1. Belgrade Delegation
Budapest Regional Delegation
Red Cross Guidelines on Working with
Vulnerable Roma and Other
Marginalised Groups in Europe
Belgrade, July-October 2006
Consultants on text: Zoran Ostojić and Stevan Popović

2. 2/50
Preface
This set of guidelines on programmes dealing with vulnerable Roma and other marginalised
groups in Europe reflect the needs expressed in the field for information and knowledge
regarding the specifics of working with Roma and other marginalised groups. The guidelines
were initiated by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
(hereafter “the Federation”). The needs were first expressed at a Red Cross (RC) meeting
concerning Roma which took place in Belgrade in April 2005. The meeting was organised by
the Federation with a strong commitment from several European national RC societies. In
order to meet the expressed needs, the overall objective of the guidelines is: to assist national
societies in approaching Roma issues and in developing programmes and initiatives with
marginalised groups, taking into consideration the role and capacity of the Red Cross/Red
Crescent, its best practice and experiences whilst linking the work with the strategies of the
Movement.
Terms, needs and different inputs have been discussed with a number of RC societies and the
Federation. In July-October 2006 two consultants were assigned to the task of developing
practical guidelines for RC work with vulnerable Roma and other marginalised groups in
Europe. The draft was presented and discussed at the RC Roma Network meeting in
Belgrade in September 2006. The meeting in September gathered 34 people representing 11
European RC societies, the Federation (Geneva, Budapest Regional Delegation and Serbia
and Montenegro Delegation) as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC).
The guidelines reflect both practitioners’ comments and discussions. The guidelines provide
practical input for local RC branches to improve their work with vulnerable Roma. They are
intended to provide inspiration and help facilitate other local branches to start working with
vulnerable Roma. The guidelines collect experiences from RC local branches in Europe and
describe the major characteristics of their work. The two major RC programmes targeting
vulnerable Roma are Participatory Community Development (PCD) and Open Roma
Kindergarten (see annex 2 for a description of these two programmes). In the guidelines
special attention is paid to emphasise what has worked in a given context (‘best practice’)
and what has not. Where possible, examples are provided in shaded boxes.
It is important to stress that document constitutes a set of guidelines and is not a manual. It is
entirely up to the reader to pick and choose what to use and what to leave out, what to read
and what not to read. The guidelines consist of three major sections that can be read either
together or separately:
Background (1 page)
Provides a brief introduction to the context of marginalised Roma in the European region. It
also contains a list of abbreviations.
1. The process of developing guidelines (1 page)
Focuses on the methodologies and approaches used to develop the guidelines.
2. Marginalised groups (1 page)

3. 3/50
Presents a theoretical definition of marginalised groups in society.
3. Best practices (24 pages)
The strongest emphasis is given to the section on best practices. Experiences from local RC
branches in Europe are collected and presented in shaded boxes in the text wherever relevant.
The section on best practices is divided into four sub-sections:
3.1 Facilitating community development focuses on how the RC can:
3.1.1) make vulnerability visible;
3.1.2) ensure participation of marginalised groups and their empowerment;
3.1.3) provide missing services and
3.1.4) improve the quality of existing services.
3.2 Communication practice
3.3 Communication strategies and
3.4 Approaches in communication discuss common sense and the importance of
communication strategies, approaches in communication, and advocacy.
3.5 Advocacy provides information regarding best practices on advocating on behalf of
marginalised groups, influencing community behaviour by sharing knowledge and
experiences
3.6 Relations with beneficiaries discusses cultural specifics.
3.7 Preparation for the future provides a summary of what has been done so far, and
suggestions for possible future directions.
Final remarks (1 page)
Concluding comments
Annexes (13 pages)
Five annexes cover:
Terms of reference for the guidelines – framework used to develop this document
RC programmes targeting marginalised groups – a brief presentation of current RC
programmes targeting vulnerable Roma and other marginalised groups
People met and consulted – a list of people who shared their own experience, making this
set of guidelines possible
Documents consulted – the main documents consulted by the consultants and suggested
reading material for others
Names for Roma Groups and Languages – provides an introduction to the diversity of
Roma groups and languages.
Finally and importantly, annex 6 is a format for readers to provide their own Examples of
working with vulnerable Roma. The examples will be added to the electronic version of the
guidelines on FedNet, https://fednet.ifrc.org/ to ensure that the guidelines remain as up-to-
date as possible.
We strongly recommend that you use the format in annex 6 and provide us with your
experiences of good practices as well as examples of what to avoid, thus allowing other RC
practitioners to learn and improve their work.
It is our hope that this set of guidelines will serve as a source of information and inspiration
that will support your work with some of the most vulnerable groups in Europe.

4. 4/50
Table of Contents
Preface............................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 6
Background....................................................................................................................................... 7
1. The Process of Developing Guidelines......................................................................................... 8
2. Marginalised Groups..................................................................................................................... 9
3. Best Practices .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.1 Facilitating Community Development.................................................................................. 10
3.1.1 Making Vulnerability Visible ........................................................................................ 11
3.1.2 Assuring the Participation and Empowerment of Marginalised Groups ....................... 12
a) Participatory Programmes............................................................................................... 12
b) Strengthening Representative Roma/Marginalised Organisations ................................. 14
c) Recruitment of Roma and Marginalised People ............................................................. 15
3.1.3 Providing Missing Services (Networking and Partnership)........................................... 16
3.1.4 Improving Service Quality (Institutional Development) ............................................... 17
a) Providing Missing Structures.......................................................................................... 18
b) Establishing New Services and Improving Quality........................................................ 18
c) Transfer of Knowledge and Social Technology ............................................................. 20
3.1.5 Practical Guidelines for Working with Marginalised Groups ....................................... 20
3.2 Communication..................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.1 Organisational Guidelines for Working with Marginalised Groups.............................. 21
3.3 Communication Strategies .................................................................................................... 23
3.3.1 Practical Guidelines for Communication Strategies ...................................................... 23
Establishing Communication through Home Visits............................................................ 23
It Is Crucial to Keep One’s Word. ...................................................................................... 23
Define the Objective of Communication. ........................................................................... 24
Sometimes the Best Way to Act Is to Listen Carefully ...................................................... 24
Horizontal-Level Communication Proves Useful for Equality in Relations ...................... 24
Well-Guided Communication............................................................................................. 25
Involvement of Marginalised People.................................................................................. 25
Avoid “Triangulation” of Roles.......................................................................................... 26
Prove that Change Is Possible!............................................................................................ 26
Sometimes You Have to Look for Alternative Solutions ................................................... 27

5. 5/50
Be Realistic About Expected Outcomes ............................................................................. 27
Each Request for Relief or Commodities Should Be Assessed Carefully.......................... 27
Developing Trust and Understanding to Overcome Differences........................................ 28
Developing Responsibility and Fulfilling Obligations Is the Final Goal............................ 28
3.4 Approaches in Communication............................................................................................. 28
Communication with Service Users (Direct/Indirect Beneficiaries) .................................. 29
General Guidelines in Communication................................................................................... 30
3.5 Advocacy .............................................................................................................................. 30
Informing about Vulnerability ................................................................................................ 31
The Red Cross Is a Reliable Partner ....................................................................................... 31
Practical Guidelines on Advocacy.......................................................................................... 31
3.6 Relations with Beneficiaries ................................................................................................. 32
3.7 Preparing for the Future........................................................................................................ 33
Practical Guidelines for the Future ......................................................................................... 34
Final Remarks ................................................................................................................................. 34
Annex 1 Terms of Reference .......................................................................................................... 36
Annex 2 Red Cross Programmes Targeting Marginalised Groups................................................. 43
Annex 3 People Met or Consulted for the Guidelines .................................................................... 45
Annex 4 Documents Consulted....................................................................................................... 47
Annex 5 Names for Roma Groups and Languages......................................................................... 48

6. 6/50
List of Abbreviations
BPI Better Programming Initiative
CSW Centre for Social Welfare (Centre for Social Work)
EAR European Agency for Reconstruction
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
LB Red Cross Local Branches
ONS Operational National Society
PCD Participatory Community Development
PNS Participating National Societies
PRA Participatory Rapid Assessment
RC Red Cross/Red Crescent
VCA Vulnerability & Capacity Assessment

