Interview scorecard template

Food Security Analyst interview scorecard

Evaluate Food Security Analyst candidates across 4 weighted areas: outcomes that landed, stakeholder facilitation, regulatory and policy command, and evidence and reporting. Outcomes that landed leads at 30%, so check what their analysis actually triggered: an IPC Phase 4 classification that unlocked funding, a revised targeting list, or an early warning alert. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
public sector communityearly warningfews nethumanitarian analysisipc classificationvulnerability assessment
TL;DR
For outcomes that landed, look for evidence the candidate names specific alerts or classifications they authored and the response they drove: caseload figures, geographies, and the agency that acted. For stakeholder facilitation, look for evidence the candidate describes brokering consensus in a contentious technical working group, including how contested indicators and government sensitivities were resolved. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Outcomes that landed

30% weight

Check what their analysis actually triggered: an IPC Phase 4 classification that unlocked funding, a revised targeting list, or an early warning alert that moved pre-positioned stocks.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
  • States their own role rather than the department's
  • Gives measured reach or impact
  • Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No delivered work; describes intent and process only.

2
Needs Improvement

Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.

3
Satisfactory

Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.

4
Very Good

Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.

5
Excellent

Names specific alerts or classifications they authored and the response they drove: caseload figures, geographies, and the agency that acted.

02
Evaluation factor

Stakeholder facilitation

25% weight

Probe how they ran IPC or Cadre Harmonise technical working groups with government statistics offices, WFP, FAO and NGO partners when partners disputed the evidence or the phase.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
  • Names the competing interests and the resolution method
  • Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
  • Treats every group as legitimate

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.

2
Needs Improvement

Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.

3
Satisfactory

Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.

4
Very Good

Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.

5
Excellent

Describes brokering consensus in a contentious technical working group, including how contested indicators and government sensitivities were resolved.

03
Evaluation factor

Regulatory and policy command

25% weight

Test command of the IPC Technical Manual thresholds, SMART survey standards, Sphere indicators, and how national food security policy or Humanitarian Response Plan cycles shape their timing.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
  • Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
  • Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
  • Knows where the discretion sits

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.

2
Needs Improvement

Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.

3
Satisfactory

Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.

4
Very Good

Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.

5
Excellent

Cites protocol thresholds and reference periods from memory and explains where national policy constrained or overrode analytical findings.

04
Evaluation factor

Evidence and reporting

20% weight

Assess their handling of FCS, rCSI, HHS and HEA baseline data: sampling limits, seasonal calendars, ODK or KoBo collection, and how uncertainty appeared in bulletins.

Evidence to listen for

  • Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
  • Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
  • Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
  • Tracks whether the intervention worked

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.

2
Needs Improvement

Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.

3
Satisfactory

Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.

4
Very Good

Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.

5
Excellent

Shows dashboards or bulletins they built, states confidence limits plainly, and flags where thin data made a phase call defensible but uncertain.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Food Security Analyst

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe a time when your analysis influenced a policy or intervention?

  2. 02

    Can you discuss a project where you analysed regional food security?

  3. 03

    Can you share your experience with field research in this area?

  4. 04

    How do you handle missing data or gaps in coverage?

  5. 05

    How do you ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data you use?

See the complete Food Security Analyst question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards