“ My secret is: have an amazing group. That’s it. Give them the topic and let them talk, because they are amazing . ”

This is the first article in our series on the participation of people directly impacted by poverty. It highlights the consultation process for choosing the theme for the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty from the perspective of a group in Kielce, Poland. We hope it inspires readers, including Forum members, to organize similar efforts. Below, Paulina B. from Poland shares her local group’s experience during an April 2024 interview.
Initial preparation and planning
Initially, during the planning stage in Warsaw, my two teammates, Gosia and Kuba, and I held an organizer’s meeting to make a plan.
We had various ideas for facilitating the meeting: ensuring that some people wouldn’t dominate the discussion while others wouldn’t speak, considering having everyone work individually before speaking, giving a few minutes to write down thoughts, working in groups or pairs… In the end, we didn’t use any of them!
Invitation, group formation and dynamics, regular meetings
For the consultation, I invited people from Kielce with whom I had been meeting regularly for a year. By the time of the consultation, they had already formed a strong, cohesive group, and we had built trust and good relationships, which made both the invitation and the discussion of the topic easier.
We made extra efforts to ensure that people could attend the meeting by arranging transportation for those who might have had trouble getting there, such as one person with a physical disability.
“ There are friends among them and actually, most of them come to every meeting. These meetings are important to them, so the invitation process is easy: we don’t choose whom to invite, we simply invite the group .”
In this group, people had varying levels of experience in the association, ranging from a few months to twenty years.
A facilitator to guide the discussion and manage the time
During the introduction, we presented the topic and asked for initial thoughts. What we shared was a short introduction in which we said, “Remember, the 17th of October always has a theme. For the topic to be chosen in between the two suggested, consultations are held first, and we were invited to participate in this process.” To say that this consultation is for a theme announced by the UN, I felt it made the process sound more serious and important.
What made it easier, without having to explain further, was that almost everyone had already participated in some preparation for the 17th of October, or in the event itself.
Maintaining trust, a safe space and balance in the discussion
The conversation naturally went well. There was a really engaging discussion in the group. The things I had been anxious about – that one person would talk too much while another would not speak at all – didn’t happen. Actually, the discussion was more balanced. Of course, some people talked more than others, but I think everyone – or almost everyone – spoke up, even those who usually don’t speak much in meetings. I just helped the discussion continue in this natural way.
During the meeting, I was the main facilitator. Gosia and Kuba wrote down the ideas on large pieces of paper, which we put on a flipchart. We wrote with markers, so that people could see the expressed ideas. I think it was very useful. And sometimes, it was even a group effort to find the words to summarize a thought. But we had this time to make sure that we wrote it in a way that is understandable, and that it’s what the person meant.
Instead of recording, we decided to write down the ideas, to make an atmosphere of trust and freedom, we agreed not to record anything they didn’t want us to record. There was a rule: if we share something in the group, it stays within the group.
I think it was nice that the questions were open and not too specific. It helped us create a space for discussion instead of making interviews.
Adapting methods to local contexts and individual needs
They were no social workers, especially not those working with people present during the meeting. To be honest, if we had a person experiencing poverty and a social worker responsible for providing support to that person – I feel it would be almost impossible for someone with experience of poverty to speak up. And, in this case, I would speak with them separately.
Tackling the challenges of larger groups, power dynamics, and conflicts
Sometimes it’s easier to work in small groups: three to six people experiencing poverty. In Kielce, we had more than that – a group of around twelve people. So, that’s why we considered dividing them into smaller groups, but, as I mentioned, it was just not necessary. Sometimes, if you have people in conflict, or in situations where social workers and people experiencing poverty are involved, and where the latter may be afraid of them, and if you don’t have time for a long, thorough process, I would just separate them into smaller groups.Sometimes it’s good to use some tools, but the more you know the people, the easier it becomes. For example, one method is when you first think about the topic and write down your thoughts, then have a round in which everyone shares. Also, it is often the facilitator’s responsibility to set a time limit for speeches to ensure that people don’t interrupt each other.
The importance of attentive listening for facilitation, and feedback from the Forum team
As much as I felt that we had a great discussion in Kielce, where some things may not have been said if we hadn’t had a group meeting—because people really listened to each other, responded thoughtfully, and were inspired by what they heard—I also know that the group was large enough to make it harder to open up. Since it also included some people who were new,not everyone expressed everything they could have. I have a relationship with each of them, and I know there were things they chose not to share.
Once I sent the group’s contribution to the Forum, we received a positive feedback which I shared with the group. I could tell them, “Your contribution was recognized. It is being taken into consideration”. I think it was important and people felt that their thoughts were valued and made some impact.
The challenges of translation and adapting work methods to the context
“Of course, people are different and I think that in every country, in every place, the responsibility of the team is to adapt their methods to the people they work with, the local realities in the country, and the context of the people’s situations ”
Actually, I think what is crucial to working in any country, region, or community is to have clear translations of the themes. Sometimes, a longer explanation is needed if the translation is unclear.
Our team had discussions on how to translate the themes. We even had discussions about individual words in the translation. For me, it was easier when I recognized a phrase from the document on the “Hidden Dimensions of Poverty”, and I thought, “Hey! That’s how it should be translated. We already have the translation, so don’t change it here, because if it’s a reference, people should recognize it”. I think, it made it easier for us to already have a translation into Polish.
Actually, “Empowering futures…” was tricky to translate. Sometimes, in Poland, we use the English word “empowerment” for example, in NGOs, because we don’t have a good translation.
Simplifying our communication while respecting the words entrusted to us
Also, I think that if we work with a group of people who may not have formal education, we need to use simple language. We need to either have a theme in simple words, or we need to explain it in simple language, with words that are truly meaningful to them, not just words they’ve heard before but don’t really understand.
And here, there isa double trap we might encounter while working with people experiencing poverty. Either people put in writing their interpretation of what was said, which may differ from what people meant, or they use exact quotations, which sometimes may not be clear. It’s important to take the time to check with the person what they actually meant and that they agree with words we use to write down their thoughts.
I think this would be my advice for everyone: To not fall into either of these traps—changing people’s words in a way that can lose their original meaning, or quoting exactly but in a way that is not understandable.