7. 7/50
Background
By and large, the Roma population faces structural vulnerability characterised by the
complex and continued ethnic and intergenerational dimension of poverty. Vulnerable Roma
are both poorer than other population groups and are more likely to fall into poverty and
remain poor. Roma poverty often stands out significantly when Roma are internally
displaced persons, refugees, affected by disasters, involved in ethnic conflicts, socially
excluded due to ethnicity etc.
Example: Some RC societies report a high percentage of vulnerable Roma amongst the total
number of beneficiaries in projects such as tuberculosis treatment, etc.
Facts and Figures
• Roma constitute the largest minority group in Europe without a country
• Approximately 7 to 12 million Roma live in Europe
• Roma culture is diverse and embedded in its history, language, music and traditions;
• Poverty rates for Roma are up to four times higher than that of non-Roma1
• The causes of high poverty levels for Roma are manifold and often interrelated. Lack of
education, appropriate housing, access to health services, and the labour market, as well as
their low integration levels are major problems that hinder the socio-economic development
of vulnerable Roma
• More than 60% of all Roma remain illiterate throughout their entire life2
• Roma have an approximate life expectancy of 47 years
• Poor living conditions are often aggravated by the forced or self-imposed geographic
isolation of Roma
• Roma are present in each vulnerable and marginalised group: refugees, IDPs, asylum
seekers as well as TB and HIV patients
• The mutual lack of understanding and awareness of culture and traditions often lead to
discrimination, social exclusion, and stereotyping which are at the foundation of Roma
plight.
The RC focus on vulnerable Roma is in line with the RC mandate and the RC societies’
commitment to supporting the most vulnerable groups. Relevant policy decisions relate to:
• Strategy 2010 identifies non-discrimination as one of the issues in which RC and Red
Crescent National Societies should seek to influence behaviour.
• The pledge of the Federation at the 28th
International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Conference (2003) entitled ‘Non-discrimination and respect for diversity’ expresses a firm
commitment to work with marginalised groups.
• The Council of Delegates’ Resolution 3 (2005) also refers to the promotion of respect of
diversity and non-discrimination and particularly calls all components of the Movement to
“be particularly attentive to discrimination, intolerance, exclusion and dehumanisation”.
• The Global Agenda with its four goals related to disasters, health & care, capacity building
and reducing discrimination adopted at the General Assembly 2005.
1
UNDP (2006), At Risk: Roma and the displaced in Southeast Europe, Bratislava: UNDP.
2
Zikovic, Jovan et al. (2005), Challenges of Roma Decade, Bahtalo drom (Roma association).

8. 8/50
1. The Process of Developing Guidelines
Between July and October 2006, two consultants were assigned to collect best practices over
a period of 6 weeks. This was done through extensive consultations with people
implementing RC projects that target vulnerable Roma and other marginalised groups in the
region (see annex 1 for terms of reference). The purpose of the guidelines is to facilitate
future activities targeting vulnerable Roma by capturing experiences from the past.
In relation to developing the guidelines, the process further emphasised a need for project
staff to share experiences in a more regular and systematic way in order to improve practice,
and to improve the visibility of RC work with marginalised groups.
The two consultants had a facilitating role in the process. Instead of evaluating solutions,
attention was directed toward receiving new insights. In achieving these, efforts were
directed towards establishing a trustful rapport with respondents, to assure their meaningful
participation and support. Practitioners also contributed with comments and suggestions for
adjustments to the guidelines at the RC Roma Network meeting held in Belgrade from 20-21
September 2006.
Whilst developing the guidelines, the following methods and techniques were applied:
• Semi-structured interview containing open questions, allowing wider expression of
views, indicating which issues respondents spontaneously identify as those of greatest
importance;
• List of questions and content analysis tool developed alongside the indicators of a well-
functioning RC society
• The list of questions was applied to all respondents: local branch, coordinators and
governance
• Field visits took place in six branches in Serbia and two in Montenegro, whilst data on
projects in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia and Macedonia
was collected by telephone interviews mainly with project coordinators, and through
analysing the content of annual, intermediate, evaluation and other reports. Written material
was also received from Romania
• Finally, the guidelines were reviewed at the RC Roma Network meeting held from 20-21
September 2006 in Belgrade. Comments and suggestions for improvements to the documents
were identified by 34 practitioners and programme staff from 11 RC societies, as well as the
Federation and the ICRC.

9. 9/50
2. Marginalised Groups
Pursuing their mission and humanitarian mandate to prevent and alleviate human suffering
by mobilising the power of humanity, many RC societies in Europe recognise marginalised
social groups as the most vulnerable. In general, marginalised groups can be defined as
groups of people who:
• Are excluded from the economic and social streams of communities, lacking access to
health, social and other services, proper housing, employment opportunities and so on
• Due to exclusion are very susceptible to poverty and stripped of means to improve their
lives
• Generally lack social and organisational capacities so local support and assistance is
needed
• Lack the skills and knowledge to control and overcome the situation they are in (referred to
in the VCA framework3
as a lack of attitudinal capacities); additionally, due to a long–time
deprivation they are usually passive, indifferent, apathetic, disappointed and with low
aspirations.
The problem of exclusion is aggravated by the fact that communities are unprepared, as they
may also lack material and organisational capacities and knowledge to respond to such
problems and to assure the inclusion of marginalised groups. This is manifested in the
following:
• Communities lack the capacity to respond to the needs of vulnerable people, resulting from
poor educational, health, social and other services, deteriorating local economies and the
absence of common property etc
• Communities lack the appropriate methodologies to respond to needs.
• Consequently, marginalised groups are excluded from decision-making. They are most
affected by community decisions, and lack the skills and resources needed to cope with new
circumstances.
3
Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment tool used by the IFRC in Disaster Preparedness

10. 10/50
3. Best Practices
Taking into consideration the specifics and difficulties of marginalised groups, the RC has
achieved a lot in the European region in the past six years, mostly in the implementation of
community-based development projects. These projects benefited from previous experience
and methodologies accumulated in decades of work with communities worldwide, and have
yielded new practices which can be used as a means of reference for future programmes with
marginalised groups.
To a large extent, RC societies from the region are well placed in responding to all aspects of
needs and problems of marginalised groups, as outlined in the previous section. Those
practices proving to be the best in given circumstances are sorted in the following sections of
the guidelines:
3.1 Facilitation of community development Best practices within community development
are covered in the following subsections; 3.1.1 Making vulnerability visible; 3.1.2 Assuring
the participation of marginalised groups and their empowerment; 3.1.3 Completing missing
services (networking and partnership) and 3.1.4 Improving service quality (institutional
development)
3.2 Communication and 3.3 Communication practices and strategies These two
subsections illustrate RC practices and highlight the importance of communication and
communication strategies
3.4 Approaches in communication Collects RC experiences with different approaches to
communication
3.5 Advocacy Best practices for advocating on behalf of marginalised groups, influencing
community behaviour by sharing knowledge and experiences
3.6 Relations with beneficiaries provides information about experiences based on cultural
differences.
3.7 Preparing for the future Contains a review of current trends identified through
implementation of a variety of activities, and provides input on future direction.
3.1 Facilitating Community Development
This section is divided into four subsections providing information on how to facilitate
community development: making vulnerability visible, assuring participation of marginalised
groups and their empowerment, completing missing services and improving the quality of
existing services.
RC/RC approach in community development aims to empower members to identify and set
priorities regarding their needs, to determine plans and solutions, to carry out activities, to
evaluate and strengthen activities, to define sustainable projects and programmes to become
more self-reliant.

11. 11/50
The work of the RC focuses on needs that are not met by general social services. The aim of
RC approaches is to strengthen the capacity for self-reliance for both individuals and
communities. RC assistance is of a complementary and auxiliary nature. The RC works in
partnerships with governmental, as well as, non-governmental organisations and the private
sector.
Community-based development is the focus of the Federation’s third and fourth Global
agenda goals.
The Federation’s Global Agenda – Goals 3 and 4
Goal 3 – Increase local community, civil society and Red Cross Red Crescent capacity to address
the most urgent situations of vulnerability
Goal 4 – Promote respect for diversity and human dignity, and reduce intolerance, discrimination
and social exclusion
3.1.1 Making Vulnerability Visible
When assessing the level and scope of vulnerability the RC goes through a process of
mapping vulnerability. Sometimes the mapping is done through collecting (and sorting) data
about groups and individuals asking for help: RC local branch, Centre for Social Work or
other. A more organised approach is to use tools for needs assessment such as Vulnerability
Capacity Assessment (VCA), Participatory Community Development (PCD) or Participatory
Rapid Appraisal (PRA). These methodologies help to make vulnerability more visible
through:
1.Participatory methodology that is strong in identifying the needs of the vulnerable and
marginalised
2.Creating “maps of vulnerability” that direct programme design;
3.Mobilising local capacities in response to problems
4.Influencing awareness and understanding of vulnerability.
In general, participatory RC activities mobilise the community to bring marginalised groups
into view. Marginalised groups are often incapable of presenting themselves independently,
thus diminishing their own visibility causing them to sliding off the community’s agenda.
Active participation of the vulnerable not only makes the vulnerable visible, but also enables
them to decide what issues to target, and to propose changes. The following example from
Bulgaria is illustrative of many aspects and is certainly illustrative of the active participation
of vulnerable Roma:
Example: During a large PCD group workshop in a Roma community, two media people, a
cameraman and a radio journalist appeared unexpectedly and asked to cover the event. The
people in the workshop did not want media involvement. This negative response caused the
cameraman to get very aggressive and pushy. The community members refused to let them
in, stating that the media creates a very bad, general image of Roma, always highlighting
negative issues to influence public opinion.
RC workers asked the community members to vote on whether the media should be let in or
not taking into consideration the consequences. When people realised the threat of another
very bad message about Roma, which could result from denying media access, they decided
that the cameraman would not be allowed in and video footage prohibited, but that the radio

