Technical Competency
Preparation and Planning
Assessing
How to assess or score: for non-subject matter experts
Whatever your question (if you choose or adapt a question from the Anchoring section or create your own), the Deep Dive table can help you identify positive and negative aspects – green or reg flags in a candidate’s answers.
For a simple scoring or assessment scheme, you can simply assign +1 to positive or green flag content and -1 to red flag answers.
For a scoring system of say 0-3 for each question, we would recommend the following matrix to be used in combination with the Deep Dive table for each value or competency. We recommend printing copies of the Deep Dive tables, as well as the full Murad Code, so that these can be easily consulted when assessing a candidate.
| Scoring / grading | Values |
|---|---|
| 0 | Misaligned (harmful, unsafe, or dismissive answers) with red flags - No elements demonstrated or more than 1 limiting behaviors shown. |
| 1 | Weak alignment (superficial, misses core principles) with 1 or 2 red flags - Only 1 or 2 elements demonstrated, with more than 1 limited behaviour also shown. |
| 2 | Partial alignment (mentions some key elements but incomplete) with 1 or no red flags - A good number of elements demonstrated but also 1 red flag or concern raised. |
| 3 | Strong alignment (clear survivor-centred reasoning, practical actions, responsibility) with no red flags - Multiple elements demonstrated and no red flags or limiting behaviours raised. |
Below, there is also an assessment guide to the sample questions provided in the Anchoring section.
Sample written test examples
Technical:
1. What foundational knowledge, mappings, assessments and understanding are required as preparation before SCRSV information gathering and use work starts?
Main elements expected in answer: knowledge of the context (gender analysis, conflict dynamics, power dynamics, security and safety risks, what is known already about CRSV, communications and cultural understanding, legal setting and discriminatory laws); actor mapping (who is doing what already, who has what mandate, what justice avenues are there for survivors to exercise rights, potential collaboration and partnering); support services mapping and vetting (medical, psychological, social, legal, protection, livelihoods, community-based survivor support organisations to include accessibility and barriers to access for different groupings of survivors) and escalation/emergency responses; risk assessments; community/survivor consultations; MC Principle 4 assessment of when, how and if to do the work; team selection and competency checks, design and planning for flexible, safe methodology and protocols, scoping of safe spaces, communications/language review with interpreters (glossary and indication of non-stigmatising language), information confidentiality protection systems and protocols, informed consent protocols and records, team briefings, etc.
Red Flags: vague answer missing many of these aspects, no mention of survivor well-being, little mention of planning or scoping.
2. What systems, protocols/procedures, processes, emergency response and support should be in place as part of preparation and planning for working with SCRSV survivors?
Main elements expected in answer: Clear systems and protocols for referral pathways for vetted services, escalation protocols and emergency responses, informed consent, confidentiality and information protection, security responses including evacuation, risk assessments with mitigation measures, partnerships with community-based organisations which can provide sustained support and means of contact/follow-up. Communications Guide including glossary and non-stigmatising language. Team preparedness – training and briefing, simulated exercises on some of those protocols, green lighted competency for trauma-informed, survivor-centred interviewing and safeguarding matters.
Red flags: vague answer with no concrete measures or protocols, no emergency response for survivors, nothing on trauma, no risk assessments or mitigation measures.
3. Choose a principle from the Murad Code and explain how you would plan and prepare for its operationalisation in the field/during a project.
Main elements expected in answer: specific principle or set of principles e.g. informed consent, trauma-awareness, referral pathways, actor mapping, confidentiality measures, survivors as individuals; concrete planning steps including protocols, work tools, team briefings/simulated exercises; contextualisation and gender dynamics considered; monitoring and adaptation in the field.
Red flags: can’t identify a MC principle, vague on how to prepare for or operationalise it.
4. How do you operationalise Principle 5.2 of the Murad Code for a short mission in another country?
Main elements expected in answer: Principle 5.2 is about planning for flexibility to ensure your methodology and logistics can adapt to individual survivor needs and realities. Any answer should resource options for choices around location (safe spaces), gender of people in interviews (including interpreters and interviewers). Operationalisation would need contextual awareness and adaptation, local partnerships including trusted community organisations and consultation with community experts, contingency planning and scoping for options, ensuring team has diversity.
Red flags: does not reflect or provision any flexibility or adaptability, does not reference survivor choices or needs, fixed or rigid approaches.
Sample interview questions
1. Please share with us a work example of when you design flexible methodology that was able to adapt to individual survivor needs and realities on the ground.
Main elements expected in answer: see Q4 above. Expected concrete detailed example which shows actual flexibility built into planning/methodology (choice of location, gender, etc.). Good answer incorporates survivor participation in planning and positive outcomes.
Red flags: vague answer, no actual flexibility, no survivor engagement in planning.
2. Give me an example of when thorough preparation helped prevent harm or problems later in a project or interview.
Main elements expected in answer: clear, detailed example with risk assessment and mitigation measures foresaw the reality or an incident during the work (e.g. escalation protocols, secure communications, risk assessing approach for privacy for survivor, etc.). Positive outcome because ready and had protocols and resources in place as needed.
Red flags: vague answer, focused on logistics not harm.
3. Describe a situation where you learned the consequences of not preparing adequately. What did you change in your approach after that?
Main elements expected in answer: honest reflection on past oversight, identifies key learning and acknowledges consequences, clear and sensible adaptation moving forward.
Red flags: vague, dismissive or in denial, doesn’t take responsibility – blames others, no recognition of full consequences for all including survivors, no learning and no adaptation.