The local Caritas branches worked separately to go through the bureaucratic process of requesting refugee status for the asylum-seekers resettled in their diocese, and to manage the refugees’ monetary allowance, called “pocket money.”
Requests for refugee status go through the local police headquarters, and depend on their handling of the procedures, each on its own timeline. The pocket money amounts are determined by the particular diocese managing the project in its territory.
Both issues were particularly challenging for the relationship between hosts and beneficiaries, because it was hard to explain that the diocesan Caritas branches works independently from Caritas Italiana, and that each of the police headquarters is its own, independent entity. This was complicated by the fact that the refugees formed contacts with other immigrants from their countries of origin, who were not, however, Humanitarian Corridor beneficiaries.
One example of the complexity of the bureaucratic process, and its impact on integration, is the story of a family whose status request was lost by the police. The beneficiaries could not understand this problem because the Caritas social workers had not fully explained the complicated machinery of the Italian bureaucratic system, and because they felt that only the information coming from other people from their home country could be trusted, and their contacts in that community had received their documents without issue.
The father of the family commented:
The error was theirs. Therefore, they have to fix it in the time they said. It’s not possible that, after all this time, they still haven’t fixed the problem […] This is bureaucracy, and bureaucracy is everywhere. But before we came here, we were told that, within three months, three to five months, our documents would be in order […] We came here with expectations, and they have not been met.
The host family said:
I checked with the group in S. [place where the family was resettled]. We noticed that there are serious problems with the Italian public offices due entirely to bureaucratic issues. T. [refugee] is exasperated by these issues, which we Italians are used to […]. That’s a problem.
Concerning the economic side of hospitality, the protocol agreement that instituted the Humanitarian Corridors left full autonomy for local groups to decide whether or not to give an amount of money, called “pocket money,” directly to refugees for their daily expenses. For their part, from the very beginning of the program, the refugees made comparisons between the different Caritas branches concerning the amount of pocket money they were given and how it was supplied.
Comparing the viewpoints of the Caritas social worker and the beneficiary below helps us to appreciate just how difficult it was for the two groups to communicate about this issue:
100€ each could be a bit short. We raised it to 130€, so they have 130€ each per month […] On top of that, everything for personal hygiene is provided by the program, and all the cleaning supplies for the house […], as well as clothes and all that. If they need any kind of medicine […] or anything else they need, it gets evaluated. If there’s a request, it gets assessed together. I try to give you responsibility and understand together with you which things really are useful.
The refugee’s take was to say:
As far as the monthly budget is concerned, it wasn’t enough. But yesterday we talked, and clarified some things, and now they’re open to raising it.
Because beneficiaries in different dioceses passed information to one another, even Caritas branches that had decided not to provide pocket money had to do so. One Caritas social worker told this story:
The mother told us she was uncomfortable not having money, and when we would suggest she get out and leave the house, she would defend herself saying, “I don’t have money, and A. [the daughter] tells me ‘I want this, I want that.’” So, since she didn’t have any money, she would say “I’ll just stay home so I don’t have to tell my daughter that I have no money” […]. She asked us for pocket money, because she knew that others were receiving it. So she had heard this information, from whom we don’t know. We agreed […] on 100€ a week for food and whatever she might need for the house, not including medical appointments. And we asked her to give us the receipts from food shopping. She hardly gave us any.