12. 12/50
journalist could participate in the workshop for five minutes. Three persons, including the
RC branch secretary, would be selected by the meeting participants to give interviews.
Eventually the radio journalist spent more then 20 minutes in the workshop (not having time
for more), provided the people in the workshop with a very supportive message, and
produced very positive and true material afterwards.
Pitfall: Marginalised people express ambiguous tendency to speak about their own
vulnerability and to “stay out of sight” at the same time.
Recommendation: As stated in the example, active participation and respect of will (of the
marginalised people) can solve the situation.
3.1.2 Assuring the Participation and Empowerment of Marginalised Groups
The participation of vulnerable people is exceptionally important in decision-making
processes within communities. More often than not marginalised groups are excluded from
such processes, yet again contributing to their exclusion from the socio-economic
mainstream. The RC is developing three major approaches to help change such practice:
a) Participatory programmes
b) Strengthening of representative organisations
c) Recruitment of Roma and marginalised people.
Example: During PRA training in the Ciucani Roma community in Romania, I observed a
young Roma man in the group (around thirty people) who was just smiling. When I
addressed him he did not reply. The group told me that he was deaf. I was really surprised
that he was present at the training. A person from the group, who was able to communicate
with him using sign language, told me that he “said” he wanted to be part of the great
changes in Roma people’s life. He begged members of the group (and me) to let him stay. So
he stayed, and in his own way he participated continually through his strong commitment,
and was an example for the others. During project implementation his participation in
digging and preparing the soil for water pipes and in cleaning the room for first aid training
was extremely helpful.
a) Participatory Programmes
The PCD programme was piloted in Hungary in 2000. This programme has contributed to
the RC philosophy in a number of essential ways: participation of beneficiaries in needs
assessment, analysing, decision–making, designing and implementing activities of common
interests together with local stakeholders.
The PCD programme follows procedures and methods that assure the participation of
marginalised groups:
• Active involvement in needs assessment process
• Presentation of identified and prioritised needs in front of the local authorities and
institutions
• Relating to and liaising with local associations (business, NGOs) in order to secure
resources and solutions
• Call for responsibility in solving problems.

13. 13/50
The marginalised people’s participation in PCD brings forth personal benefits such as
empowerment, higher self esteem and awareness of their own contribution. At the same time
PCD benefits communities by:
• Raising awareness among local residents concerning problems affecting marginalised
groups
• Mobilising resources on behalf of the marginalised (for example by providing premises)
• Having an impact on local associations, increasing finances for development (PCD micro
projects)
PCD is an interrelated and dynamic process, leading stakeholders through ups and downs
when trying to secure the fulfilment of prioritised needs on all sides.
Example: In Ciucsangeorgi Roma community in Romania we were supposed to hold our
P.R.A. training in the village’s Cultural Centre. I had arranged this personally with the mayor
of the village, but the doors were shut. I found the responsible person who said that Roma
were not allowed to enter. After I insisted, and referred to the mayor’s promises, we were
finally let in, but we were not offered any lights or chairs. In the meantime, members of my
Roma group were sitting quietly on the nice, clean green grass in the yard watching us. I
looked at them and decided to hold the training outside and sit among them on the grass. The
Cultural Centre’s director walked away. We put up the flipchart and started the training.
People walking on the streets could see us very well, and as they had never seen such an
interesting “gathering” before, they came closer to hear what was going on. We invited them
to stay with us and most of them did. Our group grew bigger. After a while, the local
policeman came and asked us for “written permission” for the meeting. I gave him our leaflet
and explained what it was all about. He also stood and listened for a while, and then he left.
We all knew that he would report what was going on to the authorities. We were never
disturbed again during training sessions, and although local authorities were not present at
the large group workshop, the group got the necessary support in implementing their project.
Example: A PCD team consisting mainly of Roma and non-Roma local people was planning
and implementing activities in a mixed community in Romania. A person from the Roma
community, a newly appointed leader from a Roma NGO brought representatives from the
NGO HQ to the event. In a conversation he tried to act as an intermediary and defender of
the Roma population, obviously trying to prove his position in front of the representatives
from the main office. The representatives themselves were assessing the possibilities of being
involved in the programme and strengthening the role of the mentioned leader. The PCD
process was explained by the RC staff and they were invited to see what the team was doing,
as well as to take part in planning activities. After seeing the team work and finding no
obvious (financial) benefit, role as mediator and no threat for the Roma community, the NGO
representatives wished the team good luck and left.
Pitfall: Sometimes informal groups of Roma people or even formal groups such as NGOs
have differing ideas about what interests should be protected.

14. 14/50
Recommendation: The interests of groups and people should always be checked in order to
understand how they would like to benefit from activities.
For RC staff and volunteers, negotiation skills and respect for marginalised people are
desirable characteristics and something to search for and strengthen.
When we select Roma associations or NGOs for partnerships or organisations to cooperate
with, we should base selection on previous experiences (some associations have existed for
decades), quality of leadership (a Roma association’s leader is judged by his/her
professionalism), and the existence of solid organisational structure, procedures and
programmes.
b) Strengthening Representative Roma/Marginalised Organisations
For a sustainable approach it is desirable to have associations or organisations of Roma or
marginalised people to continue the work initiated by the RC, thus strengthening existing
programmes and/or contributing to the development of civil society. In some cases Roma
NGOs have strongly supported the RC in the initial phases, when the RC was entering the
Roma community. In these cases, Roma organisations have acted as intermediaries between
the RC and the Roma community.
These Roma organisations have so far proved themselves to be essential partners. However,
it is important to stress that experience varies from one programme to another. It appears that
a careful selection of cooperative forces is crucial and that local RC branches apply various
strategies:
1.Local RC branches support marginalised people to form an organisational structure (team)
2.Local RC branches provide support and counselling to these new organisations, so they can
gradually increase their competences and capacity
3.Some local RC branches include Roma representatives as delegates in RC governing
boards
4.Sometimes, local branches inform and direct people previously involved in RC activities,
to find adequate organisations for Roma and marginalised groups.
When working with the organisation formed by people belonging to one of the marginalised
groups (for instance Roma), there are many examples that prove the success of the
abovementioned strategies, as well as many examples that reflect difficulties and cultural
differences that have to be taken into account. Here are some examples:
Example: A local RC branch in Montenegro has cooperated with a group of young Roma
from the nearby settlement for years. The young Roma group was active during emergencies
in the 1990s, assisting RC personnel in relief distribution. Later the RC assisted the young
Roma group to become a NGO. Today, this NGO is successful in supporting the
Government’s “Action Plan for the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005 – 2015”, drafting
“National Minorities Law in Montenegro.” The representative of the young Roma group is
still a member of the local RC branch governing board, and says that he learned everything
he knows through working with the RC and even today he asks the RC for advice.

15. 15/50
Sometimes Roma organisations and associations for marginalised groups copy the
organisational model of the RC. There are reports of Roma blood donor clubs with numerous
members.
It is often possible to identify a conflict of values between individuals or groups, resulting in
them fighting with each other. Often such associations are managed by poorly educated
leaders with a limited understanding of the problems related to managing such associations.
Sometimes the RC acts as a mediator between parties. As mentioned before some solutions
are constructive and some are not.
Example: In one part of Montenegro the RC has advised five Roma associations each to
appoint one representative for: education, health, housing, employment and human rights and
to coordinate their participation through a Coordination Board.
Example: In Bulgaria a Roma community PCD team, which included several Roma NGOs,
had a very strong partnership with valuable input from members during the PCD process.
Shortly after the end of the PCD cycle when elections were on the agenda, these NGOs took
different positions and separately tried to establish partnerships with the RC regarding
various activities. The RC branch replied: “either with all, or with none”.
Pitfall: Opportunity for partnership is hard to build and easy to lose.
Recommendation: RC principles as universal values can help in constructing new
structures, but it is necessary to avoid being dogmatic.
c) Recruitment of Roma and Marginalised People
Recruiting marginalised people for project positions has had good results: in some
programmes 15% of team members are Roma. However, recruiting marginalised people to
volunteer for the RC might be more challenging. One cause mentioned is that living on an
empty stomach and encountering a daily struggle to survive leaves no space for
philanthropy.
Some experiences show that sub-groups within the marginalised population find it acceptable
to volunteer:
1.Young people showing enthusiasm, usually willing to escape from isolation and who are
open to change. The RC is attractive, offering training and professional development
opportunities
2.Women are enthusiastic and show initiative and capabilities, expecting to develop working
skills or knowledge to change their own lives
3.Educated people are showing an interest in providing valuable input.
There are numerous potential benefits for both the RC and marginalised groups by recruiting
and involving the latter as volunteers:
1.Working with other people supports the sense of self-value and respect
2.Engagement creates a frame for inclusion, especially when young people receive insights
from different sides

