hosted.weblate.org/git/sdg-metadata/1-1-1a/`
File mask	`translations-metadata/*/16-6-2.yml`
Monolingual base language file	`translations-metadata/en/16-6-2.yml`

String statistics

	Strings percent	Hosted strings	Words percent	Hosted words	Characters percent	Hosted characters
Total		192		56,892		502,464
Source		32		9,482		83,744
Approved	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0
Waiting for review	1%	2	0%	5	0%	56
Translated	17%	34	16%	9,487	16%	83,800
Needs editing	1%	2	1%	4	1%	39
Read-only	16%	32	16%	9,482	16%	83,744
Failing checks	1%	2	1%	5	1%	56
Strings with suggestions	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0
Untranslated strings	81%	156	83%	47,401	83%	418,625

Last 12 months Previous

Activity in last 12 months


Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug

Quick numbers

56,892

Hosted words

192

Hosted strings

17%

Translated

and previous 30 days

Trends of last 30 days

−59%

Hosted words

+100%

+3%

Hosted strings

+100%

−1%

Translated

+18%

—

Contributors

—

Search

Advanced query builder

Query examples

Review strings changed by other users	`changed:>=2023-08-26 AND NOT changed_by:anonymous`	Add
Translated strings	`state:>=translated`	Add
Strings with comments	`has:comment`	Add
Strings with any failing checks	`has:check`	Add
Strings with suggestions from others	`has:suggestion AND NOT suggestion_author:anonymous`	Add
Approved strings with suggestions	`state:approved AND has:suggestion`	Add
All untranslated strings added the past month	`added:>=2023-08-26 AND state:<=needs-editing`	Add
Translated strings in a certain language	`is:translated AND language:en`	Add

