🔍💡 Shared housing and ageing: moving beyond the home/Ehpad dichotomy and building accessible, funded, and managed intermediate housing at the territorial level. #SharedHousing #AgeingWell
🏠🔄 Independent living residences, service residences, inclusive housing: the IGAS-IGEDD report dissects the true costs, available aids, and development trajectories to aim for by 2040. #Ageing #IntermediateHousing
📌 The report very concretely sheds light on the models of independent living residences, senior service residences, and inclusive housing, their real costs, and their limitations for elderly people with modest incomes. It is directly useful for structure directors, social landlords, local authorities, ARS/CD, and associative networks to calibrate their projects, rents, and financing arrangements. It also serves as a basis for advocating a more coherent territorial programming of shared housing in gerontological schemes and PLH.
Source: 📒 Inter-inspection mission regarding various forms of shared housing adapted for ageing
✍️ Philippe Caillon, Isabelle Rougier (IGAS), Louis Moreau de Saint-Martin (IGEDD) - IGAS Report No. 2025-057R / IGEDD No. 016306-01 — Volume 1 (main report) & Volume 2 (annexes)
📜🔗LINK to the sourceNumber of pages: 85 + 100
1. Analytical summary
Context, ageing, and tensions on supply
The report starts from a double observation: the rapid increase in the number of people aged over 75 and the gradual saturation of the home/Ehpad system, particularly in departments already under pressure. It defines 'shared housing' as the entirety of independent living residences, private and social senior service residences, inclusive housing, and shared accommodations, highlighting the extreme heterogeneity of models, target groups, and arrangements. The supply remains numerically limited (approximately 236,000 housing units at a minimum, including 112,000 places in independent living residences, 120,000 in senior service residences, and nearly 4,700 inclusive housing units), with significant territorial disparities. In projections for 2040, if the capacities of Ehpad are fixed, many departments in the South and Île-de-France will only be able to accommodate the most dependent individuals, necessitating the search for alternative housing solutions. The central issue then becomes the construction of affordable, financially sustainable, and sufficiently large 'intermediate housing' to complement the supply of Ehpad without turning them into 'pseudo-Ehpad'.
Operational contributions for the development of shared housing
The report provides public decision-makers and operators with a precise economic analysis framework: cost structure, order of magnitude of rents and services, land value, need for critical mass, and combination of individual aids (APL, APA, AVP, ASH, tax credit). It proposes a target scenario combining the creation of around 120,000 additional places in assisted living facilities and 48,000 places in nursing homes by 2040, with a rapid ramp-up starting in 2026. It recommends strongly territorialising the programming through a common gerontological scheme ARS-CD, articulated with social housing programming and PLH, and establishing a national system for the census of shared housing. The report also details the adjustments to be made to the aids (AVP, APA, ASH) to secure the model of inclusive housing and co-living, and to prevent the pooling of aids from resulting in a mechanical reduction of rights. Finally, it emphasizes the need to strengthen national and departmental governance, to monitor tension indicators (resident profiles, occupancy rates, human resources), and to equip controls to secure the most vulnerable residents.
2. Key points of the document
Definition and minimum quantification of shared housing (pp. 21–27 Volume 1)
The report retains a scope including assisted living facilities, private and social senior service residences, and inclusive housing, for a total of at least 236,000 housing units, highlighting that this is a low estimate due to the lack of a complete census. It highlights the very strong concentration of supply in certain areas (coastal regions, attractive zones) and the near absence in others, which significantly limits the equality of access for elderly people.
Structural fragility of economic models (pp. 24–28 & 59–61 Volume 1, pp. 23–28 Volume 2)
Cost structures combine a high weight of real estate (investment, land, maintenance) and personnel expenses related to communal living, often exceeding those of certain care homes for highly supported shared accommodations. The report shows that many projects are in a precarious balance, dependent on operating grants, the pooling of individual aids, and high occupancy rates, with risks of recurring deficits.
Key role of individual aids (APL, AVP, APA, ASH, tax credit) in the financial viability of residents (pp. 27–28 Volume 1; appendix APA/ASH pp. 64–69 Volume 2)
The authors detail how each of these aids partially contributes to the financial viability of rent, para-hotel services, and support, but does not cover all costs, especially for households with modest resources. They emphasise the centrality of APA and AVP in inclusive housing, while showing the reluctance of many departments to allow the pooling of APA and the extreme disparities in the use of ASH.
Projection for 2040 and target development scenario (pp. 59–63 Volume 1; pp. 91–98 Volume 2)
The models show that a freeze on care home places would lead to these structures being saturated with only GIR 1–2 and GIR 3 with neuro-cognitive disorders, and to transforming independent living residences into substitutes for care homes, which is deemed unsustainable. The chosen scenario recommends the creation of approximately 120,000 new independent living places and 48,000 care home places by 2040, with an annual trajectory to be implemented from 2026 through social housing.
