Technical Competency
Sexual Violence and Stigma Sensitisation
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. It may be helpful for non-experts to have the Deep Dive tables printed out with them, as well as a copy of the Murad Code.
| 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. During a group training, you hear a colleague minimise female-perpetrated sexual violence against male victims. How would you address this while maintaining professionalism and ensuring a stigma-sensitive environment?
Main elements expected in answer: ensures counter-messaging, preferably using evidence-based input or uses it as way to open up discussion about misassumptions or stigma on sexual violence (either raising with your colleague in the next break to decide together how to ensure counter-messaging or correction, or gentling intervening at the time of the training), discussion about the harmful impact of ‘minimisation’ as a form of stigma and how often it occurs as part of common views about hierarchy of harms.
Red flags: doesn’t feel they can address it, raises it only privately with colleagues, or aggressive calling out of colleague, or any answer which minimises the harm of this messaging.
2. You are working in a displacement camp where survivors are reluctant to speak because of different forms of stigma. What kinds of stigma might they be experiencing and what practical steps would you take to create safer conditions for disclosure, if disclosure is possible at all?
Main elements expected in answer: a discussion of different layers of stigma – institutional (laws, policies, within organisations or actors within those institutions), community (including in media, from community leaders), interpersonal (family, friends, directed towards survivors in direct relationships) and internalised (fear of stigma, anticipated stigma, amplified stigma towards themselves). Steps include: 1) provide safe, discreet, confidential access for disclosure, including confidential referral pathways to the service so they can choose to come to you and you are not approaching them out of the blue, 2) identify survivor networks and community-based organisations (that have been vetted for safety and confidentiality) which support survivors can also help and be allies in stigma-reduction and reducing barriers to access. Emphasis on informed consent and survivors feeling safe to disclose. Beyond minimum standards of the Code: work to reduce stigma e.g. through community stigma action plans and work, including engagement with institutions, media, community leaders. Direct work/counselling with stigmatised people to reduce internalised stigma.
Red flags: no mention of confidentiality or safeguarding, cannot explain stigma dynamics or form, cannot describe any steps which might either tackle stigma or provide safer, more confidential pathways, any answer will involve approaching survivors in their homes or work, any answer which doesn’t mention informed consent and choice.
Technical:
1. [Choose one context in which you have worked before/in this work context] explain the main typologies, victimologies and circumstances of SCSRV in that setting.
Main elements expected in answer: an answer which demonstrates knowledge of different types of SCRSV (beyond rape, to include, for example, forced nudity, forced witnessing of sexual violence, genital violence, sexualised torture, reproductive violence), speaks of patterns, contextualises it amid conflict or other forms of violence, explains different situations (including red flags or indicators: detention, check points, attacks on villages, displacement) and different types of perpetrators (soldiers, civilians, male and female, etc.) and different groupings of victims (old to young, SOGIESC/LGBTQI+, men and boys, military and civilian).
Red flags: vague, very limited understanding,only mentions rape of women or girls by soldiers,doesn’t contextualise, describes broader forms of GBV or SV which are not conflict-related as SCRSV.
2. Why is it important to acknowledge that men, boys, and LGBTQI+ persons can be survivors of SCRSV, and how does stigma impact these groups of survivors?
Main elements expected in answer: removes invisibility and harms of non-recognition, improves access (including reducing barriers, attuned access points) to services, support, potential recovery and justice (including transformative reparations), ensures inclusive programming, ensures prevention work also recognises and includes all forms of SCRSV, starts discussion about how to tailor responses in intersectional way, adapted to individual survivor needs.
Red flags: downplays prevalence,minimises these forms of violence,ignores problem of silencing, invisibility or non-access to services.
3. What strategies do you use to recognise and mitigate your own biases during your work?
Main elements expected in answer: self-reflection, openness to feedback, supervision and peer review, continuing learning and professional development – understanding what those biases look like and how to mitigate their impact, expresses understanding that we all have them.
Red flags: dismissive, defensive, claims that they do not have any or not necessary to reflect on them or tackle them, no mention of openness to feedback and learning.
4.Explain ‘secondary victimisation’ or revictimisation and explain how institutional responses can contribute to stigma or retraumatisation.
Main elements expected in answer: provides good definition or understanding of harms from institutional response (including shaming, blaming, disbelief, judgement, retelling, insensitive questions, lack of privacy/confidentiality, delays, non-communication). Great answer includes ways of minimising risks to include survivor-centred approaches and counter-stigmatisation training.
Red flags: vague answer, non-recognition of institutional harm, does not include ways that institutional responses can harm.
Sample interview questions
1. [Choose one context in which you have worked before/for this work context] explain the main typologies, victimologies and circumstances of SCRSV.
Main elements expected in answer: a discussion of different layers of stigma – institutional (laws, policies, within organisations or actors within those institutions), community (including in media, from community leaders), interpersonal (family, friends, directed towards them in direct relationships) and internalised (fear of stigma, anticipated stigma, amplified stigma towards themselves). Steps include: 1) provide safe, discreet, confidential access for disclosure, including confidential referral pathways to the service so they can choose to come to you and you are not approaching them out of the blue, 2) identify survivor networks and community-based organisations (that have been vetted for safety and confidentiality) which support survivors can also help and be allies in stigma-reduction and reducing barriers to access. Emphasis on informed consent and survivors feeling safe to disclose. Beyond minimum standards of the Code: work to reduce stigma e.g. through community stigma action plans and work, including engagement with institutions, media, community leaders. Direct work/counselling with stigmatised people to reduce internalised stigma.
Red flags: no mention of confidentiality or safeguarding, cannot explain stigma dynamics or form, cannot describe any steps which might either tackle stigma or provide safer, more confidential pathways, any answer will involve approaching survivors in their homes or work, any answer which doesn’t mention informed consent and choice.
2. Please share with us a work example of when a misunderstanding or assumptions about SCRSV led to issues with a survivor, community, project, mission or deliverable? How did you manage and resolve it?
Main elements expected in answer: detailed honest answer with self-reflection, able to describe impact and demonstrates learning and adaptations in approach to mitigate risk of occurring again.
Red flags: unable to give an answer, vague or irrelevant answer, dismissive or defensive, no learning or course correction described.