BOTSWANA government and public institutions, along with submitting oral and written reports requesting information. This method seeks to establish the transparency and efficiency of government and public institutions in providing information to the public. DATA ANALYSIS 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. Category 2: This category was divided into two sections namely written questionnaires and oral requests for information. These instruments were adopted to determine 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 points (n = 20) each. Government Ministries and institutions fell into one of the following groups in accordance with the number of points that they received: and 14 points respectively. These institutions fell into assessment group 3 due to their well -organized websites with up to date and relevant public information. The website of the Ministry of Education & Skills Development was not assessed because at the time of the study the site was undergoing routine maintenance. • Of the eight institutions listed, no website captured budget or expenditure information. (This has occurred repeatedly since the inception of the survey in 2010.) • Finally, compared to last year, there have been significant improvements on information sharing. Category 2: Request for written and oral information • Out of the eight institutions surveyed, one institution managed to provide all the information requested. • Despite follow-ups seven days after requesting information, none of the other institutions responded. • Attempts to follow up met the response that information could not be released if we did not provide how the information was going to be used and who we are. In cases where we revealed our identity, it did not help. Listed at the end of the document are the most secretive and most open institutions in Botswana. 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 - Written request / Oral request Part 1 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. Summary of Key Findings Category 1: Website analysis • Of the eight government and public institutions surveyed, none had an individual website, as they are all dependent on a government portal. • Of the eight institutions that were listed, one institution scored extremely low on the website assessment. The website of this institution was not user friendly and contained no relevant public information. • Of the eight surveyed institutions, three scored high with 18, 17 9