The Use of In-Home Employment: A Practice Followed by a Minority but Far from Marginal, Shaped by the Principles of Mutual Support and Standard of Living
Nearly one in four French people report using in-home care, driven by a combination of family support and standard of living.
24% of the general public report having used such services in the past twelve months, whether for themselves (14%), for a loved one (8%), or for both reasons (2%).
Behind this overall figure, however, there is a wide variation in usage depending on life circumstances. The use of personal care services appears to be closely linked to the need for family support. Caregivers are by far the most likely to use these services: 54% of people caring for a loved one have used them, compared to 17% of non-caregivers. Households with a child under the age of 3 show an equally high rate of use (54%), particularly when they have two or more children (59%). The use of personal care services also appears to be strongly correlated with standard of living. High-income earners stand out very clearly, with a 53% usage rate, as do executives (36%), retirees in the upper socioeconomic class (35%), and, more broadly, affluent households (34%). Conversely, office workers (19%) and blue-collar workers (16%) use these services about half as often as the most affluent households.
Who, specifically, are the key players in the home-based employment sector?
Private employers: a group that is predominantly female, more affluent, and more deeply rooted in family responsibilities
Private employers stand out clearly from the general French population as being predominantly female, older, and more socially advantaged. Women make up the vast majority (70%, compared to 52% in the general population), and people aged 35 and older account for 85% of this group, compared to 75% in the general population.
Their position on the social ladder is also higher than average: the upper categories (executives and self-employed individuals) account for 39% of individual employers, compared with only 15% of the general French population, and business executives are nearly twice as prevalent in this group (11%, compared with 6%). High-income earners and the affluent combined also account for 23% of this population, compared to 10% of the general population.
This profile is also characterized by the weight of family responsibilities. Self-employed individuals are more likely than average to be parents of dependent children: 41% fall into this category, compared to 31% of the general population. They are also much more likely to be caregivers: 36% report caring for a family member, which is nearly double the rate observed in the general population (19%). In the vast majority of cases, this care is provided on a volunteer basis (32%), with a minority providing it as part of a paid job (4%).
In-home workers: a population that is overwhelmingly female, older, and more vulnerable to economic hardship
Conversely, in-home workers are characterized by a very high proportion of women and a more modest standard of living. Women account for 91% of this group, which also appears to be older than average: 87% are 35 or older, including 48% aged 50 to 64.
Their socioeconomic profile contrasts sharply with that of private employers: those in the low-income and poor categories account for 59% of domestic workers, compared to 35% of the general population and 24% of private employers. The family dimension is also pronounced: 47% of domestic workers have dependent children, a higher proportion than that observed among private employers (+6 percentage points). Their status as caregivers, however, is closer to the national average: 24% report caring for a family member, compared to 19% in the general population and 36% among private employers. This role as a caregiver, however, is slightly more common among domestic workers than among private employers, although it remains a very small minority (8%, compared to 4%).
A shared perspective on in-home employment: a daily service with significant social impact, but where cost and the need for trust act as barriers to wider access
In-home employment: a useful everyday service recognized for its social impact
In-home care enjoys a very favorable public image. Specifically, support for families and isolated individuals, as well as the creation of local jobs, are cited by nearly 9 out of 10 respondents across all target groups. The strengthening of social ties is recognized more by in-home workers (90%) than by private employers (86%) and the general public (84%). Meanwhile, the value of jobs that benefit the community is recognized by more than 8 out of 10 respondents across all three target groups.
There are, however, some nuances. Providing access to employment for people who are distant from the labor market is valued more highly by live-in employees (84% , compared to 81% among private employers and 77% among the general public), as they are more directly affected by these issues, whereas the contribution to the national economy is emphasized more strongly by private employers (82% , compared to 79% among in-home workers and 74% among the general public).
In-home employment also emerges as a major tool for supporting vulnerable individuals. More than 9 out of 10 respondents, across all target groups, recognize its central role in helping older or vulnerable people remain in their homes, as well as in providing support to family caregivers.