None New strings to translate SDG Metadata / 16-6-2 — Russian	18 new strings to translate appeared to the translation. a month ago
None New strings to translate SDG Metadata / 16-6-2 — Portuguese	18 new strings to translate appeared to the translation. a month ago
None New strings to translate SDG Metadata / 16-6-2 — French	18 new strings to translate appeared to the translation. a month ago
None New strings to translate SDG Metadata / 16-6-2 — Spanish	18 new strings to translate appeared to the translation. a month ago
None New strings to translate SDG Metadata / 16-6-2 — Arabic	18 new strings to translate appeared to the translation. a month ago
None Resource update SDG Metadata / 16-6-2 — Russian	The "`translations-metadata/en/16-6-2.yml`" file was changed. a month ago
None String updated in the repository SDG Metadata / 16-6-2 — Russian	English <ul> <li>African Barometer (1999-2017). An African-led series of national public attitude surveys on democracy and governance in Africa. <a href="http://www.afrobarometer.org/surveys-and-methods/questionnaires">Survey Questionnaires</a></li> <li>American Customer Satisfaction Index LLC (2016). ACSI Federal Government Report 2016 <em>[in which 2,380 users randomly selected, contacted via email and asked about their recent experiences with federal government services]</em>. Available at <a href="http://www.theacsi.org/images/stories/images/reports/17jan-Gov-report-2016.pdf">http://www.theacsi.org/images/stories/images/reports/17jan-Gov-report-2016.pdf</a> </li> <li>Alvarez, R. Michael, and Brehm, John (2000). “<u>Binding the frame: how important are </u><a href="http://polmeth.wustl.edu/media/Paper/alvar00b.pdf"><u>frames for</u></a> <a href="http://polmeth.wustl.edu/media/Paper/alvar00b.pdf"><u>survey response?</u></a>” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 31–September 2</li> <li>Basab, Dasgupta, Ambar Narayan, Emmanuel Skoufias (2009). Measuring the Quality of Education and Health Services: The Use of Perception Data from Indonesia <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/814671468040542129/pdf/WPS5033.pdf">http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/814671468040542129/pdf/WPS5033.pdf</a> </li> <li>Bo, Rothstein, Centre for Public Sector Research and Jan Teorell (2005). What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Political Institutions. Available at <a href="http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan044549.pdf">http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan044549.pdf</a></li> <li>Charron, Nicholas (2013). European Quality of Government Index 2013: <a href="https://nicholascharron.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/2013-eqi-survey-questions.docx"><em>Survey questions</em></a>.</li> <li>Cláudia, Carvalho & Carlos, Brito (2012). Assessing Users' Perceptions on how to Improve Public Services Quality. Public Management Review. Vol. 14, 2012. Issue 4, pp. 451-472</li> <li><a href="https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/author/dave-vannette/">Dave, Vannette</a> (April 22, 2015). Three Tips for Effectively Designing Rating Scales. Available at <a href="https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/three-tips-for-effectively-using-scale-point-questions/">https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/three-tips-for-effectively-using-scale-point-questions/</a> </li> <li>Druckman, James (2001). “<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015006907312">The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.”</a> Political Behavior 23(3) September: 227-256</li> <li>Ellen Lust, <a href="http://gld.gu.se/en/collaborators/scholars/lindsay-j-benstead/" target="_blank">Lindsay J. Benstead</a>, <a href="http://gld.gu.se/en/collaborators/scholars/pierre-f-landry/" target="_blank">Pierre F. Landry</a>, and <a href="http://gld.gu.se/en/collaborators/scholars/dhafer-malouche/" target="_blank">Dhafer Malouche</a> (2015). The Local Governance Performance Index (LGPI): Report Paper. Information about LGPI available at <a href="https://www.venice.coe.int/images/SITE%20IMAGES/Publications/14th_UniDemMed_Thijs_EUPAN_Measures_to_improve_public_sector_performance_English_FINAL.pdf"><u>https://www.venice.coe.int/images/SITE%20IMAGES/Publications/14th_UniDemMed_Thijs_EUPAN_Measures_to_improve_public_sector_performance_English_FINAL.pdf</u></a></li> <li>European Commission (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Quality Framework for Services of General Interest in Europe. Available at <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/201238">http://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/201238</a> </li> <li>Giulia Megellini (2017). Critical Review of Existing Best Practices to Measure the Experience of Corruption. Centre of Excellence in Statistical Information on Government, Crime, Victimisation and Justice. A Report for UNODC. </li> <li>Gregg G. Van Ryzin (2004). The Measurement of Overall Citizen Satisfaction, Public Performance & Management Review, 27:3, 9-28. Available at <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15309576.2004.11051805"><u>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15309576.2004.11051805</u></a> </li> <li>Hiil (2017). Justice Needs in Tunisia - 2017 Available at <a href="https://www.hiil.org/projects/justice-needs-and-satisfaction-in-tunisia/">https://www.hiil.org/projects/justice-needs-and-satisfaction-in-tunisia/</a> </li> <li>Institute for Citizen-Centred Service (2015). Citizens First 7. Report for the Government of Northwest Territories, Canada. Available at <a