Technical Competency
Risk Recognition
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
Hypothetical (can be based on relevant context and job requirements):
1. You are part of a team gathering information about SCRSV from survivors in an IDP camp in a conflict setting. Identify at least 3 different types of risks that may arise and specific who faces that risk from what source. Propose practical mitigation strategies for each.
Main elements expected in answer: identifies different types of risks (physical/security, psychological/trauma-well-being, social/stigma, reputational, legal, economic), to different stakeholders (survivors, information-gatherers, community, organisation, other community-based organisation and service providers) and work (operations, information), from different sources (armed actors, perpetrators, community members or leaders, family, information-gatherers or users, the survivors themselves). Able to provide at least one practical mitigation or risk reduction measure for each – including expert localised advice, careful risk assessments with expert advice and gendered contextual knowledge, escalation protocols, confidentiality and information management protocols, survivor-centred, trauma-informed competency in team selection and practice. (See IP2 and Country Specific Supplements, Chapter 7 and 8.)
Red flags: can’t identify more than one type of risk, focuses on physical security risk from armed actors only, does not identify that information-gatherers and users present risks to survivors, is unable to suggest practical relevant mitigation measures.
2. “You are the project manager/planner for a short research/investigation mission to a border region where a tribal conflict has broken out and there are news reports of castration and anal penetration with sticks of young men and boys. Identify three common [intersectional] risks to male survivors from different sources arising directly from the proposed work and suggest basic mitigation measures.
Main elements expected in answer: Common intersectional risks – gendered assumptions that men and boys are not victims; other forms of gendered stigma around SCRSV by the community against men and boys; age barriers to agency and access; lack of age/gender attuned support services; gendered narratives against need for support/help-seeking; language challenges (linguistic concepts, ability to process and narrate, language differences, stigmatising language); potential legal risks (if same sex acts of a sexual nature are criminalised in law without reference to consent); informed consent for under 18 years old in that setting and risks around privacy/agency/parental-guardian knowledge. Mitigation measures – should focus on confidentiality and ensuring psycho-social support - could include working with community-based organisations which support adolescent boys/young men; confidentiality protocols; risk assessments with experts with gendered and contextual expertise; service mapping and vetting, including review of barriers of access reports; initial work to tackle stigma in the community; male attuned survivor-centred, trauma-informed practice protocols and sensitisation; working with interpreters in advance around glossaries and appropriate wording; mentions importance of survivor participation in designing mitigation measures.
Red flags: nothing gender or age specific, all focused on physical security, no practical measures identified.
Technical:
1. Name three ways in which you can be the source of risk to survivors when seeking to collect and use information about SCRSV, and how you can mitigate those risks.
Main elements expected in answer: acknowledges and understands that information-gatherers and users pose a threat to survivors; identifies risks to confidentiality/privacy (which brings risks to physical safety, psychological harm, social harms, legal harms and economic harms); psychological well-being (through retraumatisation, revictimisation, stigmatising language), economic harms – taking their time up away from work or income generation, asking them to travel long distances; risk to their legal rights and access to justice (if create inaccurate statements, multiple inconsistent versions, influence or contaminate their testimony or contaminate or destroy other forms of evidence). Mitigation measures would include confidentiality protocols, ensuring discrete communications and meeting locations, deidentification protocols, mapping and vetting support systems, escalation protocols, trauma-informed safe communications training and competency, working in advance with interpreter to ensure safe language, resourcing stipends/compensation for time/costs but not paying for information, etc. (See IP2 and Country Specific Supplements, Chapter 7 and 8).
Red flags: doesn’t acknowledge or understand themselves as risks, focuses on physical security only, can’t describe any mitigation measures.
2. Application Exercise: Share a copy of Principles 5.3, 1.4 and 1.5 Murad Code and ask the candidate to reflect on how they would operationalise it in a practical situation (e.g. team training, field protocols, handling a breach) OR design one concrete tool or step to operationalisation these principles.
Main elements expected in answer: expect them to focus on intersectional, gendered and contextual risk assessments, bringing expertise to identify risks and help cocreate culturally attuned effective mitigation measures; tools could include a basic risk matrix, confidentiality and information management protocols, training and competency testing through scenario-based simulations; monitoring and reviews; survivor safety checklists to individualised risk management and ensure participatory approach. (See IP2 and Country Specific Supplements, Chapter 7 and 8.)
Red flags: can’t given examples on how to operationalise these or unrealistic in conflict settings.
Sample interview questions
1. Tell me about a situation where you recognised a risk that others overlooked. How did you raise it, and what was the outcome?
Main elements expected in answer: clear specific example with identified risk (safety, profile/access, confidentiality, gendered dimension, stigma, vicarious trauma, community back lash, etc.), preferably with a contextual or intersectional lens and framed around survivor rights or well-being, constructive communication with colleagues/management/partner, reflection and learning, preferable with some adaptation in protocol or practice. Should demonstrate knowledge of contextual or gendered risk and practical mitigation measures.
Red flags: no answer, vague answer, dismissive, outcome not linked to mitigation or improved safer practice.
2. Give me an example when you worked with a survivor facing potential retaliation, ostracism, well-being issues or safety threats after disclosure. How did you respond?
Main elements expected in answer: expect real example, not hypothetical (so looking for someone with actual experience), identification of risks to survivors (see answers to written questions above), preferably includes participatory approach and working with survivor to identify mitigation and solutions – at minimum collaboration with others working in protection (with consent), can identify appropriate safeguarding and mitigation measures.
Red flags: no real example (even considering risks they pose themselves – see Technical Q1 above), blames survivors or others, breaches confidentiality or consent as part of solution (except as acute lifesaving imperative), does not see problem arising after interview/disclosure as their responsibility or role, says they have no way to find out about potential post-interview risks.
3. Describe a situation in which you considered the broader repercussions for a survivor or their community when planning work (such as community dynamics, legal processes, or family impact).
Main elements expected in answer: risk identification and anticipation as part of planning, could arise as part of gender or conflict analysis – contextual awareness and cultural competency, able to describe risk, how identified and preventative action taken (preferably through participatory approach and co-design).
Red flags: narrow answer, dismissive of responsibility or duty to prevent, example shows lack of planning or risk identification until too late or once repercussion have taken place, unable to identify adaptation or preventative measure – carried on regardless.
4. Please share a work example where you were not warned that someone was at heightened risk (e.g. due to gender, age, disability, displacement or community stigma). How did you discover this and what did you do when you realised? What did you learn from this?
Main elements expected in answer: acknowledges and self-reflects on why didn’t discover in risk assessment, takes/acknowledges responsibility, identifies risk and concrete action to respond (including risk assessment and design of mitigation measures – preferably with the survivor), reflects on learning and shows adaptation and growth.
Red flags: dismissive or denial, blames others, no reflection or learning, misses the point about risks assessments and planning together with survivors.