Beyond its supportive role, in-home employment is also seen as a way to make daily life easier for families. Nearly 9 out of 10 respondents view it as a solution for delegating certain tasks that they do not know how to do, cannot do, or no longer wish to do themselves. There is also broad consensus on its contribution to work-life balance, although this is emphasized more strongly by in-home workers (96%) than by private employers (91%) and the general public (87%).
It is worth noting that the most significant difference concerns the perception of domestic work as an alternative to sharing household chores. This aspect is particularly recognized by domestic workers (91%), ahead of private employers (82%) and the general public (77%). This result reflects a deeper appreciation among industry professionals of the very practical role that domestic work can play in household organization.
Cost and Trust: The Main Barriers to Using In-Home Services
The financial cost, considered excessive, is the main barrier to using in-home services: it is cited by 52% of the general public, 47% of private employers, and 42% of in-home workers. The difficulty in identifying and hiring a trustworthy person ranks at a comparable level (47% of the general public and 43% of in-home workers), and is even the top concern among private employers (51% mention it).
To a lesser extent, the identified barriers relate more to administrative or informational hurdles. The cumbersome nature of administrative procedures is cited by just under 3 in 10 respondents, as is the insufficiency or lack of awareness regarding public assistance programs. To a lesser extent, the barriers stem more from personal or social considerations: the perceived incompatibility with one’s lifestyle or household arrangements affects about 1 in 10 respondents, as does the sometimes demeaning or guilt-inducing perception associated with being an employer. The dissuasive influence or pressure from one’s social circle rounds out the list of barriers.
In terms of practices among private employers: household-dominated use, and nearly universal reporting
Housekeeping is the primary service used, far ahead of caregiving
Over the past twelve months, private employers have primarily used domestic help for housekeeping and ironing: 74% have done so, 44% of them on a regular basis. Gardening and light handyman work are the second most common reasons for hiring, cited by 56% of private employers. Services related to supporting vulnerable individuals also appear significant, though they remain in the minority: 46% sought assistance for an elderly person, and 41% for someone with reduced independence or a disability. Other types of assistance are less common, whether they involve tutoring (25%), in-home childcare (25%), childcare at a childcare provider’s home (24%), or home security (22%).
Peace of mind and a better quality of life are seen as the primary benefits
The use of in-home services primarily provides private employers with very tangible benefits in organizing their daily lives. Peace of mind tops the list, cited by 90% of them, ahead of an improved quality of life for the person receiving care (86%), simplified daily organization (85%), and a reduction in the mental load on the person organizing the care (81%). In addition, 77% of private employers believe that in-home care frees up time for family, 73% believe it helps maintain a work-life balance, 68% believe it offers an alternative to sharing household chores, and 64% believe it allows them to continue working.
A very large majority report hours worked, despite the persistence of informal practices
Reporting hours worked appears to be the norm among private employers: 85% report having declared all hours worked over the past twelve months. Cases of non-reporting affect only a minority of them, whether partial (8%) or total (5%). When such cases do occur, they are more often the result of an initiative by the domestic worker (54%) than by the employer (46%).
When the failure to report is at the employer’s initiative, it is primarily justified by the burden of administrative procedures (34%), the sporadic nature of the employment (29%), the level of social security contributions (25%), or the fact that the tax credit limit has already been reached (23%). When it is in response to a request from the employee, the main reasons cited relate to the desire to avoid or limit income tax (38%), to remain below the threshold for social assistance benefits (33%), or the lack of a work permit (30%).
The tax credit and the CESU: the best-known and most widely used programs
The tax credit for employing a domestic worker is the program most widely recognized by individual employers: 86% are familiar with it, and 63% actually use it. The CESU enjoys a comparable level of awareness, with 85% of private employers aware of it, but its use appears less widespread (41% ). The immediate advance of the tax credit is also well established, known by 74% of private employers and used by 43%. The APA and the pre-funded CESU also enjoy majority awareness levels, although slightly lower, with 67% and 62% of individual employers, respectively, reporting that they are aware of them.
More targeted programs have lower levels of awareness: 47% for PAJEMPLOI and 40% for the childcare choice supplement. Conversely, more institutional or professional programs, such as IRCEM, SPSTN, and APNI, still appear to be largely unknown, with awareness levels ranging from 19% to 24%.
