Documents | Cour des comptes

Download PDF, 3 MB
Publication page
Envoyer à un ami
Partager cette page sur Facebook
Partager cette page sur X
Partager cette page sur LinkedIn

PUBLIC ENTITIES AND POLICIES

SOCIAL HOUSING AND

THE CHALLENGE OF ACCESS

FOR LOW-INCOME AND

DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS

Thematic Public Report

Summary

March 2017

DISCLAIMER

This summary is intended to aid in understanding and using the

report prepared by the Cour des comptes.

Only the report is legally binding on the Cour des comptes.

Responses from government agencies and stakeholders are

provided at the end of the report.

Sommaire

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

A public policy evaluation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Observations in response to eight questions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Results of the evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Summary of area-based analyses

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

After more than a century of development, social housing now plays a vital role

in France: with 4.8 million units in 2016, it accounts for one in six households

and nearly half the total rental stock. The most recent housing census estimates

the amount of government aid earmarked for social housing at €17.5 billion in

2014, or 43% of all housing benefits: this amount breaks down into €8 billion in

assistance to dwellers and €9.5 billion in aid to social housing entities, mainly to

fund their construction programmes.

Against the backdrop of citizens’ high housing expectations and the central

government’s sustained, long-term action, the Cour des Comptes decided to

carry out an evaluation of public policy on social housing.

Pursuant to the law that sets out the objectives of this policy, “the construction,

development, allocation and management of social housing seek to improve the

living conditions of people with limited means or who are disadvantaged. These

actions participate in the implementation of the right to housing and contribute

to the much-needed social diversity of cities and neighbourhoods

”.

The scope of the Cour des Comptes’ evaluation therefore focused on analysing

social housing measures in light of the primary objective of this public policy:

access to social housing for low-income and disadvantaged populations.

This evaluation was conducted by an audit team made up of the Cour des

Comptes and the regional courts of audit of Nouvelle-Aquitaine, Auvergne-

Rhône-Alpes, Île-de-France and Pays de la Loire. This team based its approach

on the following evaluation questions:

To what extent is social housing able to house, within a reasonable time

frame, the different populations targeted by this policy?

To what extent does the supply of social housing meet the needs of these

populations?

What are the costs and impacts of the actions undertaken to remedy the

observed failures to adjust?

Are the different objectives of public policy on social housing compatible?

A public policy

evaluation

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

______________________

Article L. 411 of the Construction and Housing Code (CCH), based on the 29 July 1998

Framework Act on Measures to Combat Exclusion.

The Cour des Comptes’ report makes an evaluative judgment of these points after

reviewing eight questions, presented below, on how social housing operates.

The investigation led to the conduct of field surveys in six control areas

, an

online survey of all low-cost housing (habitation à loyer modéré, or HLM)

organisations, international comparisons and the compilation of unpublished

data through the direct use of national statistical databases. It received assistance

from an advisory committee made up of experts and leading stakeholders

involved in this policy.

______________________

Conurbation community of Cergy-Pontoise, Grenoble-Alpes metropolitan area, département

of Haute-Vienne, Nantes metropolitan area, Nice-Côte d’Azur metropolitan area, conurbation

community of the Valenciennes metropolitan area.

Observations in response

to eight questions

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

1- Who benefits from social

housing?

Social housing is effective

in improving the living conditions

of its occupants

Social housing has a very significant

impact on the living conditions of its

occupants,

particularly

areas

where the real estate market is tight.

Overall, it gives its occupants an

annual advantage, over market rents,

estimated at about €13 billion. This

advantage, which is attributable to

the government aid initially granted

when the social housing was built,

saves tenants about 40% on rent as a

national average, and 50% in Île-de-

France.

Access to social housing is increasing

for low-income and disadvantaged

households, though not everywhere

The conditions set by regulation for

access to social housing are not overly

stringent: 65.5% of the population is

below the means threshold set by

inter-ministerial order for access to the

largest category of social housing

(PLUS units – prêt locatif à usage social,

or low-income rental housing loans).

However, social housing is increasingly

focused on accommodating low-income

and disadvantaged households, except

in Île-de-France where it remains almost

equally divided among all income strata,

due as much to the impact of recent

allocations as to the lack of turnover

within the social housing stock.

Focus of social housing stock from 1973 to 2013

(breakdown of tenants by standard of living quartile)

Source: Cour des Comptes based on the 1973-2013 national

housing surveys (enquêtes nationales sur le logement, or ENL),

Insee 2016

Pressure indicator by income based on consumption unit for 2015

Source: Cour des Comptes, based on Ministry of Housing data (SNE (Système

national d’enregistrement des demandes de logement social, the national

registration system for social housing applications) at end-2015). The higher

the indicator, the lower the likelihood of obtaining social housing during the

year. Accordingly, for income per consumption unit of €1 to €499, the number

of applicants is more than five times higher than the number of allocations

during the year.

Observations in response

to eight questions

Social housing benefits only half of

households below the poverty line

Although the social housing stock

exceeds the total number of tenant

households below the poverty line

by one million units, social housing

benefits only half of this population.

The other half, housed in private

rental stock, does not receive specific

compensation despite much higher

rent levels: tenants in private housing

stock do not receive additional subsidies,

as the housing assistance calculation

is based on a rent ceiling roughly

equivalent to low-cost housing rents.

As a result, living conditions for poor and

low-income tenants are very different

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

depending on whether or not they have

access to low-cost housing. This disparity

is the main reason for demand for social

housing.

