This is a study about how the French local policies for deprived people housing take in account the individual. It is based on the observation of four French local authorities and their grantsallocating commissions. It specifies the notion of social magistracy, explaining on what they work : the situations, which are the administrative representation of the applicants, the problematics, which are the public frames to take in account individual's problems and the story-setting that build a coherence among these different elements. These observations show the tensions between informal norms and formal rules in the allocating process and in the work of the commission itself. These tensions are bound to a deeper antagonism between the principle of individualising the assistance and the equivalence principle, for which similar situations should have similar treatment. These housing policies can be included in the same policy paradigm as the integration policies. They hold specific views of the individual, an institutional individualism. This kind of individualism is influenced by the pattern of the autonomous and responsible individual. This research shows three ways of dealing with defaulting individuals : they can be victim - of external constraints –, guilty-responsible – of their acts – or incapable, lacking some competencies. Thus the good faith criteria, on which the eviction procedure particularly emphasizes can be seen as a way of sorting out uncertain situations between victims and guilty-responsible individuals