In terms of work practices among domestic workers: employment often involves multiple employers, and a strong relationship of trust
More than one in two domestic workers is employed by multiple private employers
More than one in two domestic workers works for multiple private employers: 57% fall into this category, with an average of about five concurrent employers, half of whom have four or more. The primary employer is overwhelmingly a woman (77%).
In most cases, the employment relationship is clearly defined: for 83% of domestic workers, the person who gives instructions is also the one listed as the employer on the pay stub. Conversely, the discrepancy observed in 17% of cases suggests the existence of some form of delegation. Furthermore, the primary employer is engaged in a professional activity in 65% of cases, most often as a salaried employee (57%).
A combination of full-time and part-time work is the most common arrangement
A majority of in-home employees work full-time (59%). These situations encompass various arrangements, ranging from employment with a single employer (30%) to working for multiple private employers (24%) or even combining other professional activities with domestic work (5%). Part-time work, meanwhile, accounts for 41% of in-home workers. It is most often a matter of choice: 68% of those affected report that they chose to work part-time. For the remaining 32%, however, part-time work is involuntary, mainly due to a lack of sufficient hours (44% ). Schedules incompatible with other activities (12%), health issues (11%), or transportation difficulties (11%) are cited less frequently.
Length of service in the sector is nearly twice that with their primary employer
Home-based employees are characterized by a long-term commitment to the profession. Their average tenure in home-based work or personal care services is 13 years, and 53% have been working in the sector for at least ten years. This sector-wide tenure contrasts with a shorter tenure with their primary employer: seven years on average, with only 24% having worked for the same employer(s) for ten years or more. For nearly three-quarters of domestic workers (74%), this work is their primary source of income. For the remaining 26%, it provides supplemental income, which is considered essential in 22% of cases, highlighting the precarious situation of individuals who rely on this type of employment.
A very positive attitude toward the profession, but slightly more reserved views on flexible schedules
Attitudes toward the profession are overwhelmingly positive. Domestic workers overwhelmingly agree that they perform work that is useful to society (96%) and report having a relationship of trust with their employers (97%). They also highlight the autonomy they enjoy in their work (94%) as well as the fact that their employment is officially registered and secure (96%).
Issues related to access to employment and the organization of work hours receive slightly less unanimous support, though still a clear majority. 83% believe that this profession has enabled them to enter the workforce, while 80% highlight the fact that they can benefit from a certain degree of flexibility in organizing their work schedules. This last point may therefore be the main area of concern in a sector where the diversity of employers and scheduling constraints strongly shape working conditions.
A Shared Fear Regarding Cuts to Subsidies: A Shift Toward the Informal Sector
When asked about the consequences of a reduction in public subsidies or the tax credit, private employers first anticipate a reduction in the number of hours worked: 71% state that they would reduce the number of hours of in-home employment. Such a decline would also pose a significant risk of a shift toward undeclared work, cited by 50% of private employers, while 49% would consider discontinuing such arrangements entirely. Conversely, fewer than one in two private employers say they would continue under the same conditions (46%).
And among the private employers who would not continue under the same conditions if subsidies were reduced (54% of the sample), the anticipated consequences would primarily affect the organization of daily life. Eighty-five percent indicate that they would have to perform more tasks themselves, 78% would view this as a step backward for their household, and 76% anticipate a decline in their quality of life. Professional consequences appear to take a back seat: one-third mention a reduction in their working hours (33%) or obstacles to their career advancement (33%), confirming that domestic employment is primarily perceived as support for household operations rather than as a career opportunity.
This risk of instability is also evident among domestic workers. If financial assistance were reduced, 79% believe they would have fewer hours or assignments, while 57% might be forced to stop working. Above all, a significant proportion anticipates a shift toward undeclared work: 51% might perform part of their work without declaring it, and 29% might do so entirely without declaration.
In this context, public subsidies appear to be a key lever for ensuring the sector’s stability. In the eyes of home care workers, these subsidies primarily help keep older adults in their homes (92%), maintain declared working hours (89%), and support women’s employment (88%). Preserving these subsidies thus appears to be a social, economic, and regulatory issue for both stakeholders in the home-based employment sector.