2 - How is social housing

allocated?

Allocations benefit households with

limited means, but help disadvantaged

populations to a lesser extent

While the system for allocating low-cost

housing is able to effectively target hou-

seholds with limited means and those in

priority categories, the most precarious

households face particular challenges:

the likelihood of quickly obtaining hou-

sing is lower for the lowest-income levels.

Observations in response

to eight questions

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

To better match available units to

applicant households (priority popula-

tions, in particular), the trend in quota

management is towards partnership

practices for allocating housing at the

conurbation level.

The very large volumes of applicants

cover a wide variety of situations

The waiting list of 1.9 million appli-

cants is equivalent to four years of

allocations as a national average and

eight years in Île-de-France. However,

it masks very disparate situations: it

includes 600,000 applications for

internal transfers within the social

housing stock; nearly 500,000 outs-

tanding applications are not resub-

mitted the following year.

Despite improvements, the allocation

procedure lacks efficiency

and transparency

Only half of low-cost housing organi-

sations report having formalized

procedures for screening applicants and

only one-fourth of such organisations

disclose them publicly.

As few applicants have the opportunity

to visit the units in advance, 30% of

households reject the housing they are

offered.

3 - Are the units offered consistent

with demand?

Due to real estate inertia, social

housing is unable to quickly adapt to

changing demand

Tight markets have only 53% of social

housing supply to address 73% of

social housing demand.

In addition, the size of the units is not

tailored to changing family models: it

is characterised by an insufficient

number of small units and by allocations

that are not appropriate to the needs

and result in under-occupation.

Lastly, the rents proposed tend to

increase on average due to the rising

price of new building deliveries, while

applicants’ incomes have steadily

decreased.

Social housing does not make

the poorest households

more financially sound

Social housing is accommodating a

growing share of households below

the poverty line, but up to a certain

limit. Even by drawing on the least

expensive housing units and taking

into account housing subsidies (

aide

personnalisée au logement

, or APL), it

is not possible to house households

whose means are less than 30% of

the median national income. These

households, which represent one in six

social housing applicants, need to rely

on supported housing programmes.

Observations in response

to eight questions

Source: Cour des Comptes, based on Ministry of Housing data (preliminary

data for 2016)

Housing funded since 2001

4 - Should even more low-cost

housing be built?

Social housing construction

is currently at an all-time high

New housing construction is a key

goal for stakeholders in social housing

policy, who generally refer to the

national target of 150,000 units per

year. Although this objective has not

been met, the number of new social

housing units is at an all-time high:

having exceeded 100,000 units per

year since 2009 (versus 60,000 in

2001 and 2002), it reached nearly

130,000 units in 2016.

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

The effort to build social housing

lacks focus

This effort is costly for public finances

(€7.8 billion in 2014) and is insufficiently

focused on small surface areas, tight

markets and, despite an improvement,

low-rent housing. The current level of

social

housing

construction

far

exceeds the volumes needed to

implement the obligations under the

SRU act (Loi relative à la solidarité et

au renouvellement urbains – Urban

Solidarity and Renewal Act) of 20% or

25% social housing depending on the

municipality, since only 60,000 more

units per year are needed to meet the

targets set in this act by 2025.

This lever should be compared with

a much more effective and less

costly lever that would result in

improved residential mobility

Only one household in six moves into

social housing through the delivery

of new construction; units become

available to the others when previous

occupants move out. The construction

of social housing is far from being the

most effective lever for offering

applicants more units: for a stock of

Observations in response

to eight questions

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

more than 4.8 million units, a mere

one-point improvement in the mobility

rate represents new supply equivalent

to the construction of 48,000 units

per year, with no cost to public

finances.

This raises the possibility that the

expectations of public policy on

social housing are overly focused on

construction targets. The situation

calls for a change in governance and

in its guidelines, with a greater

emphasis on more active management

of the existing stock.

5 - How can turnover in the social

housing stock be increased?

The slowdown in turnover

in the social housing stock

is cause for concern

On average, tenants spend 13 years in

social housing, compared with 7 years

in private housing. While tenant

mobility is the primary factor in

increasing the number of rental units

offered, few public policy instruments

seek to enhance it, and social housing

landlords

have

incentive

improve it.

The turnover rate in social housing is

currently 9.6%, with wide disparities

by area (6% in Île-de-France, 13% in

Franche-Comté). The decline in this

figure over the last 15 years is a worri-

some trend: between 2002 and 2013,

an 11-year-long construction effort

increased the social housing stock by

more than 600,000 units, and the

number of annual allocations still fell

by 70,000.

It is important to provide continuity

between social housing and private

housing to encourage occupants

to leave social housing

Moving households out of social

housing and into private housing

(whether through rentals or home

ownership) requires the real-estate

market to offer affordable housing,

which means making use of all housing

policy tools. However, the measures

that could incentivise tenants who

exceed the means thresholds to leave

social housing (supplément de loyer de

solidarité (solidarity rent supplement),

loss of right to security of tenure) are

infrequently applied.

In particular, for the solidarity rent

supplement to play a greater role, the

scale used would have to align rents –

for households with the greatest

means – with prices on the rental

market. Exemptions to implementation

of this measure would also have to be

strictly limited.

One possible solution could be to

create

short-term

leases,

which

would have the benefit of allowing

for a periodic review of household

circumstances:

about

10%

tenants currently exceed the means

thresholds, even though these are

set at a high level.

Observations in response

to eight questions

6 - How are rents set?

