Contrary to social benefits with their national and legally binding framework, there is still little known about optional local transfers. To make good this shortcoming,we took a census of all local benefits with explicit attribution conditions, excluding assistance without precise scales and assistance reserved for certain categories (young people, seniors, job seekers and disabled workers). This was done in ten towns and for six standard family configurations. For households with no income receiving all the benefits to which they are entitled, these transfers represent nearly one-fifth of resources on average and inflate by over one-quarter the resources they gain from national transfers. The scales for the allo-cation of this assistance vary considerably, depending on the type of benefit and geographic location.Despite these large disparities, prioritising children is a common feature of these local benefits:everywhere, they are higher and more regular for households with at least one child. They are extremely sensitive to the first child and less so to the second and third. They amplify the effect of national transfers to families with children. Therefore, to set in couple lowers the standard of living, though the birth of the first children increases this one, the birth of the following children has to noticiable con-sequences. In all the towns, these benefits are stable with earned income up to the minimum integration income ceiling, whereas the national and legal benefits decrease sharply. Above the minimum integration income, local and extra-legal benefits fall sharply with sometimes sudden threshold effects, whereas national benefits fall less sharply. Hence local benefits substantially lengthen the minimum period of employment required for a job to provide an individual with a monetary gain. Based on a job earning the minimum wage, an average of 13 extra hours would have to be worked per week to