href="http://www.assembly.gov.nt.ca/sites/default/files/td253-175.pdf">http://www.assembly.gov.nt.ca/sites/default/files/td253-175.pdf</a> </li> <li>Ireland Department of Public Expenditure & Reform (2015) <a href="https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/7429/5ef76a4ac3424982a678a4e48a2f8920.pdf#page=1"><em>Irish Civil Service Customer Satisfaction Survey 2015 Report of Findings</em></a>. IPSOS MRBI</li> <li>Janet M. Kelly & David Swindell (2003). The case for inexperienced user: Rethinking Filter Questions in Citizen Satisfaction Surveys. American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 33 No. 1, March 2003 91-108. DOI: 10.1177/0275074002250256. Available at <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0275074002250256?journalCode=arpb">http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0275074002250256?journalCode=arpb</a> </li> <li>Marcus Tannenberg (2017). The Autocratic Trust Bias: Politically Sensitive Survey Items and Self-censorship. Working Paper Series 2017:49. The Varieties of Democracy Institute, University of Gothenburg. Available at <a href="https://www.afrobarometer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/afropaperno176_autocratic_trust_bias.pdf">https://www.afrobarometer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/afropaperno176_autocratic_trust_bias.pdf</a> </li> <li>Mitchel N. Herian and Alan J. Tomkins (2012). Citizen Satisfaction Survey Data: A Mode Comparison of the Derived Importance–Performance Approach. The American Review of Public Administration 42(1) 66–86. P. 67</li> <li>New Zealand Government (2016). New Zealanders’ satisfaction with public services: <a href="http://www.ssc.govt.nz/kiwis-count">‘Kiwis Count’ Annual Report</a>.</li> <li>Nick Thijs (2011). Measure to Improve: Improving public sector performance by using citizen - user satisfaction information.<strong> </strong>Available at <a href="https://www.venice.coe.int/images/SITE%20IMAGES/Publications/14th_UniDemMed_Thijs_EUPAN_Measures_to_improve_public_sector_performance_English_FINAL.pdf"><u>https://www.venice.coe.int/images/SITE%20IMAGES/Publications/14th_UniDemMed_Thijs_EUPAN_Measures_to_improve_public_sector_performance_English_FINAL.pdf</u></a> </li> <li>OECD (2015), “The OECD serving citizens' framework”, in Government at a Glance 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris </li> <li>OECD (2017), “Serving Citizens Scorecards”, in Government at a Glance 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2017-en">http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2017-en</a></li> <li>OECD (2017), “Citizen satisfaction with public services and institutions”, in <em>Government at a Glance 2017</em>, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2017-82-en">http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2017-82-en</a></li> <li>Parasuraman, A, Ziethaml, V. and Berry, L.L., "SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality' <em>Journal of Retailing,</em> Vol. 62, no. 1, 1988, p. 22, 25 and 29. Available at <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valarie_Zeithaml/publication/225083802_SERVQUAL_A_multiple-_Item_Scale_for_measuring_consumer_perceptions_of_service_quality/links/5429a4540cf27e39fa8e6531/SERVQUAL-A-multiple-Item-Scale-for-measuring-consumer-perceptions-of-service-quality.pdf">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valarie_Zeithaml/publication/225083802_SERVQUAL_A_multiple-_Item_Scale_for_measuring_consumer_perceptions_of_service_quality/links/5429a4540cf27e39fa8e6531/SERVQUAL-A-multiple-Item-Scale-for-measuring-consumer-perceptions-of-service-quality.pdf</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Al-Abri%20R%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=24501659">Rashid Al-Abri</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Al-Balushi%20A%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=24501659">Amina Al-Balushi</a> (2014). Patient Satisfaction Survey as a Tool Towards Quality Improvement. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3910415/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3910415/</a></li> <li>Survey Monkey (2017). Five tips on how to use Likert scales. Available at<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/likert-scale/">https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/likert-scale/</a> </li> <li>The Program for East Asia Democratic Studies Asian (<em>date unknown</em>). Asian Barometer’s Survey of Democracy, Governance and Development – Fourth Wave. Available at <a href="http://www.asianbarometer.org/data/core-questionnaire"><u>http://www.asianbarometer.org/data/core-questionnaire</u></a></li> <li>The World Bank (2010). Citizen-centric Governance Indicators: Measuring and Monitoring Governance by Listening to the People and Not the Interest Groups. World Bank Institute Research Working Paper No. 5181. Available at <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/190241468340284322/Citizen-centric-governance-indicators-measuring-and-monitoring-governance-by-listening-to-the-people-and-not-the-interest-groups">http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/190241468340284322/Citizen-centric-governance-indicators-measuring-and-monitoring-governance-by-listening-to-the-people-and-not-the-interest-groups</a> </li> <li>The World Bank Group (2011). World Bank Governance and Anti-corruption (GAC) Diagnostic Survey. Available at <a href="http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00818/WEB/PDF/01_SUR-2.PDF"><u>http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00818/WEB/PDF/01_SUR-2.PDF</u></a></li> <li>The World Bank Group (2017). Indicators of Citizen-Centric Public Service Delivery. June 2017 Final Draft. </li> <li>The United Nations (11 May 2017). Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Report of the Secrecretary-General at High-level political forum on sustainable development, convened under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council, 2017 Session. Available at <a href="https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2017/secretary-general-sdg-report-2017--EN.pdf">https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2017/secretary-general-sdg-report-2017--EN.pdf</a> </li> <li>United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2016). Citizen Engagement in Service Delivery – The Critical Role of Public Officials. Global Center for Public Service Excellence. Available at <a href="https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/GCPSE_CitizenEngagement_Summary_2016.pdf">https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/GCPSE_CitizenEngagement_Summary_2016.pdf</a> </li> <li>UNDP, VFF-CRT & CECODES (2011-2017). The Viet Nam Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI): Measuring Citizens’ Experiences. Available at <a href="http://www.papi.org.vn/eng">www.papi.org.vn/eng</a> </li> <li>UNDP, VLA & CECODES (2012, 2015). Viet Nam’s Justice Index (VJI): Towards a justice system for the people. Available at <a href="http://www.chisocongly.vn/en/">www.chisocongly.vn/en/</a> </li> <li>UNDP (2016). Human Development Index. Available at <a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi">http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi</a> </li> <li>UNDP (2015). From Old Public Administration to New Public Service – Implications for Public Sector Reform in Developing Countries. Global Center for Public Service Excellence. Available at <a href="http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/capacity-building/global-centre-for-public-service-excellence/PS-Reform.html">http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/capacity-building/global-centre-for-public-service-excellence/PS-Reform.html</a> </li> <li>UNDP (2015). Citizen Satisfaction with Public Services in Georgia: 2015. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Swiss Cooperation Office (SCO) for the South Caucasus, Austrian Development Cooperation (ADC): November 2015. Available at <a href="https://www.undp.org/georgia/publications/citizen-satisfaction-public-services-georgia-2015">https://www.undp.org/georgia/publications/citizen-satisfaction-public-services-georgia-2015</a></li> <li>World Justice Project (2016). WJP Rule of Law Index 2016. Available at<strong> </strong><a href="https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-rule-law-index-2016">https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-rule-law-index-2016</a><strong> </strong></li> </ul> Russian 0 characters edited Current translation a month ago
None String updated in the repository SDG Metadata / 16-6-2 — Russian	English <p><strong>Data availability:</strong></p> <ul> <li>This indicator needs to be measured on the basis of data collected by NSOs through official household surveys.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Description and time series:</strong></p> <p>There is no existing globally comparable official dataset on the “Proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services.” There is a large variability in the ways NSOs and government agencies in individual countries collect data on citizen satisfaction with public services, in terms of the range of services included, the specific attributes examined, question wording and response formats, etc. This variability poses a significant challenge for cross-country comparability of such data. Several global and regional sources provide comparable data on some measures of citizen satisfaction with public services: </p> <ul> <li>The <a href="https://www.gallup.com/analytics/232838/world-poll.aspx">Gallup World Poll</a> surveys people’s satisfaction with local education and healthcare public services in over 150 countries. However, the Gallup World Poll questions do not ask specifically about satisfaction <em>with the last experience of public services</em>, questions do not refer to specific attributes of public services and data is not publicly available.</li> <li>Since launching its first round in 1999/2001, the <a href="https://www.afrobarometer.org/surveys-and-methods/">Afrobarometer</a><sup><a href="#footnote-23" id="footnote-ref-23">[22]</a></sup> has been collecting data biennially on citizens’ satisfaction with healthcare and education services in more than 35 countries in Africa. The Afrobarometer, however, also does not ask about specific attributes of public services and does not ask specifically about satisfaction <em>with the last experience of public services</em>.</li> <li>Starting from 2002, the biennial <a href="https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/methodology/ess_methodology/survey_specifications.html">European Social Survey</a><sup><a href="#footnote-24" id="footnote-ref-24">[23]</a></sup> provides time series data on perception of education and health services in Europe. Once again, these survey questions do not ask specifically about satisfaction <em>with the last experience of public services</em> and do not ask respondents to consider specific attributes of public services when providing their assessment.