Rent regulations provide landlords

with financial security, with no bearing

on quality of service

At the very least, the highly-regulated

rent policy implemented in the social

housing stock protects the sector’s

economic model. However, it results in

a wide range of prices, a legacy of past

funding conditions for each transaction,

bearing no relation to the quality of

service received by the beneficiaries.

In addition, the stock is not sufficiently

focused on the lowest-income appli-

cants: the ceiling on the PLAI (

prêt

locatif aidé d'intégration

, subsidised

loan for low-rental housing for the

integration of low-income house-

holds), which applies to disadvantaged

households, is imposed by regulation

on only 4% of low-rent housing.

The rent policy is not perfectly attuned

to what tenants can afford

Housing subsidies – for the lowest

incomes – and the solidarity rent

supplement

–

for

the

highest

incomes – only change the income-

based payment for half of tenants.

The other half pays the same rent,

even though income can vary by as

much as 100%.

The rent policy is not consistent

with city planning objectives

The rent policy is not always consistent

with the aim of achieving a more

balanced social mix. It therefore

calls for new mechanisms for rent

equalisation

between

neighbou-

rhoods and between landlords within

conurbations.

7 - How can social housing

contribute to social diversity?

It is at the city and neighbourhood

level that social housing should

contribute to social diversity

Since 1998, social diversity in cities

and neighbourhoods has been, by

law, one of the objectives that social

housing must promote. This objective

has been implemented through the

Urban Solidarity and Renewal Act

(SRU) of 13 December 2000, which

requires that the largest municipalities

have at least 20% social housing,

subsequently rising, for most of

them, to 25% from 2013. The recent

law on equality and citizenship adds

new tools to this framework.

The regional workshops held during

the course of the Cour des Comptes’

evaluation showed that social housing

stakeholders often tend to supplement

the objective of diversity in cities and

neighbourhoods, which is the only one

specified by law, with one that they

have imposed on themselves of a mix

of occupants within the social housing

stock.

The difficulties are concentrated

in neighbourhoods with a high

percentage of social housing,

which represents one-fourth

of the social housing stock

There are no significant variations in

the characteristics of social housing

(socio-professional categories, household

types, etc.) between the national average

of the social housing stock and the

priority urban areas for urban policy.

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Observations in response

to eight questions

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

contrast, the percentage that

social housing represents is radically

different: 63% of residents of priority

urban areas live in social housing,

compared with 13% elsewhere. In

total, one-fourth of social housing

stock is located in priority urban areas

for urban policy.

The levers for action on social mix need

to be applied to all neighbourhoods

In priority urban areas for urban policy,

social housing’s dominant share gives

low-income housing organisations

specific responsibilities left over from

the past and in particular from the

construction

large

complexes.

Social housing policy alone cannot

address the difficulties of these neigh-

bourhoods,

whose

revitalisation

requires a comprehensive approach

adopted as part of urban policy. In this

regard, the guidelines aiming to limit

the concentration of social housing in

“sensitive urban zones” (

zones urbaines

sensibles

, or ZUS) have not yet been

adequately translated into action: only

43% of housing rebuilt by the

Agence

nationale pour la rénovation urbaine

(National Urban Renewal Agency, or

ANRU) is outside of priority urban

areas for urban policy.

At the same time, the fact that more

than three-fourths of social housing –

including 1.2 million low-rent units –

are located outside priority urban

areas for urban policy provides an

opportunity to ensure social diversity

across the country. This stock must,

however, be utilised efficiently to be

able to accommodate the populations

with the most limited means.

8 - Who should manage social

housing?

Social housing is governed by a complex

four-party system involving the central

government, local authorities, social

housing landlords and Action Logement.

Stakeholders are calling for more

place-based governance

Social housing policy is seen by its

stakeholders as highly centralised

and poorly suited to the diverse

characteristics and needs of the

regions. A clear consensus is emerging

among national and regional social

housing stakeholders in favour of

policy governance that is more closely

connected to local issues, at the different

population area levels (

bassins de vie

): in

this regard, these stakeholders stress

the relevance of the inter-municipal

level, represented by inter-municipal

authorities for cooperation between

local authorities (

établissements publics

de coopération intercommunale

, or EPCI).

The central government’s role may

evolve but it is still necessary

Few local stakeholders wish to assume

the central government’s responsibilities

for

housing

priority

populations.

However, the importance of national

rules in local management of social

housing policy could be limited: the

jurisdiction of the central government,

the guarantor of the social housing

regulatory framework and its imple-

mentation, could be better defined by

procedures for place-based contracting

between the central government and

all stakeholders.

Observations in response

to eight questions

Stakeholders must find ways

to improve cooperation

at the inter-municipal level

Although provided for in the texts,

regional implementation of the social

housing policy faces certain obstacles.

The first challenge is for municipalities

and conurbation communities to

coordinate the allocation of social

housing, which raises the sensitive issue

of municipal preference: significant

educational and collaborative work

needs to be done to overcome this

opposition.

The second challenge concerns the

organisation of social housing landlords

and Action Logement: 88% of the

stock of social housing landlords is not

currently subject to inter-landlord

coordination at the inter-municipal

level, and only recently has Action

Logement created a more place-based

organisation. Not all of the departmental

public housing offices (public low-cost

housing organisations) and social

housing

companies

(

entreprises

sociales de l’habitat

, which are private

corporations) are used to having an

active presence in the bodies established

by the inter-municipal authorities,

unlike the municipal public offices

whose affiliation at the inter-municipal

level was set out in the law of 7 August

2015 on the new organisation of the

Republic.

