Technical Competency
Preparation and Planning
Deep Dive
The following table includes a list of required elements for demonstrating Preparation and Planning and examples of statements or behaviours which suggest need for further development in this competency. This deep dive addresses separately each element of knowledge, demonstrated skills and attitudes/approaches which together make up this competency.
Knowledge, recommending what someone should understand and be able to explain and examples of statements or behaviours which indicate a need for further development.
Demonstrated skills, recommending skills expected for everyone, those specific to programming roles and those specific to roles involving survivor interaction. Examples of behaviours which indicate the need for further development included as well.
Attitudes or approaches (linked to Core Values), which help identify associated values and attitudes, as well as examples of attitudes or approaches which indicate the need for further development.
Key Murad Code Provisions for this Technical Competency
Principles 4 (Add Value or Don’t Do It), 5 (Preparation is the Foundation), 6 (Know and Understand the Contexts) and 7 (Build Systems, Competency and Support)
Closely associated with many of the other technical competencies like Risk Recognition, Understanding Gender, Diversity and Context, and Confidentiality and Information Protection which have strong front-loaded components during the preparation and planning stages.
KNOWLEDGE: understands and can explain…
Elements expected for all roles
Examples of statements or behaviours which indicate the need for further development
Critical importance of planning and preparation for effective, safe and ethical work
What foundational knowledge, mappings, assessments and understanding are required as preparation before the work starts
What systems, protocols/procedures, processes, emergency response and support should be in place as part of preparation and planning
The humanitarian protection and community support system existing in a context for survivors [MC 6.10, 7.2]
Basic steps to avoid duplication within a project, within project activities, as well as vis-à-vis other actors
What kinds of alternative sources of information about SCRSV there might be and how it might take pressure off survivors from information gathering
Starting work before undertaking preparation and planning
No knowledge or understanding of basic preparation steps which need to be taken for safe, ethical and effective SCRSV information gathering and use work
Above minimum standards
Reaches out to others to become part of coordinated networks or partnerships which enhance safely and reduce risks, and explores opportunities to collaborate to enhance survivor rights and well-being, minimise duplication or demands for interviews or information sharing on survivors
Shows knowledge and understanding of existing coordination and deconfliction (duplication reduction) mechanisms existing in the context
DEMONSTRATED SKILLS: can demonstrate how to…
Expected for all roles
Specific to programming (designing and delivering SCRSV programming)
Specific to survivor interaction roles (direct interaction with survivor to gather information)
Examples of behaviour which indicate a need for further development
Conduct a basic actor mapping to understand the actors and work being done in the context, including who has what mandate and what information has already been collected and might be shareable between trusted actors based on consent [MC 5.5, 8.1]
Consult with others during preparation and planning (and monitoring), including community actors and experts
Design basic provisions for follow-up and continued contact with survivors
Use resources effectively and safely in the application of the principles of the Code
Designs and implements protocols to reduce risks of exposure, reinterviews, duplication or negative repercussions from work for survivors rights and access to justice (e.g. taking third person notes rather than using a first person statement format when it’s not necessary) [MC 1.6, 4.8-4.9]
Integrate survivor-centred, Code compliant approaches into project cycle stages (design, implement, monitor/evaluate)
Recruit and select teams or partnerships which secure the right set of competencies and flexibility to adapt to individual survivor needs and choices[MC 7.3-7.4]
Allocate appropriate time and resources (budgeting and tasking) to undertake the work safely and effectively in compliance with the principles of the Code, including ensuring expertise and input as necessary
Ensure scoping, analysis and assessments, security and risk management, monitoring and review, contingency and emergency planning all adequately provisioned in budget
Design flexible methodology which allows for individual survivor needs and choices, and to meet changing circumstances
Design systems and tools which track and monitor progress, risks and challenges, including inclusive survivor feedback obtained in safe way and seeks to understand impact in communities
Design and deliver performance monitoring and assessment against clear expectations based on principles of the Code
Ensure donor indications or institutional key performance indicators are appropriate and survivor-centred, not quantitative or focused on numbers over impact/safety
Develop contingency and emergency response plans
Engage individual survivors in planning for interactions
Prepare for unexpected disclosure [MC 5.8]
Adapt and flex to survivor needs, concerns and choices, as they emerge on interaction
Ask survivors before requesting their information whether they have shared their account with anyone before and exploring the options of information sharing
Explore avenues/ communication pathways for follow-up [MC 5.9]
Failing to reference or integrate principles and commitments in the Code into work or to mention to others undertaking the work
Tokenism: planning to engage survivors but not consulting them on how and what they want to talk about
Tunnel vision: planning to engage survivors but not resourcing properly for it in terms of support, transport and logistics, interpretation and translation, child support, time off work, etc
Motivated by donor priorities and indicators for success, including numbers over quality
Not planning for any review, monitoring or improvement
Rigid Planning with no contingencies or room for flex or adapting to emerging needs or concerns
Displaying inflexibility in changing plans or adaptation to changing circumstances or individual needs
Asking a survivor to retell their story even though they have already told a colleague or there is a copy they are willing to share
Scheduling too many interviews in a day/trip
Above minimum standards
Proactively consults, seeks information, understanding and community/stakeholder perspectives before making assessments and decisions. Engages in participatory approach and co-design whenever possible
Consults and co-designs creative solutions informed by contextual understandings/expertise in all settings
Builds (or joins) and actively participating networks to support and enhance understanding, work, good practice and survivors [MC 5.7]
Actively adopts methodology which helps deconflict work with survivor’s rights and access to justice [MC 1.6, 4.9]
Attitude and Approach
Associated Values
Examples of attitudes or approaches which indicate need for further development
Core Values: Commitment and Responsibility; Humility
Makes responsible decisions about if, when and how to undertake this work, based on preparation and foundational understanding and assessments
Won’t greenlight or start work until preparations are complete
Consideration of wider impact of decision and work
Approaches:
Contributes to collaborative, coordinated environment among colleagues and stakeholders
Believing they can wing it and deal with issues as they arise
Prioritising urgency over proper planning
Supporting or funding new SCRSV proposals/new projects without considering survivor feedback/consultation or existing survivor-led or co-designed initiatives
Acting in isolation or in a silo, and missing opportunities to develop networks, partnerships, collaborations or to deconflict their work in the context
Refusing to participate in networks or coordination mechanisms without good reason
Believing cooperation and collaboration is for others, and does not apply to them or their mandate
Believing their mandate prevents or prohibits collaboration or deconfliction
Viewing consultation and collaboration as a waste of time
Assumptions that ‘urgency’, ‘prevention’, ‘justice’, other public interest goals, quantitative targets or the sustaining of funding justify lack of preparation or ‘collateral’ harm done to individual survivors