16. 16/50
3.To some, volunteering provides a sense of belonging and security
4.RC branches can gradually hand over responsibilities to marginalised people now acting as
volunteers or employees.
Young people are motivated to participate as volunteers as they can participate in joint
activities with their peers from other environments, and have the opportunity to travel or to
get know other life alternatives. Dissemination of such knowledge influences their reputation
within their group of origin.
For the RC the motivation for involving marginalised groups in the volunteer base is to gain
new generations of volunteers and to make sure that there is a sound diversity of volunteers
reflecting the communities the organisation works with. A diverse volunteer base has the
potential to better understand problems of marginalised people and to act upon them.
Example: The HIV awareness raising programme implemented by a local RC branch in
Serbia included 20 Roma high school students trained in interactive teaching methods on
HIV transmission patterns and protection practices. After completing the training, the Roma
high school students trained other young Roma in Roma settlements.
Example: The Bulgarian RC has a programme targeting juvenile delinquents in local
institutions aimed at influencing their integration into society after leaving the institution.
The programme is structured as a peer to peer project.
Pitfall: Heavy tasks and difficult problems delegated to inexperienced young volunteers
unable to cope with them.
Recommendation: Mentoring and supervision of work carried out by experienced associates
or staff members.
3.1.3 Providing Missing Services (Networking and Partnership)
RC assistance is complementary and auxiliary to the work of the government and whenever
possible, focuses on cooperation and partnership with governmental institutions, non-
governmental organisations and the private sector. Networking and partnerships serve to
support the RC in bridging the gaps that exist due to missing or insufficient services.
Moreover, a joint effort allows organisations and institutions to share resources, information
and expertise, thus contributing to social learning, adoption of new technologies,
development of new services, as well as rapid responses to changes in the social
environment.
Marginalised groups are a part of a complex situation that requires a long term commitment
and considerable resources that no single organisation can provide. The RC applies several
strategies when providing missing services:
1.Creating partnerships with institutions enabling a multidisciplinary approach to the
problems of marginalised groups.
2.Engaging external associates employed in local institutions (health or welfare) as
programme coordinators or supervisors
3.Creating partnerships with similar organisations as counter partners working on
programmes of joint interest

17. 17/50
4.Sharing roles and components of programme with local institutions, assuring better quality
of services and sustaining resources
5.Engaging organisations specialised for particular services
6.Implementing programmes with state institutions where marginalised people receive more
comprehensive services
7.Creating partnerships enabling own development and fundraising opportunities
8.Establishing networking with partners assuring social learning and awareness-raising and
knowledge-transfer to work with marginalised groups.
9.Practicing case-work on strengths and weaknesses of programmes to evaluate networking
practice.
It is difficult to give practical examples that are illustrative of each strategy. However, the
following are helpful:
Example: More than 30 local branches in Serbia and in Montenegro implement the Open
Roma Kindergarten project using the official curriculum for kindergarten and preschool
created by the Ministry of Education. The Roma Open Kindergarten is implemented in close
cooperation with government institutions and other stakeholders such as local schools,
municipal authorities, UNICEF, UNHCR, Roma organisations etc. The project provides
vulnerable Roma children and other vulnerable children in the local area with access to
kindergarten and preschool. Due to costs, geography, discrimination and lack of interest the
children would not have otherwise attended public kindergartens or preschool. The RC is
facilitating the children’s access to the public school system by preparing the children to
meet the challenges of elementary school.
The benefits are: children receive comprehensive service in education, health and remedial
care, provision of hot meals/ healthy snacks, recreational activities, and whole day stay. In
addition to the official curriculum the children are intellectually/socially stimulated in
accordance with their age as well as their cultural and social background.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina the RC collaborated with a NGO specialised in mine
awareness-raising and protection when and where the local specificities demand it.
Pitfalls: Competition between organisations and institutions; an unequal share of
responsibilities between partners.
Recommendation: All of the partners as well as the cooperating institutions and
organisations should identify a common interest for cooperation and partnership.
3.1.4 Improving Service Quality (Institutional Development)
In light of initiatives such as the Decade of Roma Inclusion and EU accession incentives, the
inclusion of marginalised groups is becoming a priority for governments. However, many
governments discover a lack of capacity to respond to needs due to a decline in the capacity
of health, education, social and other services; the absence of common property and the
deterioration of local economies, etc.
In addition, local communities may lack appropriate technologies and knowledge on how to
include marginalised groups, that is, how to implement corresponding governmental policies.
The RC response to such a situation in many communities may be summarised as:
a) The RC is indirectly involved, providing or assuring missing social structures for
marginalised groups

18. 18/50
b) The RC is directly establishing new services and improving the quality of existing
services.
c) The RC is transferring appropriate technologies and knowledge to deal with issues
related to marginalised groups.
a) Providing Missing Structures
During the Balkans conflict, there was a massive influx of refugees and internally displaced
people in all of the newly formed countries and general socio-economic deterioration. Many
communities were overwhelmed by the needs and faced a lack of material resources and
institutional capacity. Many communities turned to the RC for help. The RC assisted
vulnerable individuals and families, as well as institutions and whole communities under
stress. Apart from its traditional role in relief and food distribution, the RC provided missing
structures by:
a) Building facilities to serve for education, health and care or as common property
b) Building or installing facilities serving as community centres: for elderly, children
(kindergartens), thus providing new resources for communities to cope with social problems
c) Strengthening the capacity of local branches in order to reconstruct existing
buildings or build new ones, to serve the local vulnerable population.
Example: When the crisis broke out in Serbia, the Roma population was heavily struck by
the effects and many people lost their jobs, their livelihoods deteriorated, and some of them
turned to begging in the streets. One local RC branch began assisting vulnerable Roma with
various hygiene and food commodities. Soon the branch realised something more had to be
done to get the children out of the streets, to feed them and get them warm, as well as to
provide them with basic education. The branch relied on its own human resources and a
kindergarten was organised at branch premises. In 2002, the branch participated in the PCD
programme. The result was the placement of a building inside one of the Roma settlement to
serve as kindergarten and to provide educational opportunities for even more children.
Example: In Montenegro, the RC built educational premises in a camp for internally
displaced people. The premises were then offered and put at the disposal of the local school
to use as classrooms for the children in the camp. In fact, the school now has a separate
branch (a classroom) in the camp, functioning completely along the lines of the proper school
curriculum.
Pitfall: In its auxiliary role the RC sometimes replaces institutional services.
Recommendation: Reminding ourselves about the basic principles and the RC mandate can
give us better understanding of our own position and role in such circumstances.
b) Establishing New Services and Improving Quality
Vulnerable and marginalised populations have particular needs and require special services
that might be missing. The RC has, in our examples brought some of the missing services to
communities.
Example: A local RC branch in Serbia runs its own restaurant and caters for soup kitchens
and local companies. A part of the profits is used to provide meals for pensioners with low

19. 19/50
incomes. The meals are served at 50% of production price. A part of the profit finances 40%
of the total costs of the branch’s Open Roma Kindergarten project.
Some projects originally implemented by the RC are later on mainstreamed as government-
led programmes.
Example: The Soup Kitchen programme was originally implemented in Serbia and
Montenegro as a response to the adverse situation when about 13% of the total population
depended on relief assistance. Later on the programme changed and became a government-
led programme for people with income lower than the official minimum. Some municipal RC
branches remain partners with the municipal Social Welfare Centre offices with a
discretional right to apply RC eligibility criteria for inclusion in the programme.
The RC has contributed significantly in improving both the quantity and the quality of social
services in the communities. The most advanced work is done with children in Open Roma
Kindergarten. Children are particularly vulnerable due to their age and each improvement is
valuable:
1.New possibilities for all children interested in education (especially Roma.)
2.Provision of basic necessities such as shoes, clothes, hygiene and other items for children
coming from poor families help motivate them to go to school
3.Organising inclusive activities such as various public events (excursions, visiting libraries
and cinemas, theatre, the local school) stimulates the children’s development
4.Influencing the motivation, responsiveness and competence of parents.
However, to preserve quality, preconditions with regards to appropriate resources need to be
met:
1.Some local RC branches have developed income-generating projects such as producing
food, providing catering, running printing shops, bakeries, internet cafés, providing
commercial first aid etc
2.Some branches are very active in fundraising activities, actively looking for funding
opportunities
3.Some branches have entered resource sharing arrangements with partners.
Example: Quality improvement is visible in the RC of Montenegro’s programme for
displaced people. In cooperation with a PNS a proposal for funding was submitted and
approved by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR). The proposal included
refurbishment of RC premises used by Open Roma Kindergartens and preschools. The
refurbishment, partly funded by the RC of Montenegro’s own contribution and by the
European Agency for Reconstruction, included solid material, installation of water and
sanitation facilities, acquisition of appropriate furniture and teaching accessories as well as
proper heating, all in order to meet the necessary standards for educational space.
Pitfall: Starting developmental activities without properly secured funds.
Recommendation: Reasonable balance between needs and community ability to secure
resources to develop new services, or improve and maintain quality of services.

20. 20/50
c) Transfer of Knowledge and Social Technology
The RC movement represents a worldwide network that facilitates transfer of knowledge and
experiences. Thus, many branches are serving as providers of knowledge to local
communities.
Example: The majority of projects that target marginalised groups are supported through
bilateral or multilateral cooperation agreements with the Federation and/or PNS. These
cooperation agreements assure funding and facilitate transfer of knowledge and skills. For
example, the PCD tool was mainstreamed in many communities, enabling local RC branches
to fill the methodological gaps in project management, in needs assessment, planning, social
mobilisation, advocacy and so on. PCD contributed to a better understanding of the problems
affecting marginalised groups.
The transfer of knowledge and skills also includes the transfer of experiences/good practices.
The problems affecting marginalised groups are complex and have a myriad of aspects such
as poor housing, lack of education, poor access to public utilities, health and social services,
employment and many others. The situation has to be approached in a holistic way. In this
respect, it is important to bear the following in mind:
1.Marginalised people are often disappointed, angry and mistrusting due to the treatment they
often receive when asking for assistance
2.Marginalised people often feel discouraged by requirements or procedures which are
complicated
3.Marginalised people are self-oriented and not aware of the needs of others
4.Marginalised people live in remote areas with no services.
Communities can also be advised to start up new activities, such as:
1.Health-promotion activities
2.Health screenings
3.Family education on reproductive health and planning
4.Vocational training
5.Income generating activities etc.
However, merely providing useful information and advice does not constitute proper transfer.
Some activities are indeed appropriate in one setting but not useful in another. A holistic
approach means being aware of the present situation, and of the context of the marginalised
group in question.
Experience shows that an appropriate transfer of knowledge provides insights for
establishing similar practice. Here are some basic guidelines:
3.1.5 Practical Guidelines for Working with Marginalised Groups
Basic knowledge of the following has shown to be valuable when working with marginalised
people and increasing their visibility in society:
1.The environment where they live, their values and traditions
2.Local organisation, leaders, religion and inner boundaries
3.Communication methods and channels.