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Results of the evaluation

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

The Cour des Comptes’ findings ulti-

mately enabled it make the following

evaluative judgments

Public policy on social housing

does not allow all eligible

populations to be housed

within a reasonable time frame

Of the 10 million tenant households,

4.8 million are housed in the social

housing stock. Units are on average

more recent and more compliant

with technical standards than those

in the private rental stock, although

their environment is sometimes

less attractive. They are, first and

foremost, less expensive: the disparity

between low-cost housing rents and

market rents is estimated at 40%, or

an average of €240 per month.

Despite the breadth of this framework,

there are 1.9 million applicants on the

waiting

list

for

social

housing.

Access to social housing is lengthy

and complex, which means that, for

certain applicants, the time-frame

requirements will not be met.

Due to demand pressure and the

rules of priority, social housing has

increasingly focused on the lowest-

income households, except in Île-de-

France where it remains almost

evenly divided among all income

categories. But, nationwide, the social

housing stock only accommodates

half of tenant households living below

the poverty line, utilising just 40% of

its capacity for that segment.

Households with the highest levels

of housing insecurity face more

challenges accessing social housing

than the average. Lastly, social housing is

powerless to accommodate households

whose means do not total half the

poverty line and who tend to be covered

by supported housing programmes.

Inertia in the social housing

stock limits its ability to adapt

to changing needs

Social housing supply, designed to last

at least 40 years, is characterised by

its inertia and its failures to adjust to

shifts in employment, changes in the

family and the decrease in applicants’

incomes.

Tight markets therefore account for

73% of demand, but only 53% of the

annual social housing supply. The

ratio between pending applications

and annual allocations ranges from

less than 1 in Indre to 16 in Paris. In

contrast,

areas

with

declining

populations are faced with alarming

levels of social housing vacancies.

______________________

In the context of public policy evaluations, evaluative judgments refer to all conclusions drawn

and assessments made in response to the evaluation questions.

Results of the evaluation

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Social housing is not managed in

such a way as to promote mobility for

job-seekers. The long period of time

needed to reverse these disparities is

not adapted to the pace of economic

change. Even the Action Logement

collection bodies (collecteurs) have

little

ability to provide a 20-year

forecast of sources of employment,

which would be necessary to provide

a framework for developing local

housing plans.

Supply stasis also catching up to

occupancy stasis, as the allocation of

a social housing unit effectively gives

the

beneficiary

keys

“for

life”.

Measures seeking to prevent this lack

of mobility, in the event of a significant

increase in income, have proven

ineffective or insignificant.

The type of housing offered is also not

suited to the increase in demand,

which is focused on small T1 and T2

units (T1 and T2 are classifications

used in France to describe unit size),

due to the increase in living apart and

single-parent families. People living

alone represent 42% of demand, and

households with fewer than two

members

65%.

Île-de-France,

demand for T1 units represents

roughly 14 years of allocation.

Lastly, rents that are affordable to

applicants living below the PLAI

means threshold represent only 23%

of annual supply in Île-de-France and

28% in the other regions.

Social housing policy is overly

focused on new construction

and insufficiently focused

on active management

of the existing stock

Public policy on social housing is still

largely

centred

construction

objectives, with ambitious targets,

even as the development of new housing

stands at an all-time high. This policy

does not result from the requirement,

imposed by the SRU act, to provide 20%

social housing (25% in tight markets),

as this legal obligation justifies only

half of the target set in the 2015-2018

low-cost housing plan (60,000 out of

120,000). In practice, the construction

effort is expensive from a government

assistance perspective and not sufficiently

focused on tight markets.

Furthermore, a one-point improvement

in the turnover rate within the social

housing stock would represent annual

supply equivalent to the construction of

nearly 50,000 units, with no cost to

public finances. However, while increasing

turnover is one of the stated objectives

of public policy on social housing, the

existing measures have little impact and

landlords have no incentive to increase

the mobility of their tenants.

More efficient management of the

social housing stock should therefore

focus less on a new construction effort

and more on incentives for mobility

among households whose income

exceeds the means thresholds. The aim

would be for social housing to be just

one stage of the residential mobility

process.

Results of the evaluation

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

The objectives of social housing

policy must find coherence

at the territorial level

Cooperation among local stakeholders

is the main driver of implementation

of the priority, assigned by law, of

accommodating

low-income

and

disadvantaged

households.

Most

stakeholders agree that pooling their

“rights of reservation” (

droits de

réservation

, system whereby a certain

number of spots in social housing are

“reserved” for stakeholders, which

then propose applicants) improves

the transparency and efficiency of

the allocation procedures in the

service of common goals.

The social diversity question also

involves the search for a collective

response. It relates to a city planning

issue, namely the lack of diversity in

the types of housing in certain cities

or neighbourhoods:

63% of residents of priority urban

areas for urban policy live in social

housing, compared with 13% outside

these areas.

This leads to a long-term reduction, in

priority urban areas, in the proportion

of social housing and to access for the

lowest-income populations, in other

neighbourhoods in tight markets, to

low-rent housing that is available or

expected to be developed. Under this

approach, adjustments will have to be

made to appropriately relocate the

lowest rents, in order to meet the

diversity objective for cities and neigh-

bourhoods: it requires more flexibility

in equalising rents among the various

locations managed by social housing

landlords, so as to not destabilise their

overall financial equilibrium.

