special needs, were found to be some of the barriers inhibiting access to and use of CICs. In addition, the USF and REF were identified as key in addressing resource challenges around the operation of CICs. However, the usage or accounting of these two funds were found opaque and there is little public information on them. Parliament and civil society have not paid much attention to these two streams of public funds. Therefore, CICs as constituted, are not fulfilling the objectives that they were set to achieve. There is need for advocacy to reform accountability and transparent processes around the establishment and operationalisation of CICs as well as investing in boosting the capacities and quality of services offered by CICs and expanding them beyond Rural Growth Points41. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations proffered here are based on a reading of what constitutes the major challenges towards the full functionality of CICs and their role in the development of what are supposed to be the host communities. These are summarised below as: 1. Provision of adequate funding for full functionality: For the CICs to be fully functional, they need to have adequate provision of equipment including gadgets for accessing internet services, such as desktop computers, laptops, tablets or smartphones, as well as data. As our previous research on access to information in rural communities notes, the biggest ‘game changer’ in this regard remains a more prudent use of the Universal Services Fund (USF). The USF is a readily-available pool of money collected by the government annually from all corporate players in the telecommunications industry. However, the current state of affairs is that there is little transparency in terms of how this fund is disbursed, with parliament or civil society failing to provide the necessary 2. Expanding the CIC concept to basic social services provision: One of the sought outcomes of establishing CICs is enhancing access to social services in target areas through incorporating the use of ICTs. It may be prudent for stakeholders to also consider expanding the concept of CICs to include service centres such as those providing health (clinics, hospitals, etc). Beyond expanding access through these centres, this is also a potential avenue towards linking access to such services with the ICT component to access. This must be tied to an integrated system that can merge various social services offered by the government within a ‘one-stop-shop’ concept. For example, a person visiting a clinic is also able to check their voter registration status, or even get access to other information on weather patterns which aids their farming endeavours. 3. Devolve the CIC concept to smaller rural business centres: One of the key barriers to accessing CICs was noted as the issue of distance especially in rural areas. Having originally been developed around making use of former post offices which were not as widespread in rural areas, the current conceptualisation is limited in terms of reach. It is therefore prudent to consider expanding reach to more rural business centres. In addition, schools can also play an important role in this regard as they may already have the necessary infrastructure to provide such services. 4. Improving accessibility for People with Disabilities (PWDs): The bulk of CICs currently do not offer services that are PWD-friendly. Infrastructure development has to be prioritised so that these centres can support people with various disabilities and improve their access to ser vices offered at the centres. 5. Staff training and motivation: Staff mandated with running these CICs need to be adequately skilled to assist community members. They also need to be remunerated commensurately such that they are motivated to carry out their set tasks. oversight over this fund. 41 These are big rural business centers which were earmarked to be hubs of industrialising rural economies. 12 MISA Zimbabwe • The State of Access and Use of Community Information Centres (CICs) in Zimbabwe