To be noted:
Non-appeal is assessed (2011) at 30%:
"As regards the
benefit, the last precise study on non-recourse, which dates from 2011,
estimated this phenomenon at 30% of the target population. No recent study, nor
any of the rare initiatives deployed at local level to assess non-recourse,
lead us to revise this estimate, which is widely accepted by RSA stakeholders.
It therefore seems possible to estimate the rate of reaching the target
population at 70%.”
70% of what is described
as "fraud" is due to omissions or misrepresentation of resources:
"In the opposite
direction, fraud has little impact on the number of legitimate beneficiaries4 .
On the other hand, its effects on the amounts are significant, with more than
€190 million detected in 2019, leading to a total estimate by Cnaf of approximately
€1 billion in potential fraud5 . Most of this fraud concerns the amounts paid
rather than the actual eligibility of people for the RSA. Thus, 70% of the
cases of fraud detected involve omissions or errors in declarations of
resources. A major challenge is therefore to make the payment of the RSA more
secure with regard to the real situation of beneficiaries, by increasing the
reliability of the data taken into account and detecting a greater number of
errors.”
Insufficient support:
"As regards
support, it can be estimated that 60% of beneficiaries subject to 'rights and
duties' do not have a support contract. Even if this rate is based on imperfect
data, it highlights a serious dysfunction in this aspect of the RSA. This poor
result can be explained by the fact that only eight out of ten recipients were
actually referred to a support organisation, and of these, only half of those
referred to social support signed a contract. "
Recipients live below
the poverty line:
"Consistently since
2010, 65% of RSA beneficiaries live below the monetary poverty line 6 , a share
4.4 times higher than in the general population, where this share is between
14% and 15%. 51% of RSA beneficiaries are also considered to have poor living
conditions 7 , a proportion almost five times higher than for the rest of the
population. This situation results directly from the amounts guaranteed by the
allowance: for a single person, the amount of the RSA is 565 euros per month
(as of April 1, 2021), a level below the monetary poverty line (1,063 euros per
month in 2018 according to INSEE).”
“The RSA, on the other
hand, protects its beneficiaries from extreme poverty. While 46% of RSA
beneficiaries still live below the poverty line at 50% of the median income,
only 16% live with less than 40% of The effect of the RSA is even clearer on
the intensity of poverty: while poverty is much greater among RSA beneficiaries
at the 60% threshold, the situation is reversed at the 40% threshold. : the
intensity of poverty is twice as high for people who do not benefit from the
RSA.”
"This role of
protection against extreme poverty is perceived and confirmed by the recipients
themselves. Questioned by survey, 78% believe that the RSA has "provided
them with a minimum income" and has "prevented them from falling into
poverty". This is the dimension of this system most recognized by its
beneficiaries".
Returning to work
remains the preferred way out of poverty:
"The choice of the
legislator to favor activity as a means of getting out of poverty is confirmed
in practice. If monetary poverty at the 50% threshold affects almost all
recipients whose income is mainly made up of the RSA, this share drops to 20%
only for those whose allowance weighs less than 10% in income. Returning to
work, even part-time, effectively makes it possible to cross the poverty line
in most family and professional configurations".
General recommendations:
"Improve the RSA
coverage rate by adopting a process of simplification, clarity, publicity of
the allowance and commitment to potential recipients. 2. Restore their full
meaning to the rights and duties provided for by law, by facilitating the
payment of the allowance and by reinforcing the support of the people most in
difficulty, in return for a precise formalization and an effective sanction of
the obligations registered in the support contracts. managers of the system by
ensuring that they fully exercise their steering, decision-making,
coordination, sanction and evaluation skills and revise the financing key in
compliance with the principle "financier = decision maker".
First "hot"
personal comment:
The non-use seems
directly linked to representations: for many people, having recourse to the RSA
constitutes a "shame", or else the choice of a certain "outside
the system" way of life makes them say "I do not want to receive anything
from the 'State, I manage on my own'. These are two very different postures: in
the first case, people facing precariousness experience this situation as a
personal failure and the RSA status as a social "forfeiture". The
representation of the RSA in this case is akin to "parasitism": only
those who do not want to "work" would benefit from it. The fact of
finding themselves in this situation precipitates the person into fear and
shame at being associated with this representation which they think is shared
by a majority. In the second case, the person has made the conscious choice to
eventually find himself in a precarious situation by not following the
established channels of social integration through employment, generally by
engaging in paid "black" activities, which allows it to survive
without going through the channels of employment or national solidarity. While
this posture could easily be maintained in the 1970s and 1990s, it is
nevertheless much more difficult to maintain today, due to the changeover to
the euro in the 2000s and the resulting loss of purchasing power, digitization
and tracing, and the checks that have become necessary.
As far as support is
concerned, it seems that it varies greatly from one department to another. From
my experience, it is also likely that support is not "sought after"
by many recipients given its cruel lack of efficiency.
It is obvious that the
RSA and related allowances (housing, CMU) protect against extreme poverty but
not poverty. But this situation is now also shared to a certain extent by the
smicards, whether employed or self-employed. And, understandably, they find it
very hard to devote their time to earning an income while still remaining so
poor. Also, I disagree with the statement that "the choice of activity as
a way out of poverty is verified" and on the relevance of the calculations
of the activity bonus: most often the resumption of employment constitutes a
significant drop in purchasing power to the point that the person "can't
make it anymore" and cannot afford the costs (childcare, transport, etc.)
related to returning to work.
Poverty does not cover
the same realities either, depending on whether one lives in town or in the
countryside, and whether the person is culturally determined by the criteria of
the consumer society or not.
In its general
recommendations, the Court of Auditors
shows that it has not grasped the systemic and structural nature of the problem,
a problem which it attributes both to the actors of the system and to the
recipients themselves by advocating control and increased penalties.
It maintains the
"return to work" as a priority of integration policies without
worrying about what has become of "employment" today. However, there
will be no change possible without a fundamental transformation of the definition
and place of "work" in society and the evolution of its
commodification (employment) towards its rehabilitation as an activity
essential to harmonious development. human beings and societies.
The hypocrisy which
consists in placing the fault on the actors of integration and the recipients,
instead of dealing with the root of the problem, that is to say that of a system which generates exclusion
in an endemic way, does not serves only to protect those who have
interests, consciously or unconsciously, that the system continues because they
derive a certain benefit from it.
SE
SAISI
