Barriers to Aid: Why Anti-Poverty Measures Miss Many in Need
In Italy, persistent stigma around monetary benefits discourages people from speaking up. A commentary by Sara Ciconali (Caritas Ambrosiana)
A few days ago, IEP@BU and the European Commission’s DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL) co-organized an event at Bocconi University in Milan as part of the preparation of the EU’s first-ever anti-poverty strategy.
A distinctive feature of the event was the inclusion of people with lived experience of poverty, who shared their stories with scholars, policymakers, and students. Among them, Sara Cicconali of Caritas Ambrosiana offered first-hand insights into the practical barriers low-income households face in accessing anti-poverty measures such as the Assegno di inclusione (ADI).
In 2023, the Italian government led by Giorgia Meloni replaced the previous, near-universal Reddito di cittadinanza with ADI, a benefit targeted at specific categories of low-income households.
Below are Sara Cicconali’s remarks from the IEP@BU–European Commission event.
Good morning everyone, I’m Sara, working in the social policy area at Caritas Ambrosiana.
We regret to inform you that our witness, a person expert-by-experience, is unfortunately not with us today. She let us know just last night that she would not be able to attend this conference.
This woman, supported by our “listening centre” and the Siloe Service, met all the eligibility criteria for the Assegno di Inclusione (ADI), including an ISEE (below the threshold. However, her household income was slightly above the limit due to a modestly valued property inherited from a relative.
ISEE is Italy’s standard means-testing index used to determine eligibility and fees for many public benefits and services.
As a result, this woman was excluded from the ADI and currently receives no public support, despite living in poverty. She is a person with strong personal resources and great potential. Yet, due to the lack of public assistance, she still needs support from Caritas Ambrosiana.
Making her story visible is a meaningful and necessary task -but also a challenging one- especially because for people in such situations, sharing their experiences and claiming their rights is not always easy.
In Italy, stigma around receiving monetary benefits remains high, and this often discourages individuals from speaking out.
Many of the people we support in Caritas Ambrosiana are even more vulnerable and frail. They often require high levels of assistance and do not always have personal autonomy or resources.
For this reason, the pathway toward job placement and activation—as foreseen by the ADI—often proves unrealistic in the short term, due to these vulnerabilities and the lack of adequate public resources.
Below are some examples of critical issues encountered in recent months regarding access to the ADI:
1. We met a person from Varese with a 4-year permit as a family member of an Italian citizen, issued following a family reunification request. He seems still unable to access the benefit due to the type of permit.
2. In Milan and other cities of our Diocese, many individuals are not under the care of social services and lack the required “disadvantage certification,” despite facing severe housing emergencies, such as eviction.
To be included in the ADI system, they must be taken in charge by the municipality, not only by Third Sector organizations or Caritas Ambrosiana.
However, it is not always easy for public services to initiate this process with the specific aim of granting access to ADI, nor is it always easy for individuals to approach social services only for this purpose.
3. In Parabiago, months ago, a person who met all the requirements was unable to access services for months due to an incorrect disadvantage certification code entered by the ASST. The healthcare facility issued a code that the municipality deemed invalid. This is an example of a bureaucratic issue that is nearly impossible for the individual to resolve all alone.
4. In Paderno Dugnano, a person lost her official residence and experienced a period of deregistration from the municipal registry (anagrafe).
In such cases, it is not always easy for municipalities to recognize the person’s rights, particularly the right to access the ADI—even though this is provided for by law. Municipalities should validate documentation proving presence in Italy (work experiences, hospital, school…), but these procedures are often unclear or discretionary.
Not all municipalities carry out these updates, and there are also problems navigating the different digital platforms (GEPI, INPS, etc.) is not always straightforward.
5. In Milan, a person declared he was staying in a facility fully funded by public resources by submitting a document called ADI COM, as required by law. As a result, his application was suspended.
In reality, he was homeless and staying in a public shelter, and was not required to report it.
IEP@BU does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