Governance, territorial management and control recommendations (pp. 62–65 & 70–80 Volume 1)
The report proposes the merging of programming documents (departmental scheme for the elderly and PRS) into a common ARS-CD gerontological scheme, clearly integrating shared housing. It recommends the creation of a departmental commission for the funders of shared housing, the expansion of national management, a shared dashboard of tensions, and the extension of the control powers of departments to all shared housing, beyond just autonomous residences.
3. Action points for local stakeholders
Integrate shared housing into territorial diagnostics and PLH (pp. 63–65 Volume 1)
Municipalities, EPCI, departmental councils and ARS must build a common prospective diagnosis on local ageing, dependency profiles and existing supply, systematically including shared housing. Specifically, this involves establishing quantified objectives for autonomous residences, inclusive housing and social senior residences in the PLH and gerontological schemes, with an annual production trajectory.
Structure sustainable economic arrangements with social landlords (pp. 24–28 Volume 1; pp. 78–82 Volume 2)
Local authorities and operators can rely on the described models (inclusive housing, shared accommodation, social senior residences) to negotiate fees and financing arrangements that allow for rent containment while covering the costs of management. This requires mobilising social housing funding (PLAI, PLUS, PLS), housing benefit, AVP and local aid, while programming the critical size of projects to limit operating deficits.
Formalise the pooling of the APA and the use of the AVP in inclusive housing projects (pp. 65–68 Volume 2)
Project leaders must work with the departments to secure the pooling of part of the APA, in accordance with the framework set by the 2019 circular, clearly distinguishing between individual hours and poolable hours in the support plans. They can also structure the AVP as a stable funding source for the 'foundation of social and shared living', by integrating it into agreements and clearly informing residents of the effects on their bills.
Define targeting criteria for the public and price levels (pp. 27, 59–62 Volume 1; pp. 23–26 Volume 2)
Managers and local authorities must clarify the target audience for each project (GIR, income level, isolation), and align this choice with rent and service levels, in order to avoid attractive projects that are inaccessible to those on modest incomes. The report encourages prioritising social shared housing for individuals with incomes below the PLS ceiling, with a mix of PLAI/PLUS, and leaving private senior service residences for wealthier clients.
Organise local governance of shared housing and risk monitoring (pp. 70–80 Volume 1)
It is recommended to establish, at the departmental level, a commission of funders for shared housing involving ARS, CD, landlords, operators, and pension funds to monitor projects, their difficulties, and their impacts. Departments can also strengthen controls (reception conditions, user information, alignment between dependency status and available resources) in shared housing accommodating a significant proportion of highly dependent individuals.
4. Additional references
🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Pratiques en Santé" on the topic ➡️🔗https://pratiquesensante.odoo.com/blog/tag/habitat-inclusif-424
CNSA – Opinion "Intermediate Housing: Living Well and Ageing Well in a Home Made for You" (2025)
Strategic opinion on the development of 500,000 intermediate homes by 2050, articulation of statuses, securing the AVP and pooling of aids.
Council of State – Opinion on the legal questions raised by the different categories of shared housing (July 2025), cited in the doctrine on intermediate housing
Clarifies the distinction between intermediate housing and medico-social establishments, particularly the legal link between housing and medico-social services.
Ministry of Solidarity – "Shared Housing: A Joint Roadmap" (6 May 2026) - Announcement of a national roadmap explicitly based on the IGAS-IGEDD report, with the aim of doubling the shared housing stock by 2040.https://solidarites.gouv.fr/habitat-partage-une-feuille-de-route-conjointe
5. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What types of housing are included in the concept of "shared housing"?
The report includes autonomy residences, private senior service residences, socially-oriented senior residences, inclusive housing (inclusive housing units, AVP projects) and certain highly supported shared accommodations, as long as they combine independent living and collective life. See particularly the definition and scope on pages 21–27 Volume 1.
Why is shared housing presented as economically fragile?
The cumulative costs of land, investment, and human presence (animation, coordination, 24/7 monitoring for some) are high, while rents must remain affordable and individual assistance only covers part of the expenses. These constraints create models that are very sensitive to vacancy, to the decisions of departments regarding APA/AVP/ASH, and to the local price dynamics. See pp. 24–28 Volume 1 and pp. 23–28 Volume 2.
What role is shared housing expected to play in relation to care homes by 2040?
The report does not aim to replace shared housing with care homes but to complement the offer, reserving care homes for the most dependent individuals (GIR 1–2 and some GIR 3) and proposing intermediate solutions for less dependent individuals or those who do not wish to enter an institution. The target scenario is based on the creation of 120,000 places in assisted living residences and 48,000 places in care homes by 2040.