21. 21/50
To assure the participation of marginalised people in a programme, the programme must
include:
1.Participatory activities
2.The presence of marginalised people in programme (team) staff structures
3.Adequate promotion of marginalised people in the community.
To establish supportive networks with other organisations it is necessary to:
1.Know who the motivated partners are - formal (institutions) or informal (associations)
2.Know the scope of partners’ activities in order to plan and avoid overlaps
3.Undertake joint community development work.
To share experience and knowledge about successful practices and obstacles the following is
needed:
1.An explanation of the origin of the resources available
2.Social skills - values and roles applied in planning and implementation phases
3.An explanation of choices made by analysing the situation and design of the activities -
programme tasks, available tools and skills chosen.
Many elements highlight communication skills as an important requirement for many aspects
and phases in working with marginalised groups. Communication skills will be covered in
more detail in the next section.
3.2 Communication
This section focuses on: organisational and practical guidelines, communication strategies,
communication approaches, and advocacy.
During the crises of the 1990s, the RC role became exceptionally visible and was very much
appreciated. At both national and community level, the RC consistently pursued its mission
and humanitarian mandate to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be
found, by mobilizing the power of humanity to improve the situation of the most vulnerable.
It has shown that once armed conflict stopped in the countries of the former Yugoslavia,
recovery of some groups or entire communities was especially stalled by many barriers,
leading to prolonged humanitarian crises. Some still last today.
Attention was thus drawn to the factors that cause prolonged humanitarian crises and to the
development of those groups and communities most affected. Among those, Roma are of
particular interest.
Identified factors were deterioration of social services and other community functions,
exposure to poverty and exclusion, collapse of social values and general communication
breakdown. In light of these factors, marginalized groups were identified as the most
vulnerable.
While the RC/RC mandate and position is clear during evident emergencies, in the case of
less visible emergencies, the situation is much more delicate, giving rise to many
organizational challenges.
3.2.1 Organisational Guidelines for Working with Marginalised Groups
The role of the RC is to alleviate the suffering of marginalised groups.

22. 22/50
Example: In the countries of the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere there are examples of
National Societies treating the question of programmes for vulnerable Roma as a very
delicate issue. Dealing with minority issues drew comparison with recent upheavals and
secessions, so it was not clear how work with Roma would impact the RC image in these
societies.
Pitfall: When a marginalised group belongs to an ethnic group support from the RC might
lead to misconceptions and political implications.
Recommendation: The RC has always worked with the most vulnerable groups - vulnerable
Roma have been included as refugees, displaced people, TB patients etc. Try to avoid
negative affection about working with some groups only.
The challenges of organising marginalised groups that have had a certain lifestyle for
decades.
Example: One day no children appeared at the local RC branch kindergarten in Paracin,
Serbia. The staff made a visit to the field to check the reasons. It turned out that the local
Roma association had distributed information that the RC had retained a major part of funds
given by donors on behalf of the target population. To mend this damage, the local branch
organized a meeting with beneficiaries and explained in detail the way the branch
communicates with donors, what its obligations are, and revealed information about
considerable investments of its own money to provide the desired level of services. The next
day the children were back in the kindergarten.
Example: At a PRA training session in Bancu Roma community, Roma men sat apart from
Roma women and it was impossible for me to form mixed groups during the first part of the
training. I suddenly remembered that we had sent their children out to play in the yard with a
volunteer, so I invited them back into the room. Groups were formed in moments, the ice was
broken, and although the children went back out to play, there was no longer a problem in
forming mixed groups during the training session.
Pitfall: It is possible to get disoriented by prejudices about the lack of possibility to change
that exist on all sides.
Recommendation: Focus on establishing or restoring communication between sides.
To establish a dialogue between parties respecting new political initiatives in advocating for
marginalised people.
Pitfall: Getting involved in political activities far from the RC mandate.
Recommendation: The concepts of vulnerability and humanitarian assistance are changing
with time. This change is a matter of public communication. The RC should continue to
focus on the most vulnerable.

23. 23/50
3.3 Communication Strategies
This section provides experiences from work using different communication strategies in
relation to marginalised groups and Roma.
3.3.1 Practical Guidelines for Communication Strategies
Establishing Communication through Home Visits
Many marginalised people ask themselves whether to trust outsiders. Words are just tools of
communication and acts and gestures performed at the beneficiaries’ home influence and
define personal relations, creating trust or mistrust. Home visits provide space for
communication:
• When a beneficiary comes to the office, communication topics are directed more towards
solving practical matters such as food and clothing, in other words, relief.
• If education and the protection of children are the topics to be discussed, such issues are
much better discussed at home.
Example: When a child is absent from the Open Roma kindergarten for a few days, RC staff
practices paying a home visit to inquire about the reasons. This expresses continued concern.
To the child it communicates the message: regular attendance is important - you are
important. Parents receive a similar message.
Pitfall: Wrong interpretation on the side of marginalised persons as being over-important or
more important than other vulnerable groups.
Recommendation: Meaningful balance between the everyday realities of marginalised
people and programme intentions.
It Is Crucial to Keep One’s Word.
To become someone the beneficiary dares to trust this is an important principle to follow.
Many RC staff has experienced being divine creatures in one moment and the worst enemy
the next. This is linked to the frequent mistake of making promises to beneficiaries that are
hard to keep at a later stage due to circumstances. This leads to the professional being
expelled from the process he/she should guide and mediate.
Example: At the very beginning of working with Roma one of the beneficiaries said: “We
are like that: you can do a hundred useful things for us, but if you promise and fail once - you
have failed for good!”
Pitfall: To be arrogant and accept flattery from beneficiaries, making promises, frequently
breaking professional confidentiality and finally losing sight of one’s role in the programme.
Recommendation: Respect professionalism, differentiate between work and friendship, and
avoid making promises you might not be able to keep at a later stage.

24. 24/50
Define the Objective of Communication.
In communication your role always contains certain aspects of power and authority. This
means that you have set an objective you want to achieve. It is wise to be aware of this
particular responsibility.
Example: We still have in mind an example of an expatriate working with Roma, a good-
natured person, who Roma often called “King.” Looking from the outside this looked as an
expression of great respect, but it was always accompanied by attempts to disrespect her
limits and question/bargain with her authority.
Pitfall: It is easy to get lost in communication if you have conflicting intentions and do not
know the realistic limits of your position. This is frequently accompanied with mistakes from
the previous example.
Recommendation: Define one single topic of communication. If it is about understanding,
keep to it, having in mind that even the capacity for understanding among discussion
participants has its limits.
Sometimes the Best Way to Act Is to Listen Carefully
People can become hostile, cry, or insult the humanitarian worker either intentionally or for
seemingly no reason when they are frustrated. However, this may be a test of patience even
though it looks like something completely different. In most cases, it is enough to listen
carefully until the storm has subsided. Many humanitarian workers were rather stunned to
hear the beneficiary thank them once they had taken the time to listen.
Example: Even today, many years since the end of the program, Roma invite RC staff to
their settlements. When told that we can not do much anymore, they answer by saying:
“Come to share some talk!”
Pitfall: Active listening is frequently recommended as main method, but it can become self-
indulgent and in the end accomplish nothing.
Recommendation: In the middle of the process it makes sense only if accompanied with
action.
Horizontal-Level Communication Proves Useful for Equality in Relations
Respect of human values and rights is demonstrated through freedom of speech and
expression. This kind of openness is traditional in the RC Movement. RC staff and
beneficiaries communicate face-to-face.
Example: People, particularly Roma, were quite reluctant when called by the RC to clean the
areas around the kindergarten, playgrounds and such. At the same time, many Roma are
employed in communal companies as street cleaners. However, beneficiaries consider such
work as degrading when asked by the RC staff to participate. Generally, many of them, when
asked, interpreted this as: Roma are proud and their dignity is put in question by this.

