ZIMBABWE DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Category 1: Evaluation of government and public institution websites to determine the access and presence of credible and updated public information, which includes but is not limited to: powers and functions of the institution in question; vacancy and budgetary allocations; procurement procedures and contact details and reports. Category 1: Website Analysis 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. Most of the surveyed websites scored poorly. Although some of the websites were organised well, they were not regularly updated and lacked useful information. The ZINARA, ZINWA, Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology had more useful content, although they still fell short of acceptable standards. These websites had information such as contact details and legislation that governs their operations. Description of Assessment Criteria The total number of points allocated to categories 1 and 2 is 20 points (n = 20) each. Points are awarded based on the researcher’s answer: Yes (2 points); Partial (1 point); No (0 points). Government ministries and institutions fell into one of the following groups in accordance with the number of points that they received. Category 1: Website Analysis Group 1: (0 – 6) Absence of a website or an extremely poor website containing no or almost no relevant public information. Group 2: (7 – 13) Average website containing some relevant public information. Group 3: (14 – 20) Well organised, transparent website providing a good amount of relevant public information. Category 2: Written Request/Oral Request 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 s 'IVEN THE LIMITED TIMEFRAME THAT WAS ALLOWED FOR THE SURVEY it was not feasible to test the openness of more government and public institutions. s 4HE STUDY PRIMARILY RELIES ON QUALITATIVE DATA WHICH IS SUBJECT to personal interpretation. s )N MAKING THE WRITTEN REQUESTS WHILE THE RESEARCHER DID NOT directly identify themselves as being associated with MISA Zimbabwe, they did make the request in the name of a MISA Zimbabwe employee, and some of the contact details were those of MISA Zimbabwe. Of the 10 institutions surveyed, eight had websites, although the effectiveness with respect to content management differed between the institutions. The Ministry of Psychomotor had no website, while ZUPCO only has a domain registered and a default page. This does not constitute a functioning website. Of the three institutions that have websites with a feedback mechanism, none of them responded to electronic requests for information. The rest of the institutions, including the CMED and Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, operated websites which had obvious content management problems and lacked a clear structural outline. Only the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Development website had a budget, albeit from 2012. None of the other websites contained any information pertaining to budgets or their operations. The failure to maintain informative websites could be attributed to capacity issues, but one is inclined to conclude that there is no commitment from these institutions to proactively inform the public about their operations. A culture of secrecy is evident in these institutions. Category 2: Request for Written and Oral Information Written Requests: Access Denied Out of the 10 institutions surveyed, seven of them denied written requests for information. Three institutions displayed an average level of openness in allowing public access to information. Only four of the institutions acknowledged receipt of our requests, but all of these went on to ask that we direct our requests to other offices. The other institutions did not acknowledge receipt of our letters and did not respond to the requests. The Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology, Ministry of Local Government, Urban and Rural Planning, and the Ministry of Psychomotor acknowledged receipt of the requests and attempted to help to varying degrees. An official from the Ministry of Psychomotor invited the researcher to their office and explained that the Ministry was new and did not have any organised information yet. He did, however, attempt to answer questions orally and invited the researcher to come to their offices if they needed further information pertaining to the ministry. 122