***

Ultimately, to improve the efficiency

and coherence of the social housing

policy, the Cour des Comptes proposes

three broad guidelines:

Social housing should more effectively

target low-income and disadvantaged

populations

The law explicitly allocates social housing

low-income and disadvantaged

households. Yet, given the means

thresholds established for access to

social housing, two-thirds of the

population is currently eligible for

PLUS housing – which represents the

majority of social housing built – while

low-income populations represent,

according to CREDOC (

Centre de

Recherche pour l'Étude et l'Observation

des

Conditions

Vie

/Research

Institute for the Study and Monitoring

of Living Standards) and

Observatoire

des inégalités

(Observatory of inequality)

definitions, only the percentage of the

population corresponding to the 30% of

households with the most limited means.

Social diversity in cities and neighbou-

rhoods is also, by law, an objective that

social housing must promote: this

objective can be reconciled with a

social housing stock that more clearly

targets low-income or disadvantaged

households, provided that it is more

evenly spread across the country and is

fairly allocated to avoid concentrations

of vulnerable populations.

Social housing should offer more

units to the populations it targets

The emphasis must be as much on

mobility within the social housing

stock as on the construction of new

housing: turnover in social housing

is falling at an alarming rate, and

allocations are lower despite the

Results of the evaluation

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

increase in the stock. The aim of social

housing is not to guarantee housing

for life to those whose circumstances

have improved to the point that they

are no longer eligible under the

objective, assigned to social housing

by law, of housing low-income and

disadvantaged populations.

The transparency of social housing

operations must be improved

and better management is needed

at the territorial level

Citizens’ confidence in social housing

requires that the allocation procedures

be based on objective, fair and publicly

known criteria. For social housing to

operate properly, it must also be

managed at the population area level;

that is where the needs are most easily

understood and where the response

can be best defined and agreed to

among stakeholders.

***

These guidelines do not affect the

economic equilibrium of social housing

and do not require additional funding

from public actors. They focus on

improving the service rendered by

social housing in the context of a

comprehensive policy that has other

tools at its disposal, including housing

subsidies, support for home ownership,

and intervention on the private rental

market. Combining these different

tools in a coherent manner, while more

clearly targeting public housing at the

categories of households defined by

law, will improve the effectiveness of

housing policy.

Recommandations

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

More effectively target low-

income and disadvantaged

populations

lower the means thresholds in tight

markets and do so in different ways

based on the situation in each area and

the need to promote social diversity;

strengthen the link between the

social housing construction objectives

stated under the finance act and the

objectives of providing supported

housing, including social support,

as part of a holistic approach to

disadvantaged populations;

apply the PLAI means threshold to

units whose actual rent is below the

maximum rent in this category,

regardless of how the housing was

originally funded;

increase the percentage of the

lowest-income populations in social

housing

located outside priority

urban areas for urban policy, through

a combination of mobility incentives,

rent policies and allocation procedures.

Offer more units for rent

encourage landlords to improve

turnover in their buildings by earmar-

king a percentage of the resources

pooled

low-cost

housing

organisations for this effort;

make the solidarity rent supple-

ment an instrument for mobility by

lowering the threshold at which it is

triggered, limiting exemptions and

clearly posting the means level at

which the total cost of social housing

reaches the market’s level;

introduce fixed-term leases in tight

markets, subjecting their renewal to a

review of household circumstances;

set a new construction target

using a place-based approach to

needs;

target the development effort

more precisely by sharply reducing

the production of PLS (prêt locatif

social/loan for building low-rent

housing) and focusing more on tight

markets and PLAI housing;

10.

reduce the concentration of

social housing in priority urban areas

for urban policy by not creating new

social housing supply there and

by rebuilding the social housing

eliminated due to urban renewal

outside of these neighbourhoods;

11.

include in the social housing

development objectives an indicator

to measure the creation of widespread

supply.

Increase transparency and allow

more management at the local

level

12.

pool the management of indivi-

dual allocation decisions under the

umbrella of the inter-municipal

housing committees (

conférences

intercommunales du logement

), while

respecting the overall objectives of

the “réservataires de contingents”

(stakeholders for whom allocation

quotas are reserved);

13.

require that landlords formalise

and publish their screening and

allocation criteria.

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Introduction

The

Social Housing and the Challenge

Access

for

Low-Income

and

Disadvantaged Populations

report is a

two-part summary of the Cour des

Comptes’ investigation: first, a general

evaluation and, second, area-based

analyses resulting from the investigations

carried out in six territories. The regional

analyses go beyond the findings

applicable to all cases considered to

shed particular light on the organisations

put in place at the local level to promote

access to social housing for low-income

and disadvantaged populations.

Summary of area-based analyses

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

The stock has deteriorated to some

extent, a situation that is not unique to

Cergy-Pontoise. It is therefore difficult

to ensure “top-down” social diversity

in an area where the average income

is lower than the regional average

and also varies significantly across

municipalities.

Despite a better turnover rate than at

the regional level, mobility is low,

notwithstanding the large stock of

social housing in the conurbation and

the robust construction effort in

light of shifts in population. This

adversely affects new applicants.

With 1,362 allocations in 2014,

there are 6.6 applications pending

for each unit allocated, resulting in

less tightness than at the regional

level.

The

system

nevertheless

appears to be highly fragmented by

the “reservation quotas” (contingents

de réservation), and poorly understood

by applicants.

There is a high degree of tension

around the diversity challenges: the

central government must ensure

implementation of the enforceable

right to housing, which elected officials

criticise for intensifying difficulties in

certain neighbourhoods. For their part,

mayors acknowledge giving priority

applications

from

their

own

constituents. Lastly, applicants have

become more demanding and tend

to reject social housing located in

rough neighbourhoods.