25. 25/50
Pitfall: To replace equality (in communication) with taking over the duties (cleaning).
There are many differences: in general culture, lifestyle, religious orientation. Both sides
have prejudices that can jeopardize relations and communication.
Recommendation: Each side has its own duties and roles, and differences should be
discussed openly without anyone feeling insulted.
Sensitivity of this kind is probably normal and can be seen as an effect of previous
degradation and discriminatory practice. However, RC workers are usually perceived as
different, and their chance to relate has not been spoilt by disappointment as with others.
Well-Guided Communication
Communication that is well guided should gradually lead beneficiaries from simpler and
more pleasant tasks to more demanding activities. A lack of knowledge and skills can be an
enormous barrier in the beneficiaries’ view of how they can contribute to the program, thus it
is important to strengthen their self-confidence gradually. Being too pushy in trying to make
beneficiaries learn a lot and fill huge gaps in their knowledge is not useful. If pushed they
will probably experience failure and quit everything.
A lot of communication occurs through some form of teaching. To preserve clarity and to
ensure understanding and patience among Roma, a practitioner from Romania makes useful
work breaks by calling “let’s dance!”
Balanced communication adapted to participants’ abilities increases motivation and makes
exchange natural. The same practitioner from Romania illustrates this principle with the
following interesting example:
Example: Two Roma are having a conversation at the market: “My nephew is a member of
the RC. He is an important person there (volunteer). Are you a RC member? They are doing
some good things there!”
Pitfalls: Unclear topics and methods lead to a loss of interest.
Recommendation: Whenever possible, use visualization as a means of explaining and
communicating (this is an educational necessity when the marginalized group consists of
illiterate people).
Involvement of Marginalised People
The involvement of marginalised people is a way of developing understanding and
communication with marginalized people. Hardships faced by the deprived and the
marginalized are often beyond the comprehension of those living in relatively normal
conditions. However, this does not mean that communication cannot take place, or that only
marginalized people can talk with other marginalized people. This is more of a stereotype.
However, for the long-term development of a particular community, involving a
representative of the (marginalized) community in the program can contribute substantially.

26. 26/50
Some Roma prefer to communicate with non-Roma, as they feel that other Roma are blind to
certain things they express, due to their shared background. Bearing this in mind,
preparations for VCA assessments within PCD projects should last longer (the period now is
one month).
Pitfall: Some marginalized people involved in team activities advocate solely for specific,
related groups, and violate confidentiality by revealing the personal information and opinions
of others.
Recommendation: Before moving to do local field work, representatives should spend a
period of few months planning and preparing, thus becoming integrated into the team and
adopting its values.
Avoid “Triangulation” of Roles
When working with Roma and other marginalised groups, experience demonstrates that it is
useful to avoid triangulation between the practitioner and the family member. Roma families
have a certain, long-established balance of roles with a strong sense of obligation towards the
family. Usually, programs empower one side more, disrupting this balance. Members outside
the scope of such activities sometimes suffer existential fears.
Example: A child is taken to kindergarten and the mother may fear losing her position in the
household as a result of being “pushed out” from her role. Education provides a child with a
better life perspective, while parents are not involved in this concept of the future. This can
lead to fears about being left alone with no one to take care of them in old age.
Pitfall: Such observations can provoke resistance and undermine a good programme.
Recommendation: Long-term programmes aim to empower all family members - education
and employment for parents/adults, and home care for the elderly etc.
Prove that Change Is Possible!
Discouraged by previous failures due to a lack of skills and knowledge, beneficiaries are
prone to becoming passive and isolated. RC staff must therefore continuously point out that
change is possible. Success motivates best!
Example: The Open Roma Kindergarten project is spreading this message through Roma
assistants working for the project. These are frequently younger people still studying
themselves, proving the benefits of education. Parents are also regularly informed about their
children’s progress through events where children demonstrate what they have learned.
Pitfall: Parents can see educational success “rapid advance” leading them to end their
children’s education prematurely.
Recommendation: Sometimes a paradox helps, as in expressing respect even for such
decisions, demonstrating respect for differences you can neither understand nor change.

27. 27/50
Sometimes You Have to Look for Alternative Solutions
The local RC branch in Paraćin made an agreement with local police force to take children
caught begging in the streets to the RC kindergarten instead of to the police station. They
would then inform the parents where to find their children. Parents would find their children
clean, fed and studying. Parents could no longer argue that begging is the only option: “If I
want to feed my child I have to send him/her to the street to make money!”
Pitfall: Paradoxically parents might use the same method (begging) to achieve the same goal:
children being fed (only in the RC now, instead of in the streets.)
Recommendation: Do not make this kind of practice a regular method
Be Realistic About Expected Outcomes
If only one person succeeds in change, this is still an important achievement that can serve as
a future example for many others.
Example: In inheriting poverty from previous generations, beneficiaries have also inherited a
system of values - ways of living and thinking. Individuals rarely have the opportunity to
learn themselves that things may be achieved in different ways, for example that education
may bring better quality of life. A more widespread way of thinking is “my father failed, I
failed, and my child will surely fail.”
Pitfall: Professionals lowering criteria and gradually losing motivation.
Recommendation: Employ people from marginalised groups; gradually give them more
responsibilities, demonstrating change.
Each Request for Relief or Commodities Should Be Assessed Carefully
Somehow, the usual RC practice in relation to requests for relief and commodities is an
automatic positive response. Although, constant requests may have elements of “relief
abonnement”, it is good to make a distinction between these attempts and the economic
reality of a family. Many poor families are ashamed to send their children out of the house
unwashed and without proper clothes or footwear.
Example: In Paraćin RC local branch, some parents demanded relief donations in exchange
for their child’s attendance at kindergarten. The local branch made a rule of rewarding
parents whose children were regularly coming to the kindergarten with relief parcels. The
door remained open for less cooperative parents, giving them a chance to change their mind.
Pitfall: “Relief partnerships” rarely end in constructive relationships and result in unrealistic
expectations.
Recommendation: In addition to following the usual relief criteria, it is useful to define
some limitations.

28. 28/50
Developing Trust and Understanding to Overcome Differences
Example: The Montenegro RC is UNHCR’s executive partner in the country, responsible for
managing IDP camps Konik I and II near Podgorica. They have a unique approach in
entrusting some camp inhabitants with special duties. Some women are hired to act as
assistants to the teachers in camp kindergartens and schools. Their role is to facilitate
communication with children who do not speak Serbian. Some beneficiaries take care of the
warehouse, common premises and so on. This practice develops trust and understanding, and
spans borders between the “two sides.”
Developing Responsibility and Fulfilling Obligations Is the Final Goal
Parents’ responsibilities are taking a child to a medical check-up, applying for identity card
and self organizing in each important aspect of individual and family life. This is the
expected result of gradual training in communication and in basic social relations that the RC
influences through programs for the marginalised. This is the essence of the inclusion
process.
Example: The case of one Roma mother is quite illustrative - when her child had to enrol in
school, she had an interview with a psychologist. The mother did not know the answers to
simple questions such as: What is your child’s favourite colour, animal, etc., or what does
your child usually dream about? The mother, annoyed with the questions said: “I do not
know which songs, flowers, animals or dreams my child has. I simply let her play in front of
the house!”
3.4 Approaches in Communication
Communication strategies with the marginalised are developed through practice when trying
to reach operational goals. Many groups and subgroups are part of this complex interaction:
• Beneficiaries, where actually there are two groups: adults and children switching roles as
direct and indirect service users;
• Different level of governance: Republican and local, with different responsibilities and
levels of influence;
• All kinds of media;
• Partners/ institutions;
• NGOs, domestic and international, working with the marginalised population
• Others, general public, that is, owners of ‘public opinion’
Each group requires an appropriate approach and an adequate message. Sometimes it is
exhausting to have to adapt to each individual group, going beyond reasonable limits. The
RC movement has universal messages related to humanitarian values: mission and vision.
While this should be clear in general society, different emphasis and directions are required
when working with direct beneficiaries.
Example: Sometimes it can be difficult to convince RC staff and board members that change
is possible when working with marginalised groups.
Example: When children did not show up in Paracin Local branch kindergarten one day, it
was due to gossip spread by a local Roma association about the RC using funding for its own
purposes.

29. 29/50
These examples illustrate the opposite standpoints of different groups, where proper
communication can resolve the situation. Each strategy carries its own message. Not every
strategy gives results even with the same group. For example, the following strategies have
proven to be valid:
Communication with Service Users (Direct/Indirect Beneficiaries)
When communicating efficiently with service users (direct/indirect beneficiaries) it is useful
to:
• Make home visits
• Listen carefully
• Define the objective of communication
• Keep your word
Example: In 2002, the Serbia and Montenegro RC society together with the Federation
delegation prepared a questionnaire for local branches to find out about local vulnerabilities
to redesign the programmes. Identified groups were elderly people, Roma children, disabled
people, handicapped children, and Refugees/IDPs in collective centres.
Whatever the group you are communicating with, some things remain the same; it is always
about the setting, defining which communication strategy or approach you are going to
choose. The setting not only refers to where you are communicating (which is something you
should always be aware of), but it also refers to how you communicate in general to achieve
the goals you have set. We consider the following general practice guidelines useful:

