IAE per-post subsidy 2026: amounts, conditions and posting to account 74

Quick answer. The IAE per-post subsidy is a grant paid by the State to work-integration structures (SIAE), calculated per full-time-equivalent post filled by a worker on an integration pathway. It includes a base amount (from 1,638 to 24,203 euros depending on the structure in 2026, order of 13 April 2026) and, where applicable, a modulated part capped at 10% of the base. It is posted to account 74, never as turnover.

Running a work-integration structure means keeping two sets of books inside one: a market activity that must prove its viability, and public funding that covers a social over-cost. When these two flows blend together in the accounts, nothing reads correctly any more: turnover looks healthy, the margin becomes an illusion, and the conversation with funders gets muddled. Posting the per-post subsidy correctly is therefore not a clerical detail. It is what lets an SIAE know its true economic position and defend it.

The per-post subsidy funds the extra cost of supporting workers who are far from employment. It is paid to SIAE (work-integration structures) in proportion to full-time-equivalent (FTE) posts actually filled by people on an integration pathway.

It breaks down into two parts:

• a base amount, set by order and stable across structures, which forms the core funding per FTE;
• a modulated amount, awarded based on the integration results and efforts observed over the year.

In the files we handle, it is the precise tracking of FTE posts actually filled that drives the amount paid: a vacant post is not funded. This pro-rata logic, often underestimated at budget stage, explains why the actual figure regularly diverges from the initial notification. A structure that builds its cash flow on the number of agreed posts, rather than on the FTEs it actually manages to fill, is setting itself up for an unpleasant surprise.

The four types of structure concerned are the insertion workshop and worksite (ACI), the insertion enterprise (EI), the insertion temporary-work enterprise (ETTI) and the intermediary association (AI). If you are still at the planning stage, our article on setting up a work-integration structure (EI, ETTI, ACI or AI) covers the choice of form and the agreement process.

The order of 13 April 2026 sets the amounts applicable from 1 January 2026, in metropolitan France, per FTE post.

For the ACI, the base of 24,203 euros includes 1,248 euros for socio-professional support and technical supervision. The gap between structures is not arbitrary: it reflects the expected intensity of support. An ACI runs a highly supervised integration project, with workers who are often very far from employment and a high ratio of supervisors, whereas an AI mainly handles placement of people with individuals or companies on short assignments, with lighter support. Public funding mirrors this gradation.

Hayot Expertise tip. Never plan on the base amount alone. Build your forecast on the income expected per FTE actually filled, applying a prudent occupancy rate drawn from your own history. It is the gap between agreed posts and filled FTEs that opens up a cash-flow need during the year.

The modulated part is added to the base. It is capped at 10% of the base, and at 5% in a prison setting. It is a funding lever, not an entitlement: it depends on the results observed, in particular positive exits towards employment or training. A structure that budgets it at 100% by default overstates its income.

More importantly, the subsidy only exists if an agreement is in force. It is opened by the agreement signed with the State (DREETS or DDETS, depending on the territory), which validates the structure's integration project and sets the number of agreed posts. Without an active agreement, no per-post subsidy is due, regardless of the number of workers employed.

The underestimated risk, in the files we take over, is the gap between the actual headcount and the number of agreed posts: anything beyond the agreement is not funded. A structure may well employ more workers than it has agreed posts, for example after a peak in market activity, but the extra payroll for workers on the pathway will then be its own cost. Anticipating a request to amend the agreement, ahead of time, is far better than discovering the ceiling when reading the payment notifications.

A worker's eligibility for the pathway is evidenced by the PASS IAE, attached to the person. The structure validates this eligibility itself through an assessment, or relies on an approved prescriber (including France Travail).

Points to watch:

• each funded worker must hold a valid PASS IAE for the period of employment;
• the PASS follows the person, not the contract: a worker can reactivate it from one structure to another, within the duration limits of the pathway;
• the traceability of assessments and prescriptions must be available in case of an audit.

In practice, the most frequent error is not a missing PASS, but an expired PASS or an uncovered gap between two contracts. It is precisely the FTE that is not eligible over the period that gets rejected for funding at reconciliation. Keeping a dashboard that cross-checks hire date, PASS validity and hours worked avoids this mismatch.

This is the point that most often distorts an SIAE's accounts. The per-post subsidy is an operating subsidy: it is posted to account 74 (account 741 under the ANC 2022-06 regulation), never to account 70 for turnover.

Direct consequence: turnover must reflect only the market activity, namely sales, services and invoiced placements. Mixing the subsidy with turnover artificially inflates revenue, distorts the margin rate and makes every management ratio impossible to read. For a structure steering its business model, and one that must regularly account for it to its supervisory authorities, this is a major error.

Our view: separating market income (account 70) from the subsidy (account 74) at the point of entry is the first accounting discipline of a healthy SIAE. It allows measuring the true coverage rate of the activity by the market, an indicator that funders and supervisory authorities watch first. A structure that covers 60% of its costs through the market and 40% through the subsidy is not steered like one at 85%/15%: these ratios only read if both flows are strictly separated in the accounts.

Our accounting and tax support at the firm builds this SIAE-specific analysis into the chart of accounts from the outset, so that the reporting funders expect comes straight off the trial balance.

A flat-rate balancing subsidy like the per-post subsidy is in principle outside the scope of VAT. It must be distinguished from a price supplement, which may be taxable: the analysis is done case by case, depending on the link between the subsidy and a price paid by a third party. As long as the subsidy does not top up the price of an identified service sold to a customer, it stays out of scope.

On the tax side, the subsidy remains taxable income. It funds high staff costs: wages of workers on the pathway, pay of technical supervisors, the cost of social support. The result must therefore be read against these costs, and not as a commercial margin. A break-even result in an SIAE is a sign of sound management, not of weak performance: the subsidy is calibrated to cover an over-cost, not to generate a profit.

This fiscal and social balance deserves close payroll management: the coexistence of pathway contracts, supervisors and invoiced placements makes payroll and HR more technical than in a standard company.

Reliability checklist#

1. Check the agreement in force (DREETS or DDETS) and the number of agreed posts.
2. Reconcile funded FTEs with posts actually filled over the year.
3. Verify the validity of each funded worker's PASS IAE, with no gap in the period.
4. Post the subsidy to account 74 (741), never to account 70.
5. Isolate market income to compute a reliable margin rate.
6. Document the VAT treatment (out of scope or price supplement) case by case.
7. Keep the order, agreements and payment notifications to support the entries.

An insertion enterprise we took over was agreed for 12 posts but only filled, on average, 10.5 FTE over the year. The base funding is calculated on the FTEs actually filled, not on the 12 agreed posts: its forecast, built on 12, therefore structurally overstated income. In parallel, its team had long recorded the subsidy as turnover. Once reclassified to account 74, the reported market turnover fell sharply, but it finally became accurate and comparable from one year to the next.

The effect was twofold. First, the director discovered that the market coverage rate was lower than believed, which redirected the commercial strategy. Second, the dialogue with funders eased: presenting accounts where the subsidy appears clearly, separate from market income, inspires more confidence than inflated turnover with no explanation. Our conviction, after several files of this kind, is that for an SIAE analytical accuracy matters as much as tax compliance. It is this reclassification that gives steering its meaning again.

Steering an SIAE combines cost accounting, agreement tracking and a social reading of headcount. That is exactly what our support for work-integration enterprises covers, bringing together payroll, subsidy accounting and the reporting funders expect.