Technical Competency
Working with People of Diverse Genders, Abilities and Ages
Assessing
How to assess or score: for non-subject matter experts.
Whatever your question (if you chose 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 asked to arrange an interview with a male survivor of SCRSV in a culture where male victims face extreme stigma. He is hesitant. How do you adapt your approach to respect his agency and safety?
Main elements expected in answer: “answer should emphasise survivor choice and informed consent – not pressurising the victim and ensuring he has time to consider and get advice if he wishes; based on contextual and risk analyses, careful consideration of confidentiality and privacy requirements, how to approach survivor (possibly using trusted intermediary), what language to use when engaging survivor (appropriate, non-stigmatising, inoffensive, not challenging masculine values or self-identification)[MC 1.3]; Ask the survivor – what does he need and want, and if he agrees to do the interview, who should be in the room, where should it be held, gender of person – what will makes it a safe space for him [MC 9].
Red flags: mentions any form of persuasion or pressure on the victim to speak, makes assumptions or unilateral decisions about what, when, how, where.
2. You are approached by a 16-year-old survivor of sexual violence in a conflict-affected area. What steps would you take to ensure your response is appropriate to their age, legal status, and immediate needs?
Main elements expected in answer: immediately notes they are a child (U18) and that CRC and child safeguarding applies; recognises need for expertise – considers whether they are the right person or whether they need assistance; mentions need to do best interest assessment; immediate needs and safety as priority; mentions need to do legal guardian/consent if legally required in jurisdiction; respects child assent and participation in decision-making; considers developmental stage and capacity – adapts communication and information; considers referrals/support availability and appropriateness for adolescents.
Red flags: ignores that they are under 18; fails to mention importance of assessing child’s developmental stage or trauma; overlooks safeguarding and legal requirements; prioritises disclosure and getting the child to tell them what happened to them (job focus/objectives ahead of safeguarding, legal and safety of child).
Technical:
1. Application Exercise: Share a copy of Principle 1 of the 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).
Main elements expected in answer: expect an answer focused around tailoring approaches to the individual intersectional needs, wishes, rights and realities of survivors, including non-discrimination, inclusion, countering assumptions, and prioritising survivor safety and well-being in a broad sense. Expect operationalisation to include: team training on diversity, inclusion, gender and intersectionality; sensitisation to stigma and intersectional realities of survivors; protocols for individualised risk assessments [MC 5.3]; confidentiality systems and protocols, with training and simulated practice; mapping and vetting of support services which would be safe and accessible for different individuals [MC 5.6], feedback loops and lessons learned reflection sessions to ensure monitoring and improvement.
Red flags: doesn’t understand Principle 1 or cannot provide any operational or preparation steps. No mention of risk assessments, safe guarding or monitoring.
2. How would you adapt your approach if you were asked to organise a series of individual interviews with SCRSV survivors who are now over 65 years in age?
Main elements expected in answer: recognises age-related considerations such as accessibility – mobility, health needs, disabilities; considers there may be some issues around capacity or memory depending on individual and advanced age/stage – supported decision-making without assuming or over-medicalising or generalising; discusses reasonable accommodation and adaptations around location, comfort, breaks, duration; mentions dignity, agency and respect; carefully considers language and reflects on biases; considers appropriate and accessible support; considers age difference between interviewer/interviewee and perception of that by interviewee.
Red flags: largely ignores – same approach as all others; infantilises, over-medicalises, assumes incapacity, stereotyping or dismissing older survivors.
Sample interview questions
1. Can you share an example of how you worked respectfully and effectively with someone whose identity or background was very different from your own?
Main elements expected in answer: should be detailed, concrete example, which demonstrates respect, adaptability and humility, includes reflection and learning.
Red flags: focus on self, blame on other, shows bias, assumptions and stereotyping, no reflection, no learning.
2. Tell us about a time you had to adapt your approach to work effectively with people of different ages, genders, or abilities. What did you do, and what was the outcome?
Main elements expected in answer: clear description of situation, action and result which demonstrates understanding and respect for need to tailor approach, recognises different barriers and needs, values inclusion, articulates clear adaptation to approach and positive outcomes.
Red flags: no concrete example, no adaptation by the candidate, no understanding of need, included unchecked stereotypes or assumptions, misses clear ethical or safety issues.
3. Describe a situation where you worked with someone who had difficulty accessing services or support. What actions did you take? How did you help overcome those barriers?
Main elements expected in answer: identifies barrier clearly (physical/mobility, cultural or social, gender, disability, linguistic, trust, stigma, etc.); describes appropriate actions and considerations which value participatory approaches, asking the survivor and co-designing solutions, sustainable access; examples of creative thinking, consultation or collaboration/partnering add value; also explains responsible decision-making on whether to proceed on information gathering if services are non-existent or inaccessible for that survivor, and what else might be done around informal support or trusted, vetted community-based organisation which may not offer all services, but may offer some support and longer-term options for access to services.
Red flags: blaming or shaming person without access; one off solution which would not be sustainable; ignores accessibility and common systemic barriers; didn’t actually take action.
4. Give an example of when you worked with another professional or service to better support someone with complex or specific needs. How did you coordinate?
Main elements expected in answer: concrete detailed example which shows collaboration, communication, respect and added value of working together, recognises value of specialist expertise and when necessary; captures need for informed consent, confidentiality and participatory approach/discussion with survivor; speaks positively of outcomes and learning.
Red flags: vague or no answer; describes coordination as an addition burden and conflict, does not mention informed consent or confidentiality.