Reporting channels & reporter experience
How this is scored
The intake side: how a reporter actually submits — web form, anonymous dialog, phone/voice, languages, accessibility — and whether anonymity survives first contact.
0 — A web form that is an email in disguise: no anonymous route, no way to reach the reporter afterwards.
3 — An anonymous form exists but the dialogue ends there — no secured mailbox for follow-up questions, few languages, desktop-only.
5 — Anonymous two-way dialog via a protected mailbox, a usable set of languages, mobile-friendly; voice or phone intake missing or an add-on.
8 — Multiple channels (web, voice message or hotline, QR entry points), broad language coverage with translation support, accessibility considered, and the anonymous dialog is first-class rather than bolted on.
10 — Intake engineered around the frightened reporter: every channel anonymous-capable, dozens of languages, WCAG-conscious, no app install or account required, and the vendor documents how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself.
The SME Operator
The intake channels are real: a 24/7/365 live hotline staffed by ex-police handlers in 150+ countries, online reporting, and translators in 175+ languages — that covers phone and language far better than most. But 'confidential' is asserted, not engineered: no evidence of an anonymous two-way dialog or secured follow-up mailbox, and nothing on accessibility or mobile. 3 2