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 Skeptic
Reports can arrive by phone, voicemail, web browser or the SpeakUp app, with anonymous two-way follow-up the vendor says drives a 49% check-back rate, and the explicit statement that the platform collects no IP addresses, device fingerprints or identifying metadata is exactly the engineering detail an anonymity claim needs. Language coverage is stated as 100+ languages with human and machine translation in over 75. I found no public information on accessibility commitments such as WCAG, on QR entry points, or on whether the phone channel itself is anonymous-capable. 7 8 13