TANZANIA SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Category 1: Website analysis • • • • • • • It is impressive to see that all eight government institutions surveyed have websites which contain useful information such as their policies, areas of expertise, regulations, and news. Not all the information provided is up-to-date. It was interesting to find language diversity: - BOT, TIC and TIRA use two languages, namely Swahili and English. - TCU, NHIF and TFS mix English and Swahili on their websites. - TANAPA’s website is exceptionally multilingual, displaying its information in more than 57 national languages. BOT updates some of the information on their website every day. TANAPA, TIRA and PCCB had current information on their websites. Most sites look old fashioned and boring. On some websites, e.g. TCU and BOT, the ‘Contact Us’ feature was faulty, therefore there is no guarantee that a request sent via the website will reach the targeted institution. The fact that not one institution acknowledged receipt of the emails sent to them via their respective websites is a clear indicator of a defective contact mechanism. • There appears to be challenges with some tasked with the handling of information requests. The researcher had to resubmit emails and letters because the staff at various institutions was unable to locate the letters/emails. Category 2: Requests for information • • • • • • • • Letters were hand-delivered and emailed to the respective organisations. Only two organisations, NHIF and TANAPA, acknowledged receipt of the letters. Even after three follow up attempts with other institutions, some still did not respond. Only five organisations responded. BOT, TIC and TANAPA did not provide the required information. Different reasons were given as to why information was not shared: - TIC claimed that the person assigned the job was at a funeral. - TANAPA failed to respond because they were unable to locate the person who received the letter. A second letter was sent and additional follow-up attempts made without resulting in the receipt of information. Some public officials found it questionable that a citizen would request information for personal use and knowledge, and did not take our information requests seriously. Staff at other institutions remained friendly and seemingly cooperative; yet assistance was only forthcoming upon repeated and consistent followups. 87