Summary of area-based analyses

Conurbation community of Cergy-Pontoise

Overview

The

conurbation

community

Cergy-Pontoise has all the hallmarks

of a complex inter-municipality, the

legacy of its past as a “new city” and

its multipolarity. Since 2006, it has

taken over the delegation of housing

assistance and has developed a more

uniform housing policy across the

inter-municipal area, backed by its

land policy, virtually doubling annual

social housing development between

2006 and 2014.

Elected officials are now concerned

about ensuring social diversity in a

conurbation with nine priority urban

areas for urban policy. Their responses

vary, from mayors who continue to

build and others who would now like

to pursue a housing policy through

other levers than the construction of

social housing.

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Specific concerns were also noted, for

example the risk of the “wholesale”

aging of social housing, as a large

share of the stock was built over a

short period of time, and of persistent

disparities between municipalities.

Governance is characterised by the

gradual emergence of inter-municipal

bodies versus the municipalities, and

the large number of low-cost housing

organisations operating in the area. While

previous local housing programmes

emphasised social housing development,

the 2016-2021 programme will include

efforts by the inter-municipal housing

association to make Cergy-Pontoise’s

housing policy more balanced.

Conclusion

The Cergy-Pontoise area faces the

same challenges as Île-de-France as a

whole: very tight market, increasingly

poor populations, and difficulties

managing social mix in sensitive

neighbourhoods.

However, it is unique in certain ways

due notably to its history as a new

city: abundant social housing (more

than one-third of main residences),

construction momentum (and as yet

untapped

land

reserves)

and

somewhat higher turnover rate in the

social housing stock. Consequently,

the social housing situation is not

quite as tight as at the regional level.

Summary of area-based analyses

Conurbation community of Cergy-Pontoise

Overview

Demand for social housing rental

units is high with 14,500 active

applications at the end of 2015;

allocations (3,675 in 2015) only

meet

fraction

the

need.

Recording applications in a shared

that seems to work quite well. While

the collective work to benefit priority

populations is viewed positively, the

quota system seems complex and

ineffective, and it is difficult to transfer

within the stock. Application scoring

and a program that allows tenants to

apply for specific apartments are

currently in the testing phase.

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Summary of area-based analyses

Grenoble-Alpes metropolitan area

The

Grenoble-Alpes

metropolitan

area is a dynamic conurbation with

strong intellectual and technical skills.

Population growth has, however, been

weak. As in most major conurbations,

a significant migration loss has mitigated

the effects of the excess of births over

deaths. Because of its economic fabric

and a high rate of high-skilled jobs, the

Grenoble-Alpes metropolitan area has

a high proportion of middle- and high-

income

households,

but

average

annual net taxable income is not

higher than elsewhere. The metro

area is in fact home to a large number

of disadvantaged households that

face high real estate prices.

Housing density is increasing in the

metro area. Land is scarce and expensive

due to the region’s geography and to

natural and technological risks.

The conurbation creates about one

thousand social housing units per

year, mainly on scattered sites or

incorporated into private transactions,

but supply remains insufficient and is

poorly distributed.

The conurbation has 46,000 social

housing rental units. The social

housing stock, more than one-third

of which was built before 1977, is

concentrated in a few municipalities

and about 30% of the units are in

sensitive urban zones. At the same

time, the private housing stock plays

an important role for households

with limited means.

Summary of area-based analyses

Grenoble-Alpes metropolitan area

Priority urban areas account for 35%

of social housing units and have the

largest proportion of low-rent units

(< €5.5/m²).

The metro area is playing a greater

role in housing policy governance, in

particular through the local housing

programme, consistent with its land

and city planning policies. The quality

of the partnership relationships is

reflected in the desire for more

decentralised governance to better

account for the specific characteristics

of the areas and define appropriate

mechanisms for action.

Conclusion

All local stakeholders generally agree

on the analysis of social housing in the

Grenoble conurbation.

To meet its goal of developing more,

better and more evenly distributed

housing for all, the metro area must

address one key challenge: rebalancing

its housing supply across its entire area

by developing the operational tools to

free up buildable space in an area that

has geographic limitations.

It must also establish a new equilibrium

with the municipalities, as the burden

of the existing stock is quite heavy,

with some municipalities home to a

significant social housing stock and

continuing to build more, and others

long reluctant to have any such units,

and still unwilling to change. The local

inter-municipal city planning plan, now

being developed under the responsibility

of the metro area, sets the target of

“facilitating

the

development

diversified, affordable housing that

meets the needs of as many people as

possible and is well balanced across

the area”. Because it is enforceable,

the plan must guarantee, in the long

term, a comprehensive and more

coherent land-use policy.

The other challenge is undoubtedly

to work with the central government,

municipalities and landlords to introduce

a more transparent allocation policy with

criteria that are publicly known and met.

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Summary of area-based analyses

Department of Haute-Vienne

Overview

Haute-Vienne has nearly 380,000 resi

dents, almost half of whom live in the

conurbation of Limoges, the only major

urban cluster in the département.

Significant area-based disparities can

also be observed in the social housing

segment as the 25,000 social housing

units are concentrated in the munici-

pality of Limoges and in priority

urban areas for urban policy, with a

respective 70% and 40% of supply.