</li> <li>In its 2016 editions, the European Quality of Life Survey<sup><a href="#footnote-25" id="footnote-ref-25">[24]</a></sup> (EQLS) notably introduced questions on specific attributes of service provision in healthcare and education, in additions to questions on overall satisfaction, several of which match the attributes selected for global reporting on 16.6.2. With this focus on the quality of public service provision, this survey could therefore become an appropriate source of data for reporting on SDG 16.6.2 for the 33 participating countries. More specifically, the following corresponding questions in the EQLS have been identified, jointly with Eurofound experts, to report on SDG 16.6.2:</li> </ul> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td colspan="3"> <p><strong>Healthcare services<sup><a href="#footnote-26" id="footnote-ref-26">[25]</a></sup></strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attributes</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>SDG 16.6.2 questions</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Corresponding EQLS questions</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Access</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>Q 4.1 It was easy to get to the place where I received medical treatment. (0-3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p>Q61 - Thinking about the last time you needed to see or be treated by a GP, family doctor or health centre, to what extent did any of the following make it difficult or not for you to do so? [Very difficult (1); a little difficult (2); not difficult at all (3)]: </p> <p>a. Distance to GP/doctor’s office / health centre</p> <p>b. Delay in getting appointment</p> <p>c. Waiting time to see doctor on day of appointment</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Affordability</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>Q 4.2 Expenses for healthcare services were affordable to you/your household. (0-3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p>Q61 – Same as above: </p> <p>d. Cost of seeing the doctor</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Quality of facilities </strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>Q 4.3 The healthcare facilities were clean and in good condition. (0-3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p>Q62 - You mentioned that you used GP, family doctor or health centre services. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied, tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you were with each of the following aspects the last time that you used the service. </p> <ol> <li>Quality of the facilities (building, room, equipment)</li> </ol> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Equal treatment for everyone</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>Q 4.4 All people are treated equally in receiving healthcare services in your area.</em> <em>(0-3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p>Q63 - To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following about GP, family doctor or health centre services in your area? [on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means completely disagree and 10 means completely agree]: </p> <p>a. All people are treated equally in these services in my area</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Courtesy and treatment (Doctor’s attitude) </strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>The doctor or other healthcare staff you saw spent enough time with you [or a child in your household] during the consultation. (0-3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p>Q62 - Satisfaction with the following aspects [on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied]: </p> <p>c. Personal attention you were given, including staff attitude and time devoted</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Overall satisfaction</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the quality of the healthcare services you [or a child in your household] received on that last consultation? (i.e. the last time you [or a child in your household] had a medical examination or treatment in the past 12 months)</em></p> <p><em>Very dissatisfied (0) - Dissatisfied (1) – Satisfied (2) – Very satisfied (3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p>Q58 - In general, how would you rate the quality of each of the following public services in [COUNTRY]? [on a scale of one to 10, where 1 means very poor quality and 10 means very high quality]</p> <p>a. Health services</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3"> <p><strong>Education services</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attributes</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>SDG 16.6.2 questions</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Corresponding EQLS questions</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Access</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>Q. 9.1 The school can be reached by public or private transportation, or by walk, in less than 30 minutes and without difficulties. (0-3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p><u>No relevant EQLS question </u></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Affordability</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>Q. 9.2 School-related expenses (including administrative fees, books, uniforms and transportation) are affordable to you/your household. (0-3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p><u>No relevant EQLS question</u><sup><a href="#footnote-27" id="footnote-ref-27">[26]</a></sup> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Quality of facilities </strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>Q. 9.3 School facilities are in good condition. (0-3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p>Q85 - You mentioned that your child or someone in your household attended school. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied, please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you were with each of the following aspects. </p> <p>a. Quality of the facilities (building, room, equipment)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Equal treatment for everyone</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>Q. 9.4 All children are treated equally in the school attended by the child/children in your household. (0-3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p>Q86 - To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about school services in your area? Please tell me on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means completely disagree and 10 means completely agree.</p> <p>a. All people are treated equally in these services in my area</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Effective delivery of service (Quality of teaching)</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>Q. 9.5 The quality of teaching is good. (0-3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p>Q85 - You mentioned that your child or someone in your household attended school. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied, please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you were with each of the following aspects.</p> <p>b. Expertise and professionalism of staff/teachers</p> <p>e. The curriculum and activities</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Overall satisfaction</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><em>Q 10. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of education services provided by the primary and/or secondary public schools attended by this child/children in your household? </em></p> <p><em>Are you reporting on: </em></p> <ol> <li><em>Primary school in your area ___</em></li> <li><em>Secondary school in your area ___</em></li> </ol> <p><em>Very dissatisfied (0) - Dissatisfied (1) – Satisfied (2) – Very satisfied (3)</em></p> </td> <td> <p>Q58 - In general, how would you rate the quality of each of the following public services in [COUNTRY]? [on a scale of one to 10, where one means very poor quality and 10 means very high quality]</p> <p>b. Education system </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Disaggregation categories</strong></p> <p>Indicator 16.6.2 aims to measure how access to services and how the quality of services differs across various demographic groups. Empirical analysis to identify the strongest demographic determinants of citizen satisfaction with public services reveals that the most relevant disaggregation categories for SDG indicator 16.6.2 are (1) income, (2) sex and (3) place of residence (urban/rural, and by administrative region e.g., by province, state, district, etc.)</p> <p>At a minimum, results <em>for each one of the three service areas</em> covered by this indicator (healthcare, education and government services)<em> </em>should be disaggregated by these three variables:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Income:</strong> Income (or expenditure) quintiles </li> <li><strong>Sex:</strong> Male/Female</li> <li><strong>Place of residence:</strong> Living in urban/rural areas and/or living in which administrative region (province, state, district, etc.)<sup><a href="#footnote-28" id="footnote-ref-28">[27]</a></sup> </li> </ul> <p>To the extent possible, all efforts should be made to also disaggregate results by disability status and by ‘nationally relevant population groups’:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Disability status:</strong> ‘Disability’ is an umbrella term covering long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of disabled persons in society on an equal basis with others<sup><sup><a href="#footnote-29" id="footnote-ref-29">[28]</a></sup></sup>. If possible, NSOs are encouraged to add the <a href="https://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/question-sets/wg-short-set-on-functioning-wg-ss/"><u>Short Set of Questions on Disability developed by the Washington Group</u> </a>to the survey vehicle used to administer the 16.6.2 batteries to disaggregate results by disability status.</li> <li><strong>Nationally relevant population groups</strong>: groups with a distinct ethnicity, language, religion, indigenous status, nationality or other characteristics.<sup><a href="#footnote-30" id="footnote-ref-30">[29]</a></sup> </li> <li><strong>Age:</strong> Empirical analysis shows that there is no statistically significant association between the age of respondents and satisfaction levels. However, if countries choose to also disaggregate results by age, it is recommended to follow UN standards for the production of age-disaggregated national population statistics, using the following age groups: (1) below 25 years old, (2) 25-34, (3) 35-44, (4) 45-54, (5) 55-64 and (6) 65 years old and above. </li> </ul><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-23">22</sup><p> The Afrobarometer is conducting its public attitude surveys on democracy, governance, economic conditions, and related issues in more than 35 countries in Africa. <a href="#footnote-ref-23">↑</a></p></div><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-24">23</sup><p> In total, 37 countries have taken part in at least one round of the ESS since its inception. Surveys are conducted by leading academics and social research