30. 30/50
General Guidelines in Communication
Explore vulnerability among marginalised. Solid facts based on VCA assessments were
used to justify projects, externally and internally, proving that these are implemented in line
with RC/RC mission and humanitarian values.
Be aware of the setting where communication is taking place. This may be located in
unhygienic settlements, a collective centre, or at home. The setting strongly defines the kind
of understanding and the message transmitted/received).
Be aware of the nature of the group (or the individual/ member of the group) and what
you want to achieve in communication. With direct/indirect beneficiaries, your goal might
be defining which person will accept and support the services offered. With local governance
you might be looking for resources or associations to propose solutions. Or you may just
want to facilitate general support in any communication group.
Do not make judgments and comments about what you see. The culture of marginalised
people often has different concepts and contexts to mainstream culture.
Choose your topics carefully. Choose topics in a realistic manner so as not to confuse
anyone in the group: beneficiaries, authorities, media, partners etc, keeping different
perspectives and specific areas of knowledge in mind.
It is important to understand that each group is a partner in communication. Many local RC
branches and RC societies based their communication with stakeholders on explaining the
RC position, its mandate and adherence to Fundamental Principles, thus building a position
of “trusted intermediate.”
Good communication with each group is important not only for the success of the program,
but to progress in activities with local institutions, authorities or ministries. It can influence
the willingness to participate of those subjects hesitating to join the process.
3.5 Advocacy
This section focuses on advocacy in relation to marginalised groups and the RC.
Advocacy can be defined as pleading in support or speaking in favour of a person, cause or
policy. Advocacy is an integral part of the communication process with marginalised groups.
Generally, local RC branches and RC societies base their advocacy efforts on communication
strategies elaborated in the previous section: assuring support, communicating VCA findings,
demonstrating adherence to the Fundamental Principles, openness and consolidating a
position of “trusted intermediate,” acting across any political or cultural context.
Advocacy is a process implemented throughout several phases including creating clear
messages, forming alliances, evaluating and so on. However, in light of the best RC practices
in working with marginalised groups, what proved to be crucial in achieving advocacy goals
is the pre-advocacy phase.
That is, the RC assembles membership from various sections of society and therefore has
links with institutions, governmental bodies, companies, and other groups. This enables the

31. 31/50
dissemination of humanitarian values and messages across a broad range of targets. These
channels also ensure support for RC activities. The RC brings the issues of vulnerable groups
“to the table” establishing a social agenda that remains present in many structures of society.
The RC advocates through:
Informing about Vulnerability
Surprisingly, local authorities and institutions may be quite unaware of certain issues linked
to marginalised groups.
Example: A municipality in Belgrade decided to dismantle one illegal Roma settlement and
to resettle its inhabitants without being entirely aware of the consequences. This was
prevented by a letter sent by the RC explaining how many newborn babies and children are
present in the settlement, and how many school children will quit education as a consequence
of this act.
Thus, RC acts as a serious partner, having reliable and accurate data about the nature and
scope of vulnerability in the community (“vulnerability map”). The widespread RC network
constitutes a great advantage for its work in the area of advocacy.
When spreading information about vulnerability, the RC raises awareness about the interests
of many groups in different communities.
Example: Poor hygiene conditions in settlements are not only a threat for those living there,
but are a common point of interest as they may lead to epidemic outbreaks.
The Red Cross Is a Reliable Partner
The RC is a reliable partner for the implementation of policies with humanitarian aspects.
The services of the RC are there for all vulnerable groups and not only for members of a
single ethnic minority. Hence the RC is able to advocate with all stakeholders.
Example: Thanks to RC influence the mayor of Belgrade refers to the “Roma decade” and
children living in extreme poverty in almost every public speech he makes.
Example: Some RC local branches in Serbia and Montenegro established their Roma
kindergarten programmes before national action plans and regional initiatives for vulnerable
were delivered. Very soon they were able to present what they were doing in public. The
Montenegro RC society was recognized as a guarantor of sustainability in work with
marginalised groups after the influx of groups from Kosovo. It attracted the interest of: the
government, international NGOs, promoting opportunities for development. Thereafter, the
Montenegro RC society was recognized as the key stakeholder in the area of Roma education
which led to partnerships with the UNHCR and relevant governmental ministries.
Practical Guidelines on Advocacy
RC experience on working with advocacy at all levels show that RC societies and local
branches often use the following strategies:

32. 32/50
• Field visits with main stakeholders to understand problems and RC activities
• RC affirmation of common interests and the need for coordinated action
• RC promotion of stakeholder participation in needs assessment, data analysis, consensus
making and planning of activities in the community, as done through PCD
• Sharing success stories, motivating people to participate in something that works
• Inviting media, for example to interview children participating in RC activities such as
Roma Open Kindergarten and their parents to spread positive messages. Some branches
commission special TV releases on occasions such as anniversaries, beginning of new
projects, campaign and so on.
Example: One RC branch implementing Open Roma Kindergarten project had
disagreements with municipal representatives who refused to support the program. Their
argument was that the program would achieve nothing. The RC staff invited representatives
to see the kindergarten explaining the educational processes and the results achieved. As
representatives changed opinion completely, one of them was invited to participate in a
programme at a local radio station soon after the visit and he publicly agreed publicity to
fully support the kindergarten.
In summary, advocacy strongly contributes to the following:
• Development of RC structure (local and RC society level) in terms of new programs and
better relations with donors
• Dissemination of humanitarian messages and knowledge about RC activities
• Better positioning of the RC structure in changed social circumstances
At the same time, this level of advocacy is still not sufficient for:
• Greater involvement of marginalised people in the RC movement
• Establishing relations with local resources able and willing to provide services
• Establishing partnership with business and other associations in order to find local
solutions
• Discovering domestic leaders among the marginalised to support community strength
3.6 Relations with Beneficiaries
This section provides information on cultural differences that should be taken into account
when working with marginalised people.
Vulnerable Roma are a very heterogeneous group in many ways: there are matters of
language, religion, origin, customs, occupation and so on. A large part of this diversity can be
grouped as belonging to the culture of poverty (behaviour, the way these people express
themselves and their way of thinking).
An example from Bulgaria might help to illustrate the point.
Example: We were holding Participatory Rapid Appraisal training. The situation was in a
way funny. We had a mixed PCD team in the village in Varna region: Roma, Bulgarians and
another Roma subgroup (Kopanari, who seem to be considered as a lower caste by the others,
who call themselves Roma). While we were discussing the situation in the village during the
training, one participant, an elderly Bulgarian lady, started accusing Roma of having too
many children and not taking care of them and not sending them to school, teaching them to

33. 33/50
steal, and being responsible for their bad behaviour etc. A Roma girl felt insulted and
responded resulting in a mini dispute so we had to stop the meeting right there. During the
lunch break I asked our secretary to approach the Bulgarian lady directly and to tell her
politely that her comments were discriminatory and that she was generalising and insulting
others. Briefly the message to be conveyed was: “If you behave like this again you are out of
the team. We cannot accept any kind of mistreatment because we have our fundamental
principles to stick to. So either you respect them, or you leave.” The secretary talked to the
lady; she apologised, was really sorry and promised to be respectful. At the same time I
talked to the Roma girl, who felt very insulted and I apologised on behalf of the Bulgarian
lady. I asked the girl to be patient towards those Bulgarians who still have prejudices,
because there is no other way than to eliminate them in a good way, that is, being good to
people, doing good work, etc. We settled this issue and continued. All seemed to go well
until the next morning when another lady started doing just the same. We had to repeat the
procedure with our secretary. Then everything was fine. On the last day of the three day
training, during lunch, Roma members of the team started accusing Kopanari members, using
the same arguments the older Bulgarian women had made about Roma! I was amazed when
the Bulgarian ladies all stood up to protect the Kopanari people.
In the region of the former Yugoslavia the diversity of Roma is rather stunning. Almost every
part of former Yugoslavia has a dominant Roma group. The Roma migrated mostly due to
the wars or for economic reasons.
According to some studies, prior to 1990s there were some 19 different Roma groups
identified in former Yugoslavia. Some spoke the languages of the regions where they had
been living for a longer period, but some groups used a specific mixture of languages that
other Roma could not understand. The different groups usually keep distance from others to
the point that “mixed” marriages are forbidden (see Annex 5).
In Montenegro in camps Konik I and II for displaced people, Ashkealia and Egyptians
differentiate themselves from Roma. Ashkealia originate from Kosovo and Metohija and
speak Albanian. Egyptians speak Albanian, Serbian or Roma or a combination of the three of
them.
In social communication with marginalised people, particularly if they belong to a minority
ethnic group, the cultural differences should be taken into account. Inclusion tackles a system
of “secondary” relations with a broader social environment, thus assuring participation in
economic and social structures in the society. Failing to take such aspects into account when
planning social changes can lead to deeper isolation (self-isolation) and marginalisation. This
further marginalisation is then a consequence of bad planning and not of cultural differences.
It is very difficult to tackle these issues. Nevertheless, humanitarian and care workers should
know that deprived Roma have many characteristics in common with other groups living on
the edge of survival, in terms of behaviour and relationship patterns. For example, migratory
habits may be found among all deprived groups. Migration is most likely a result of distress
caused by insecurity or lack of means to reside in one place. The same can be said about
excessive passivity amongst vulnerable Roma and other marginalised groups.
3.7 Preparing for the Future
Some common tendencies arise from RC experience based on six years of work with
vulnerable Roma and other marginalised groups. However, it is too early to identify an ideal

