Group conversation with each focus group – service providers and service users alike – was guided by a simple process3 that framed several simple learning questions: • Each group was asked to consider its definition of “Good”: what qualities should reasonably characterise a good health service experience. • A Mixing Desk analogy was used as a data-instrument to allow each group to talk about its experience of specific health facilities (and for health facilities to talk about themselves). The Mixing Desk (as depicted on the cover of this report) invited participants to assign a levelsetting from 1-10 for each channel – Availability, Accessibility, Affordability, Acceptability and Accountability (the basic characteristics of “good”) – essentially a subjective grading/ score, and to talk about reasons why they would have that opinion. Any ambiguity about the interpretation of those headings became a matter of discussion for the group so that common definitions were applied before conversation continued. The group process allowed participants to be in dialogue with each other to reconcile the range of experiences and perspectives amongst individuals and come to some consensus about a score in each category that best reflected their collective experience. • A third element was added to the exercise with Health Facility staff: asking them to simply define who they considered to be their “Key Population constituency”. 5. The Mixing Desk tool generated a series of comparable numeric values that could be analysed into graphs, showing the scores from each focus group for each category as they pertained to each of the three health-facilities. 6. Patterns were identified from the responses, prepared as “Headline Messages” (see below) and presented together with graphed analysis to a representative stakeholder meeting for reflection, to deepen dialogue and for validation. Participants included members of GALZ staff, representatives of the management and clinicians of Wilkins and PSI Health facilities, and representatives of MSM, WSW, and trans groups. 3 Methodology for this Situational Analysis was co-developed by a small regional Technical Working Legal Network (South Africa), Positive Vibes (Namibia), GALZ (Zimbabwe), SRC (Zimbabwe), BONELA Group on Health Facility Monitoring, convened in Johannesburg through KP Connect approximately one (Botswana), FHI 360 and Friends of Rainka (Zambia). week prior to the commencement of the Situational Analysis exercise in Zimbabwe. Contributors to that process represented experience in Key Populations health and rights programming from the AIDS PERCEPTIONS, PERSPECTIVES Access to facility-based health services for LGBT people in Harare & Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: A Situational Analysis 7