Technical Competency:
Safe Communications and Interviewing
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 have been asked to plan to conduct a series of remote interviews in a country you cannot get physical access to and where there is an active conflict. What are your main considerations and what safeguards must you put in place?
Main elements expected in answer: emphasis on risk assessment and mitigation measures recognising specific risk of remote interviews, answer should include setting up, checking and briefing localised response system and personnel to assist with digital IT security and reliability/back-up, monitoring and responding to trauma/emotional well-being or other acute escalation protocol triggers, using video feed as better than audio so body language can be monitored (unavailability of video feed should be risk assessed and may be redline due to safety concerns), mapping and vetting support services and escalation protocol response avenues, safe spaces for private interviews, risks of cyber-hacking and surveillance and data protection issues, etc., ensure regular check-ups after the interview. May refer to IICI Remote Interview Guidelines or PAIC Remote Interview Guidelines. Expect acknowledgement that if cannot mitigate risks, should not proceed [MC 5.4].
Red flags: considers it the same as in-person, does not acknowledge limitations in assessing what happening around the site, signs of distress (limited view on camera or nothing on audio) or barriers to building rapport or responding to distress, does not mention local intermediaries or support, does not mention response systems for acute needs, does not recognise the risks of communicating with survivors on their own devices (may not be private, could be shared/accessible other family members), does not recognise privacy risk for survivors communicating while at home.
2. Your team has started to conduct a series of survivor interviews in an IDP camp. It becomes clear that many of the survivors are under 18 years old but are also married (early marriage is common and increasing in that setting). You don’t have direct experience or training to interview children. What actions do you take?
Main elements expected in answer: recognition that anyone under 18 years old has rights under Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), recognises national laws and international standards around the age of consent and assent, considers legal guardian requirements carefully (as a ‘husband’ may be considered a legal guardian to a girl under 18 years old), involves child specialists including psychologist/team, states clearly that should not proceed without child interview trained personnel – seeks to supplement competencies within team as soon as possible if not already there – recognises need to ensure children are not excluded or silenced either, maps and vets child-attuned support services and referral pathways, ensures all team members have basic competency and practice training for support or working on activities involving U18, including age recognition/assessment, team briefings on U18 protocols and practice.
Red flags: suggests continuing since they are married and therefore in that context ‘adults’, no consideration of legal guardian or laws of consent, suggests getting consent from husbands (ignores that victims could be boys, ignore cultural discrimination and disenfranchisement of girls/women), does not understand or describe child safeguarding measures (including failure to vet guardians/check involvement/assess risks around guardian engagement), suggests interviewing 16-18 year olds without further assessment or application of CRC protections.
Technical:
1. How do you plan for and deliver a safe interview structure, giving the survivor control but still guiding the process, and ensuring a safe, closing phase?
Main elements expected in answer: might mention PEACE model (prepare and plan, engage and explain, account, closure, evaluate); answers should include considerable of preparation; agreeing with the survivor where, who, when, etc.; early monitoring and assessment (well-being, readiness, communication/comprehension); soft introduction and clear informed consent process; ensuring survivors know what to expect and know their rights, feel they can say no or stop/pause etc, use of open questions and open narrative to start and survivor-led pacing – and demonstrated active listening, gentle clarifying questions with explanations on why needed if asking sensitive questions, continued observation and monitoring for signs of distress, regular well-being check-ins and breaks, structure and careful closing with grounding and supportive acknowledgements, discussion on what to come in following days, what informal and more formal support systems are available, discussion of referral pathways and next steps, agrees follow-up contact mechanism for consent, security or well-being concerns and letting them know outcome.
Red flags: reluctance or inability to give any control to the survivor, speaks too much or presents lists of questions or rigid structure planned for the interview, no mention of closure or grounding, no mention of informed consent and early explanations to allow a survivor to understand how the interview will be conducted or what rights they have. No mention of breaks or well-being check-ins
2. What are the key ingredients for creating a safe space for disclosure?
Main elements expected in answer: should refer to what feels and is safe for a survivor, and therefore engage them in the co-design of that space (choice and control), safe spaces are safe to access and leave as well, physical safety, emotional/psychological safety, private and confidential, free from perceived or actual threats, free from judgement, where trust can be earned and in which there is honesty and transparency, a space which is respectful, dignified, comfortable and has at least basic provisions for human needs – a private bathroom, water and snacks, tissues, etc. Considerations for intersectional identities and circumstances of individuals – gender, age, abilities, cultural and contextual considerations, absence of triggers (usually only a survivor knows this although some might be anticipated with knowledge of context/events).
Red flags: unclear or focuses on physical safety or physical space only, does not discuss survivor’s feeling or perspective on what makes a space safe.
Sample interview questions
1. Tell us about a work experience when you recognised and had to adjust to communication barriers and challenges, verbal and non-verbal cues, or when you were not being understood or could properly understand the other person. How did you identify the problem, and what was your response?
Main elements expected in answer: concrete example that demonstrates being alert to and recognising misunderstanding – language, cultural, trauma, interpretation, emphasis on patience, working with the survivor to overcome, using interpretation, adjusting language or tone, use of clarifying questions, the earlier the recognition and adaptation the better, non-judgemental or blaming.
Red flags: judgemental, blaming or shaming answer, recognition far too late to correct, response which did not show patience or prioritise dignity and respect.
2. Describe a time when you successfully created a supportive, physically and psychologically safe environment for an in-person or a remote interaction, which was accessible and gender, age, disability, social, cultural and context sensitive?
Main elements expected in answer: Should refer to what feels and is safe for a survivor, and therefore engage them in the co-design of that space (choice and control), safe spaces are safe to access and leave as well, physical safety, emotional/psychological safety, private and confidential, free from perceived or actual threats, free from judgement, where trust can be earned and in which there is honesty and transparency, a space which is respectful, dignified, comfortable and has at least basic provisions for human needs – a private bathroom, water and snacks, tissues, etc. Considerations for intersectional identities and circumstances of individuals – gender, age, abilities, cultural and contextual considerations, absence of triggers (usually only a survivor knows this although some might be anticipated with knowledge of context/events). Emphasis on tailoring to individual intersectional needs, clear inclusion of practical adjustments (privacy, accessibility, gender choice, culturally aware) with survivor participation in adjustments and preferably done in advance.
Red flags: nothing about survivor perspective or engagement on it, focus on physical security or space, generic answer.
3. Please share an experience in which the information being proved by a survivor (or another person) was either internally inconsistent or was not consistent with other information you had previously collected. What did you do?
Main elements expected in answer: acknowledges the many reasons for inconsistencies (trauma, questions asked, passage of time, disclosure space/levels of comfort and privacy), emphasises the important of survivor’s feeling believed and not judged, describes a soft clarifying questions approach which does not confront or disbelieve, avoids pressure on survivor, leaves assessment and evaluation for later.
Red flags: assumes lying or unreliable, aggressively challenges or probes, reaches conclusions in the interview against the survivor, warns the survivor not to lie.