34. 34/50
framework or model. Overall, the years of work in community development and with the
most vulnerable populations are useful in terms of extensive experience that surely is of an
advantage to the RC.
The best practices are already incorporated in RC society and branch strategies and plans
indicating the priorities of future work.
Practical Guidelines for the Future
While playing an active role in community development, the RC gained experience and
established the following:
• Good methodological base in terms of tools used for vulnerability assessment (use of
VCA)
• Reliable information base with regard to vulnerability.
• Resources of good practices and skills created through programmes (PCD, Roma Open
Kindergarten)
• Forum for marginalised groups not only to seek relief through, but also to participate in the
solution of their own problems as members of the RC.
Future community development work should:
• Further strengthen the structures among marginalised for them to become more self-reliant
and self sustained, mostly through education programmes
• Further disseminate RC experience with marginalised populations to partners
• Strengthen RC involvement in the process of advocacy on issues concerning marginalised
populations, at both local and national level. Achieve the position of trusted, respected
stakeholder in society
• Further examine and develop working methodologies with marginalised populations.
If the Federation and the ICRC from the region continue to cooperate well and develop good
practices with RC societies and participating national societies, this will lead to better
knowledge and information sharing in the future through channels that already exist.
Final Remarks
No matter how hard we try to describe work with marginalised people, there will always be
some elements missing. The situation seems to reflect the situation of vulnerable Roma and
other marginalised groups.
Roma culture speaks for itself mostly through emotions, colours and even smells. Anyone
who has spent time with Roma knows this. Trying to describe vulnerable Roma life or to
influence it, even in a so called “positive” way leaves you with the impression that you have
not understood anything. In this sense, examples, stories, even legends provide more material
about vulnerable Roma and other marginalised groups’ ways of living and more ideas on
how to proceed than any other kind of methodological analysis.
Some kind of jealousy or rivalry apparently forces Roma to discriminate each other in
different ways and this is hard to understand as an outsider. How can we explain that one
Roma group in Bosnia is called “white Roma” or “parna sirr” (white onion), despite their
skin being rather dark? Is it because they live largely in towns? Is it because they adapt to the

35. 35/50
structures of the “civilised” world better and avoiding mingling with Roma? Is this why they
are called “pharnavo” – blood brother, but never real brother?
A common insult for Roma of any group is “gurbet”. The name comes from Arabic and has
more than one meaning: absence from one’s place of birth; foreign country; being in a
foreign country. It indicates insult by considering someone homeless. These typical drifters
moved all the way through the former Yugoslavia, Romania and Albania, all over the
Balkans and probably across the whole of Europe.
These circumstances most certainly influenced Roma to develop another language, an
emotional language, covering differences in origin, occupation, religion, and allowing
communication and exchange. As outsiders we are not able to understand this language, we
try to rationalise in our intent to “communicate.”

36. 36/50
Annex 1 Terms of Reference
RC guidelines on vulnerable Roma and other marginalised groups in Europe
1. Background
The countries in Central and Southern Europe have undergone significant political and socio-
economic changes in the last two decades. As a result, many groups remain without the
necessary “safety net” provided by the state or established social networks. Rapid changes
and instability within society have increased the level of violence and discrimination towards
vulnerable and marginalised groups such as Roma, forced migrants and other minorities.
With its humanitarian mandate, the RC is well placed to address such issues of vulnerability
within society, both nationally and locally. Thus for several years the RC societies in Central
and Southern Europe, in cooperation with the Federation and their partner national societies,
have implemented projects targeting the vulnerable Roma minority.
The process of producing RC guidelines on vulnerable Roma and other marginalised groups
in Europe was initiated during network meetings held in Belgrade April 2005 and in June
2006 with participants from the Federation and RC society representatives. The work with
the guidelines will be followed up by another meeting when a draft of the guidelines is ready
in September 2006, enabling the partners involved to give comments before a final “live”
version is developed. Furthermore on a political level there is possibility to present the
guidelines and a parallel-developed Point of View Paper on work with Roma at the Europe
Conference 2007 in connection with the migration theme scheduled to be explored there.
Introduction
A two-person team from the Federation’s roster of experts will, over a period of two months,
provide a set of guidelines as broad support to further strengthen the Federation’s work with
Roma. The team will contribute with reflection, analysis, proposals and recommendations.
The Federation Regional Delegation Budapest together with the Country Delegation
Belgrade will make sure that the team’s work will proceed without hindrance and be finished
according to plan. This includes effective information and coordination support.
2. Objectives
The overall objective for the team is to produce guidelines to assist the RC societies in
approaching Roma issues and in developing programmes and initiatives with marginalised
groups, taking into consideration the Red Cross/Red Crescent’s role and capacities, best
practices and experiences as well as linking the work with the strategies of the Movement.
More specifically the guidelines should:
• Collect and document best practices of existing activities and capacities as well as those
related to the inclusion of the Roma minority in the Red Cross/Red Crescent;
• Assess the positioning of the Red Cross/Red Crescent in relation to Roma issues regarding
both national and international Roma strategies and initiatives

37. 37/50
• Give recommendations on how to
o work with Roma communities
o coordinate and cooperate in the field of assistance to vulnerable Roma within and outside
the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement
o to better position Red Cross/Red Crescent in relation to Roma strategies and initiatives
3. Scope of Work
The guidelines shall be comprised of but not necessarily be limited to:
1.Executive summary and main recommendations (4 pages)
2.Contextual analysis and root causes (max 5 pages)
Focus is on what may justify the work with Roma (primarily build on already existing
analysis e.g. from ICRC, the “Making Something Happen” report by Jim Henry, PCD tool
reports and UNDP, OSI, CoE, Roma Decade). This part will include:
A. Analysis of the relation between ongoing activities and the broader strategic context
regarding international and national Roma initiatives such as the Roma Decade and national
governments’ action plans
B. Analysis of Red Cross/Red Crescent work with Roma in relation to internal
strategies, e.g. Strategy 2010, RC society strategies, the Federation’s Global Agenda Goals
etc.
C. Analysis of the ongoing Roma activities in communities as well as approaches
applied in projects, crosscutting issues such as gender, integration (primarily Red Cross/Red
Crescent activities (PCD, Roma Kindergartens), but also activities carried out by other NGOs
and governmental organisations).
3.Approaches – that will work (max 3 pages)
4.Advocacy (max 3 pages)
D. What can be done? Concrete ideas
5.Bridging (max 3 pages)
E. with local communities, other programmes
6.Good Practices – pitfalls (max 20 pages)
Including governance level, national coordination and branch level
• Advocacy
• Sustainability examples
• Roles – coordination with local institutions/Red Cross – other stakeholders
• Reference to national “Roma Decade” plan
• Roma cultures “know the culture” : language, gender issue, clan/caste issue

38. 38/50
• How to target a wider audience – other communities, non-Roma – greater participation
• Access to resources/partnership models
• Empowerment of Roma – ownership question
• Monitoring – evaluation – impact, effects on communities, risk planning
• How to ensure Roma participation
• Staff, volunteers, recruitment process
7.At branch level “how to” and “how not to” sections (max 5 pages)
• find a person
• link with other programmes
• get attention of local authorities
8.Recommendations to the Red Cross/Red Crescent work on the following:
- Best practices for working with communities regarding marginalised groups as Roma,
inclusion and participation of Roma themselves in ongoing programmes as well as in the Red
Cross/Red Crescent Movement as such.
- The RC advocacy work on Roma in relation to ongoing activities and the broader strategic
context
- Suggested and analysed funding possibilities including international sources, governmental
and non-governmental sources.
- Suggested models for improving the coordination and cooperation of work with Roma,
both internally and externally, in order to use gained experiences and the multiplying effect
of having more partners in different countries working on Roma issues. Models should have
a realistic link to funding possibilities.
Annexes:
A. List of people met
B. Documents consulted
C. Terms of Reference
4. Target Group
The RC guidelines on vulnerable Roma and other marginalised groups in Europe is a
document targeting the following groups:
• Employees and volunteers of RC branches and
• Country programme coordinators (Health, Disaster Management).
A secondary, however important target group includes representatives of the governing
bodies of European RC society headquarters as well as donor representatives and
representatives of other organisations.
5. Method

39. 39/50
The task shall comprise of a) Review of reports and materials b) Number of meetings and
interviews (including international bodies, Roma communities and organisations to assess
funding and available resources) c) Introductory and debriefing meetings
a) Review of reports and material
Relevant documents will be reviewed. These include:
• Report by Jim Henry “Making Something Happen” 2006
• Evaluation of regional PCD programme from 2002
• Project documents (PCD projects, and Roma kindergarten projects);
• Reports and evaluations from projects
• Reports and evaluations from RC society PCD coordinators (to be requested directly from
the RC society coordinators)
• Danish RC desk study on Roma in Europe (finalised December 2004)
• Minutes from RC Roma network meeting April 2005 and June 2006
• Documents regarding the Roma decade, selected national government policies, e.g.
national Poverty Reduction Strategies, national Roma action plans, strategies of the RC
Movement, strategy 2010 etc.
• Federation guidelines on reports
b) Number of meetings and interviews
The consultants will be provided with a list of people to meet. However the list is a basic one
and the consultants are welcome to meet other relevant people.
It is advisable that the consultants develop a basic standard questionnaire for their interviews
and meetings. This could also include requesting the interviewed persons to recommend and
provide copies of relevant reports, evaluation and project documentation which might help
the consultants in their work.
For field visits it is crucial that the consultants meet and talk to both RC staff and
beneficiaries. The team will have to visit:
1. Two branches in Montenegro, Camp Konik and Niksic
2. 4-5 branches in Serbia presenting different models of working with Roma
(to be identified by Belgrade Federation delegation)
The number of days for field trip is 6-8 days.
Interviews with:
1. Phone interviews with two other RC societies from the region
2. Phone interviews with two other European RC societies
3. Phone interviews with Regional Delegation Budapest and Belgrade
Delegation staff involved in Roma programming
4. International bodies, Roma communities and organisations to assess funding
and available resources
c) Introductory and debriefing meetings