professionals. <a href="#footnote-ref-24">↑</a></p></div><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-25">24</sup><p> EQLS 2016 – the fourth survey in the series – covered the 28 EU Member States and 5 candidate countries (Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey). <a href="#footnote-ref-25">↑</a></p></div><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-26">25</sup><p> <u>Note</u>: For healthcare services, EQLS data would allow for the separate reporting of results (across all questions) on (1) primary care services (GP / doctor’s office / health centre) and (2) hospital or medical specialist services. Separate reporting on these two types of health care would be particularly relevant for the ‘affordability’ attribute, given in European countries, primary care services typically cost little; more relevant would be to assess the affordability of hospital or medical specialist services, using question 67.e. <a href="#footnote-ref-26">↑</a></p></div><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-27">26</sup><p> However, question HC100 on ‘Affordability of formal education’ could be used in the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) ad hoc module 2016. <a href="#footnote-ref-27">↑</a></p></div><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-28">27</sup><p> Based on the premise that decentralization efforts are aimed at extending local rights and responsibilities across the national territory, indicator 16.6.2 can help detect unequal access to services and disparities in the quality of services across localities. There is a risk for erroneous conclusions to be drawn from national aggregates unable to detect variations at sub-national level. <a href="#footnote-ref-28">↑</a></p></div><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-29">28</sup><p> UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f973632.html <a href="#footnote-ref-29">↑</a></p></div><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-30">29</sup><p> The population of a country is a mosaic of different population groups that can be identified according to racial, ethnic, language, indigenous or migration status, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation, amongst other characteristics. For the purpose of this indicator, particular focus is placed on minorities. <em>Minority groups are </em>groups that are numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a state, in a non-dominant position, whose members—being nationals of the state—possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, even if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language. While the nationality criterion included in the above definition has often been challenged, the requirement to be in a non-dominant position remains important (OHCHR, 2010). Collecting survey data disaggregated by population groups should be subject to the legality of compiling such data in a particular national context and to a careful assessment of the potential risks of collecting such data for the safety of respondents. <a href="#footnote-ref-30">↑</a></p></div></div> Russian 0 characters edited Current translation a month ago
None String updated in the repository SDG Metadata / 16-6-2 — Russian	English <p>UNDP will make available a quality assessment protocol for national statistics office to be used at national level and intended to assess the alignment of data produced with users’ needs, the compliance with guidelines in terms of computations, the timeliness of data production, the accessibility of statistics produced, the consistent use of methodology both in terms of geographic representation and through time, the coherence in terms of data production, and the architecture of data production.</p> Russian 0 characters edited Current translation a month ago
None String updated in the repository SDG Metadata / 16-6-2 — Russian	English <p><strong>Methods and guidance available to countries for the compilation of data at national level:</strong></p> <p>See <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/775701527003544796/pdf/126399-WP-PUBLIC-CitizenCentricGovernanceIndicatorsFinalReport.pdf"><u>Indicators of Citizen-Centric Public Service Delivery</u>, </a>World Bank (2018)</p> <p>To disaggregate survey results by disability status, it is recommended that countries use the <a href="http://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/washington-group-question-sets/short-set-of-disability-questions/"><u>Short Set of</u></a> <a href="https://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/question-sets/wg-short-set-on-functioning-wg-ss/"><u>Questions on Disability elaborated by the Washington Group.</u></a></p> <p><strong>Methods and guidance available to countries for the compilation of data at international level:</strong></p> <p>See <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/775701527003544796/pdf/126399-WP-PUBLIC-CitizenCentricGovernanceIndicatorsFinalReport.pdf"><u>Indicators of Citizen-Centric Public Service Delivery</u>, </a>World Bank (2018)</p> <p>To disaggregate survey results by disability status, it is recommended that countries use the <a href="http://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/washington-group-question-sets/short-set-of-disability-questions/"><u>Short Set of</u></a> <a href="https://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/question-sets/wg-short-set-on-functioning-wg-ss/"><u>Questions on Disability elaborated by the Washington Group.</u></a></p> Russian 0 characters edited Current translation a month ago

Browse all component changes