The slackness in the housing market

is another important feature which

partially explains the high vacancy

and turnover rates in the local social

housing stock. This characteristic,

which leaves the stock without its

traditional advantage in terms of rent

levels relative to the private housing

stock, is reflected in applicants’ relatively

easy access to low-cost housing units

(short wait periods but with high

rejection levels). It also helps sustain a

tarnished image of the social housing

stock, which has trouble attracting the

middle classes and accommodates

individuals with increasingly lower

incomes.

This environment implies conside-

rable challenges in terms of the

areas’

population

concentration,

social diversity and social equilibrium.

In addition, according to the local

stakeholders who participated in the

workshop held in the area as part of

the investigation, housing supply

needs to be adjusted to demand, to

better meet households’ growing

expectations in terms of adjusting to

aging and to disability. To meet this

challenge, stakeholders believe it is

important to continue to build and,

at the same time, to “remodel” some

of the major complexes, particularly

within priority urban areas for urban

policy where vacancies are high.

Opinion-gathering also shows that

the allocation is viewed as effective

overall, despite some reservations

about

transparency.

Managing

“reservation quotas” as flows is

considered progress. Future chal-

lenges include the convergence of

the allocation criteria used by social

housing landlords and access to a

shared tool for observing and analysing

demand.

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Summary of area-based analyses

Department of Haute-Vienne

Conclusion

Despite tenants’ overall low affordability

ratio, the insecurity of social housing

beneficiaries is reflected in their

increasing difficulty in paying their

rent. Most stakeholders expressed

scepticism about both the very logic

of differentiating social housing

rents based on how they were funded

historically and the tools implemented

by the public authorities to alter them

(solidarity rent supplement).

Social diversity was raised as a topic of

general

concern,

although

this

concept is seen as complex and vague.

It was observed that it will be difficult

to reconcile the long-term objective

of not increasing poverty in priority

urban areas for urban policy with the

social emergency requirement. The

local public authorities, which acknow-

ledge that social diversity has long

been neglected in Haute-Vienne, have

said that they will work together on

this issue under the inter-municipal

social housing committee of the

conurbation of Limoges.

This commitment is an example of

the increasing cooperation among

stakeholders on governance, with the

central government playing a pivotal

role locally in this effort. The creation

of the inter-municipal social housing

committee and the growing importance

of the inter-municipal level (Limoges

metropolitan area) are seen as major

advances which, at the operational level,

should support an improvement in the

management and monitoring tools.

Lastly, stakeholders have expressed a

need for greater legal stability and for

more local authority over this public

policy.

considered more efficient than the

national registration system, a pooling

system among landlords to make it

easier to meet demand, and a system

for supporting tenants for whom a

move within the social housing

stock could be appropriate.

In terms of social diversity, the urban

renewal operation in the Malakoff

district was a successful example of

improving an image and changing the

characteristics of a neighbourhood’s

population.

The Nantes metropolitan area has a

long-standing tradition of extensive

cooperation among stakeholders; this

is reflected in the tools shared by

landlords and the public authorities:

shared demand register, local housing

programme, agreements between the

metropolitan area and social housing

landlords on qualitative objectives, and a

system for encouraging tenants to move

among social housing landlords. These

successful partnership actions have thus

fostered the growing importance of the

inter-municipal housing committee.

Conclusion

The Nantes metropolitan area remains

a tight market, as the development

efforts have not been sufficient to

absorb demand for social housing.

Supply is still unevenly distributed,

despite the area-based rebalancing

facilitated through the exercise of

municipal jurisdiction.

Overview

Le The Nantes metropolitan area is

facing significant population growth

with construction continuing at a

steady pace. It has a proactive housing

policy, reflected in a series of local

housing programmes, with a particular

emphasis on developing social housing

(1,759 units per year between 2010

and 2014), although the inertia in the

structure of the stock makes it impossi-

ble to remedy the supply/demand

imbalance.

With the turnover rate down slightly to

10.5%, demand pressure on allocations

is high, with less than 7,000 allocations

in 2015 in the face of demand that is

four times higher. Housing stakeholders

are used to working together in this

territory. This is reflected in their tools

and practices, such as the shared

departmental demand management

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Summary of area-based analyses

Nantes metropolitan area

Summary of area-based analyses

Nantes metropolitan area

Local stakeholders in this policy

often have the same analysis of the

challenges of implementing social

housing policy in their area. Most of

the constraints observed, including

beneficiaries’ means level, are beyond

their control. They have therefore

identified a growing mismatch between

income and rents for new housing.

In contrast, within the scope of their

respective powers, they have developed

a tradition of cooperation and have

joined forces for broad and flexible

experimentation.

In this respect, the growing importance

of the inter-municipal housing committee

represents the prospect of an institutional

expansion of this already established

cooperation to respond to a variety of

housing issues, in order to achieve

complementarity in the Nantes metro-

politan area alongside each of the

municipalities.

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Summary of area-based analyses

Nice-Côte d’Azur metropolitan area

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Overview

The Nice-Côte d’Azur metropolitan area

is a diverse space. The social housing

issue, as highlighted by stakeholders on

the ground, is focused mainly on the

coastline due to the geographic and

land restrictions that constrain its

development. As such, the area is viewed

as a tight market that displays all the

major characteristics seen in such

markets, as analysed in the inner

suburbs of Paris, for example.

The social housing supply (31,000 units),

representing 11% of main residences, is

unanimously viewed as falling short

of requirements, and stakeholders are

concentrating all their efforts on the

challenge of developing new supply,

particularly in light of the penalties

applied for failure to comply with

Article 55 of the SRU act. The

metropolitan area’s social housing

stock is also constrained by both the

lack of available land and its cost.

