MALAWI The following government and public institutions were picked for the study: 1. Lilongwe City Council 2. Ministry of Energy and Mines 3. Blantyre City Council 4. National Audit Office 5. Ministry of Information and Civic Education 6. Ministry of Health 7. Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security formerly known as Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development 8. The Malawi National Assembly Aim of the Study The main purpose of this study was to assess the level of openness in government and public institutions in the country. The results of the study will continue to inform MISA Malawi’s campaign for legislation on Access to Information. Objectives of the study • To assess the level of transparency in government and public institutions against international standards and principals on Access to Information •To influence the adoption of practices, laws and a culture that promotes transparency and openness in government and public institutions. • To inform advocacy and interventions by MISA Malawi and civil society across the country. • To encourage citizens to exercise their fundamental right to access information generated, held and under the control of government institutions necessary for accessing other social economic rights. Research Methodology This study adopted both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and specifically designed to assess level of public access to information held by government and public institutions. To achieve this, MISA Malawi analysed and evaluated websites of government and public bodies, along with telephone and written requests for information. As indicated earlier, the approach aimed at establishing the level of transparency and efficiency of government and public institutions in providing information to the public. Data analysis The data generated in this study was analysed under two categories in line with the data collection approach used, namely website analysis and telephonic and written requests for information. Category 1: Evaluation of government and public institution websites to determine the access and presence of credible and updated public information, which includes but not limited to powers and functions of the institution in question; vacancy and budgetary allocations; procurement procedures and contact details and reports. 22 Category 2: This category was divided into two sections. The first section looked at written and the second at oral requests for information. These two approaches were designed to establish the ease with which public information is obtained from government and public institutions. Description of Assessment Criteria The total number of points allocated to category 1 and 2 is 20 (n=20) each. The sampled institutions fall into one of the following groups in accordance with the number of points, which they accumulated. Category 1: Website analysis Group 1; (0 – 6): Absence of a website or an extremely poor website that contains no or almost no relevant public information. Group 2; (7 – 13): Average website that contains some relevant public information. Group 3; (14 – 20): Well organized, transparent website that provides a good amount of relevant public information. Category 2: Requests for information Part 1: Written request for information Group 1; (0 – 6): Denied access to reasonable information request or acted with high levels of secrecy. Group 2; (7 – 13): Displayed an average level of openness in allowing access to public information. Group 3; (14 – 20): Displayed openness in allowing access to public information. Institution was helpful and transparent. Part 2: Oral request for information Group 1; (0 – 6): Denied access to reasonable Information request or acted with high levels of secrecy. Group 2; (7 – 13): Displayed an average level of openness in allowing access to public information. Group 3; (14 – 20): Displayed openness in allowing access to public information Institution was helpful and transparent. Limitations of the Study The selected government and public service institutions analysed in this study were identified by MISA Malawi. These institutions may not be priority public bodies to Malawians at large but we believe that the results can still be generalised to apply to government entities generally as far as level of openness and efficiency in granting access to information is concerned. We also believe that the selected institutions play an important role in the operations of the country; they hold strategic powers, link the government to its people and use taxpayer’s money. Summary of Key Findings Category 1: Website analysis • Out of the eight institutions sampled only two of them had websites namely Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and The Malawi National Assembly. The rest of the sampled institutions have brief sections under the Malawi Government Website, which has a summary of almost every government entity and public body.