Volunteer Interviews: How to Spot Red Flags

In the digital age, it is tempting to handle everything online. We can use electronic applications, automated background checks, and email references. While technology speeds up the process, it creates a dangerous blind spot in abuse prevention. A predator can easily curate a perfect persona on paper.

This is why what Bob Wild, a security leader for Brotherhood, calls the “eyeball-to-eyeball” interview remains the most critical tool in a screening arsenal. The goal of this face-to-face meeting is not just to verify facts, but to read the person. To do this effectively, interviewers must move beyond standard questions and learn to spot the subtle behaviors that signal danger.

How Do You Set Up Volunteer Interviews?

An effective screening interview should never be a one-on-one conversation. Ideally, it should involve a team of two interviewers, perhaps a male and a female, sitting across from the applicant. This provides two sets of eyes to observe body language and ensures that no single person is responsible for the “gut check.”

Furthermore, if the applicant is married, risk experts strongly recommend asking their spouse to attend the interview. The spouse is often the ultimate truth-teller. While an applicant might spin a story about a past struggle or a gap in church attendance, the spouse’s body language will often reveal the reality. If the applicant tells a story about their spiritual walk and the spouse looks down, shifts uncomfortably, or stays silent, that is a red flag. Conversely, if the spouse nods and affirms the story, it adds a layer of credibility that a background check cannot provide.

Conversation, Not Interrogation

One of the common mistakes safety teams make is treating the interview like a police interrogation. Bob Wild noted that his team initially fell into this trap. They would grill volunteers, asking rapid-fire questions to catch them in a lie. This approach often backfired because it made even innocent volunteers nervous and defensive.

The most effective technique is to have a conversation. The goal is to get the applicant talking comfortably. When a person is relaxed, they are more likely to let their guard down and reveal their true character. Ask open-ended questions like, “Tell us about your experience with kids,” or “How do you handle discipline when a child is acting out?” You want to hear their heart and their philosophy, not just “yes” or “no” answers.

Spotting the “Non-Answer”

While the conversation should be friendly, the interviewer must remain sharp. The most telling red flag is often what Bob Wild calls the “non-answer answer.”

This occurs when an applicant avoids a direct question or responds with indignation rather than information. For example, if an interviewer asks about a gap in employment or a specific answer on the application regarding past accusations, a safe volunteer will usually offer a simple, logical explanation. A predator or someone hiding a past issue will often get defensive. They might say, “Why would you ask me something like that?” or “I don’t think that is relevant.”

Anger is a defense mechanism. If a volunteer becomes hostile or deeply offended by a standard safety question, it suggests they are trying to deflect scrutiny. A person with nothing to hide understands why the question is being asked.

Gray Areas

This in-person interview is also the place to resolve the “gray areas” found on a background check. On paper, a criminal charge looks cold regardless of the circumstances. In person, context emerges.

Bob Wild likes to give the example of an applicant whose background check shows a reckless driving charge from years ago. In an interview, you can look them in the eye and ask what happened. You can see if they take ownership of the mistake or if they blame the police and the system. A person who makes excuses for past behavior is a risk. A person who owns their past, explains what they learned, and demonstrates change is often a candidate for grace.

Consistency

Ultimately, when you interview someone, your interviewer is looking for consistency. They are comparing the person sitting in the chair with the person described in the references and the application. Does the charismatic, patient man described by his friends match the person in the room? Or does he seem arrogant and dismissive of the process?

Predators rely on charm, but maintaining a false persona is exhausting. By extending the interview, asking follow-up questions, and watching how they interact with their spouse and the interview team, you can often see the mask slip. Interview people as people, and learn what they are like.

If you also run background checks, you may be interested in this video: How Do You Choose Church Background Checks?