The view on the ground is therefore

that there is little ability to adjust

supply to demand, whether in terms

of type of housing or rent level.

This supply shortfall is reflected in a

low turnover rate, calculated at 6.7%

in 2015, for a total of 2,122 allocations

(one-eighth of the number of applicants).

This causes a number of difficulties

identified by stakeholders on the

ground, including what they consider to

be excessive use of the enforceable

right to housing procedure, and results

in significantly higher rejection rates

than elsewhere due to allocations

made under this procedure. Although

the allocation system is not operated

uniformly and is poorly understood by

applicants, social housing operators do

not seem to have established shared

management tools that would allow for

more efficient management of mobility

both within and outside the housing

stock. Each « réservataire » (stakeholder

for whom a percentage of social housing

spots has been reserved) remains in

control of its rights, with little likelihood

of developing a system for quota sharing

or exchanges between landlords.

Finding housing for the poorest

populations has been identified as a

problem. Côte d’Azur Habitat, the

departmental social landlord, which

represents 52% of buildings, mainly

houses these populations, but the lack

of new supply and the low turnover rate

have resulted in some concentration

of the most disadvantaged populations

in the same neighbourhoods despite

calls to improve social diversity.

Summary of area-based analyses

Nice-Côte d’Azur metropolitan area

Actions taken by ANRU have helped

with urban redesign and led to real

progress in the toughest neighbou-

rhoods, but have not actually changed

the population of these spaces.

While governance of the sector seems

to be exercised without difficulty at

the local level, certain stakeholders

have expressed some expectations,

and hope to see progress following

implementation of new governance

tools embodied, for example, by the

inter-municipal housing committee

established on 7 April 2016.

Conclusion

The Nice-Côte d’Azur metropolitan

area is a tight market given the

challenges associated with social

housing. Stakeholders on the ground

are focused chiefly on complying

with Article 55 of the SRU act, while

issues of allocation, mobility, rent

policy and diversity seem to be less

important in the public debates.

Everyone is well aware of the social

housing challenges associated with

these issues.

The solution seems to lie, from the

perspective of the area’s stakeholders,

in an increase in supply to allow some

room for manoeuver in the long term.

In any case, there is no expectation of

a rapid improvement, and the area

aims to manage the observable

shortfall as efficiently as possible.

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Summary of area-based analyses

Conurbation community of the Valenciennes

metropolitan area

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes

Overview

The conurbation community of the

Valenciennes metropolitan area has a

relatively high average rate of social

housing, at 27.8% in 2014, and is an

example of the problem of industrial

redevelopment.

The vast majority of Valenciennes

households have low incomes. With

less than €1,300 in monthly income

per consumption unit (CU) in 2011,

Valenciennes households have lower

incomes than those of the Nord

département (€1,450). Only 15% of

households have monthly incomes

above €1,500 per CU. As a result, the

challenges of social occupancy go well

beyond the scope of social housing alone.

For example, households experiencing

social hardship are concentrated in

certain neighbourhoods, regardless of

the housing stock occupied. The regional

low-cost housing association is therefore

considering

classifying

buildings

according to a “well-being” criterion.

The urban renewal of the Dutemple

neighbourhood, consisting only of

conversions into individual units, is

cited as a successful transformation.

In addition, the status of the private

housing stock, where the need for

improvement and adaptation is great,

has an impact on demand for social

housing. Mining housing also plays a

key role. Until recently, it served as

“de facto” social housing stock for its

tenants, who are still often the

dependants of miners. SOGINOPRA’s

housing (3,200 units) was included in

private housing stock statistics until

31 December 2012. It was incorporated

into the social housing stock of the

Valenciennes metropolitan area on

1 January 2013.

Lastly, this area has had a net migration

loss for several years. This has eased the

constraint in terms of the construction

of social housing in the period covered

by the previous local housing pro-

gramme (2009-2014). However, this

trend could reverse in the future.

In this relatively unstressed environment,

the system appears to operate fairly

well (75% of 2015 allocations were to

applicants who had applied within a

year), although it is not considered

highly transparent. The management

method is flexible, with quotas recognised

as flows and the management thereof

delegated to landlords. For the most

vulnerable households, the depar

tmental action plan to house the

disadvantaged (

plan départemental

d'action pour le logement des personnes

défavorisées

, or PDALPD) provides an

Summary of area-based analyses

Conurbation community of the Valenciennes

metropolitan area

effective partnership response. It has

reduced the number of instances in

which the enforceable right to hou-

sing procedure was used. Whether in

terms of rent level or type, supply

appears to match demand fairly well.

Social housing stakeholders are used

to working together. The conurbation

community, also delegated to provide

housing financing, has been conside-

ring the housing problem for several

years and has developed its third local

housing programme for the 2016-

2021 period. Local stakeholders have

expressed their desire for governance

that takes local circumstances into

account.

Conclusion

The Valenciennes conurbation differs

in that the share of social housing is

high and the income of the entire

population is low. While the net migra-

tion

loss

reduced the

need for

construction in the 2009-2014 period,

the social housing stock remains

under severe pressure due to often

poor conditions of the private housing

stock and the splitting of households,

which creates more households.

The strong cooperation among social

housing stakeholders can be seen pri-

marily in the work to rehouse priority

populations, thereby reducing the use

of the enforceable right to housing

procedure.

Summary of the Thematic Public Report from the Cour des Comptes