How can AVP and APA be mobilised in an inclusive housing project?
AVP funds the social and shared living project (animation, coordination, conviviality), paid to the manager, without means testing. APA funds assistance related to loss of autonomy, with the possibility of pooling some hours among residents, subject to explicit agreement, clear information, and compliance with the framework specified by the 2019 circular. See pp. 64–68 Volume 2.
Why is the pooling of APA often contested by departments?
Many departments fear difficulties in controlling the effectiveness of services and divert certain projects where almost all the APA is pooled without a clear distinction between individual and collective hours. Some even reduce the volume of hours allocated as soon as they notice pooling, contrary to the spirit of the circular which prohibits an automatic reduction of services solely due to pooling. See p. 65–68 Volume 2.
What quantified objectives does the report propose for the development of shared housing?
It proposes a target scenario with an additional 120,000 places in independent living residences and 48,000 places in nursing homes by 2040, which is about five times the recent annual rate of creation of independent living residences. It also recommends integrating these objectives into social housing programming as early as 2027, with regional and departmental targets.
How can local authorities concretely appropriate this report?
They can use it to build their territorial diagnostics, set production objectives for shared housing in the PLH, calibrate calls for projects, adjust the criteria for awarding the AVP, and structure partnerships with landlords and social and medical operators. The report details operational recommendations for departmental schemes, social housing programming, and the departmental governance of shared housing (p. 62–65 and 70–80 Volume 1).
6. Rewriting in Easy-to-Read Language
Easy-to-Read Title
Shared housing for elderly people
How to better organise these homes in France
Context and issues – Easy-to-Read version
In France, there are more and more elderly people.
Many do not want to go to care homes, but can no longer live alone.
There are housing options between home and care homes: this is called shared housing.
These housing options are still rare and poorly distributed across the country.
In some departments, care homes will quickly be full.
Therefore, we need to create other housing solutions for these people.
Types of shared housing – easy to understand version
Autonomy residences: small flats in the same building, with simple services.
Senior service residences: flats with more services, but more expensive.
Inclusive housing: small groups of flats with organised communal living.
Shared living: several elderly people live together in a house or large flat.
Key points – easy to understand version
Shared housing is expensive to build and operate.
Rents must remain affordable for elderly people with little money.
Assistance (APL, APA, AVP, ASH) helps, but is not always enough.
We need to create many more suitable homes by 2040.
Departments and municipalities must include these homes in their plans.
Simple action points – easy to understand version
Know the needs of elderly people in each area well.
Work together: municipalities, departments, ARS, social landlords, associations.
Plan each year how many suitable homes will be built.
Clearly explain to residents the rents, services, and possible assistance.
7. Cross-sectional analysis – values of Health Practices
Literacy: the report remains technical (economics, law, projections) and does not provide tools suitable for low levels of understanding, even though it describes frameworks (AVP, inclusive housing) that can then be translated into educational materials.
Empowerment: beneficiaries are mentioned as co-authors of the social and shared life project in inclusive housing, but their actual involvement is mainly described at the regulatory framework level, not in concrete practices.
Participation: the social and shared life project must be developed with residents, but the report focuses more on institutional arrangements than on methods of co-construction on the ground.
Community health: the collective dimension is recognised through the fight against isolation, conviviality, and local anchoring, but it is not linked to structured community health approaches.
Ethics: the report identifies risks (overly expensive projects, poorly targeted audiences, lack of control) and proposes to strengthen controls and transparency, but it addresses cultural or social biases in access to services only minimally.
Human rights: the approach aims for territorial equity and financial accessibility, but does not develop an explicit human rights framework (gender, minorities, multiple discriminations).
Intersectorality: the text emphasises cooperation between health, social action, housing, urban planning, social landlords, the state, and local authorities, with shared programming tools.
Partnership: several models of governance and partnerships (funders, operators, departments, ARS, CNSA, funds) are described, with the proposal for a departmental commission of funders for shared housing.
Combating discrimination: the report mentions territorial and financial inequality, but does not specifically address discrimination related to gender, origin, sexual orientation, or other grounds.
8. Assessment of the reliability of the resource
Scientific relevance: the report relies on data from DREES, CNSA, SISAL, modelling from the DATA pole of IGAS, and references to previous work (IGAS mission 2023 on living spaces, CNSA opinions, opinions from the Council of State), with a solid statistical framework and hypotheses explicitly discussed. The limitations of the data (notably for service residences) are clearly acknowledged, which enhances the reliability of the analysis.
Operational relevance: the recommendations are directly transposable into planning tools (schemes, PLH, social housing programming) and into concrete arrangements for shared housing, particularly for local authorities, funders, and associative operators. The resource is therefore very usable on the ground, provided that a high level of technicality is accepted, which often requires mediation or translation for actors less familiar with funding issues.