Ida Ismail
The economic assistance scheme, one of the state's main instruments for supporting families in need, is facing a well-known paradox in public administrations: the more the social need expands, the greater the difficulty in administering it correctly.
Checks carried out during 2025 identified 375 families that had benefited from economic assistance in violation of the legislation. The estimated financial damage amounts to over 8.2 million lek, while administrative measures have been proposed for 72 cases. The controls were carried out in 12 regions of the country and included 219 inspections during the year.
The figures are concentrated in some areas more than others. Shkodra bears the brunt of the recorded cases, with 190 families wrongly identified and around 4.67 million lek in economic damage. Elbasan ranks with 50 cases, while Dibra and Kukës with 42 cases each.
The highest number of inspections was carried out in Kukës during the year. In other regions, the pace of inspections was lower. Tirana and Lezha resulted without any cases of illegal profit being found during the inspections reported for 2025.
Beyond the national tables, the report also includes concrete cases from the field. In the Devoll Municipality, in the administrative units of Proger, Miras and Hoçisht, 43 socio-economic verifications were carried out. Some of the families checked resulted in average economic status, while in other cases, removal from the scheme was requested due to non-compliance with legal criteria. In some files, the descriptions of the family situation in the system resulted incomplete.
In the Maqellarë Administrative Unit, in Dibër, the controls included 53 verifications. For some families, an average economic situation was evidenced, while in other cases, removal from the scheme was requested. The documentation of the home visits is noted to be lacking, including partial or outdated descriptions.
The list of issues identified during the year includes failure to sign quarterly declarations by all adult family members, delays in socio-economic verifications, incorrectly completed forms, failure to declare changes in income, and provision of electricity compensation without the required documentation.
Beyond cases of unfair advantage, the report also highlights difficulties related to the administration of the scheme itself. In some regions, socio-economic verifications have been carried out late or partially, while application forms and home visits are not always updated according to the real situation of families.
In a system that relies heavily on the work of social administrators at the local level, the quality of documentation and accuracy of assessment remain crucial to how public funds are distributed. The report also includes cases where descriptions in the file were incomplete, general or repeated from previous audits.
At the same time, strong differences between regions and institutions emerge. Some areas have conducted a high volume of inspections and have identified dozens of problematic cases, while others appear to have not detected any violations during the year.
The report also mentions difficulties in cooperation between municipalities, administrative units and regional directorates, as well as a lack of social Services in some municipalities in the country. In addition to monthly payments, the scheme remains linked to a network of institutions that must verify, refer for employment and provide social support, making its functioning dependent not only on funds, but also on administrative capacity on the ground.
The scheme also remains linked to the labor market. During 2025, 1.569 people of active working age from beneficiary families were referred to employment offices. Of these, 409 were employed, while 214 were oriented towards vocational training. For people with disabilities, 177 were referred and 51 were employed.
The report offers a dual view of the economic assistance scheme: on the one hand, an instrument that supports thousands of families in need; on the other, an administration that continues to face uneven controls, procedural shortcomings and cases of unfair benefits./acqj.al
