Mental health: concrete proposals to transform public action

✍️ National Cause Collective for Mental Health (24 member organisations) — May 2026

📜🔗LINK to the source

1. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

From symbolic recognition to structuring public policy

The document starts from an observation: the National Great Cause 2025 has given a voice and made mental health visible, but this recognition is no longer sufficient (p. 2-3). The daily lives of millions of people living with mental disorders, their loved ones, and professionals are still marked by disruptions in care pathways, territorial and social inequalities, access delays incompatible with urgency, and a feeling of abandonment (p. 2). Supported by 24 actors representing more than 3,400 structures — associations of affected individuals and their families, psychiatric organisations, the medico-social and social sector, research, listening devices (p. 3) —, the text asserts that mental health is not solely a health issue but also involves social, economic, and environmental determinants, thus requiring an interministerial response (p. 2).

Six axes of transformation linked to operational demands

The advocacy outlines six axes accompanied by specific measures: interministerial governance (orientation law, lead authority, accountability to Parliament, p. 4-5); rights and the exit from coercive practices (roadmap for the abolition of isolation and restraint by 2036, p. 6-7); prevention focused on children and youth (p. 8-9); territorial equality through a minimal opposable baseline (p. 10-11); effective participation of affected individuals, up to the recognition of peer support as a profession (p. 12-13); and structuring multidisciplinary research (p. 14-15). The guiding principle is methodological: to make participation a democratic requirement and a condition for effectiveness, not a consultative exercise.

2. KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT

1. An interministerial steering and an opposable multiannual strategy. The Collective calls for a guiding law establishing a multiannual national strategy, an interministerial authority with resources, annual accountability before Parliament, and an evaluation of the Touraine law of 2016, ten years later (p. 5). The stated challenge: to transform the way the State decides and leads, beyond merely strengthening the systems (p. 4).
2. A trajectory for the abolition of isolation and restraint by 2036. Relying on the 2024 activity report of the CGLPL, the text documents heterogeneous practices, sometimes illegal (isolation without framework, restraint without traceability) and experienced as traumatic (p. 6). It proposes to enshrine in law a continuous reduction until total cessation, with enforceable intermediate steps, mandatory training in de-escalation and alternatives (advance directives, calming spaces, mobile teams) (p. 7).
3. Youth as the heart of prevention, supported by degradation data. By relying on the opinion of the CESE from October 2025, the document recalls that 13% of children aged 6 to 11 have at least one probable disorder, that 15% of high school students were at risk of depression in 2024, and that depressive disorders have almost doubled among 18-24 year olds in five years (p. 8). Proposed response: an integrated policy for those under 25, early detection, free psychological assessments, and 'outreach' strategies (p. 9).
4. A minimal national baseline enforceable for territorial equality. Noting that the place of residence still determines access to care (p. 10), the text calls for a minimal base of services that is enforceable across the entire territory, with maximum deadlines that are also enforceable, accessible mapping, clarified care gradation, consolidation of PTSM and deployment of CLSM, and territorialised indicators (p. 11).
5. Participation as an enforceable principle and peer support as a profession. The document distinguishes between citizen participation, associative representation, and peer support, which are often confused (p. 12), and calls for participation to be established as a methodological obligation, through a national body adapted territorially, a framework for recognition/training/funding, and the recognition of peer support as a professional function integrated into employment and remuneration grids (p. 13).

3. ACTION TRACKS FOR LOCAL ACTORS

1. Rely on the demand for an enforceable minimal base (p. 11) to objectively assess local disparities in access and deadlines, and argue for prioritisation in territorial bodies.
2. Mobilise the existing levers mentioned (PTSM, CLSM, p. 11) as concrete frameworks for coordination: the advocacy identifies them as the support points to be consolidated, which legitimises their activation or strengthening in a territory.
3. Locally adapt alternatives to coercion (p. 7) — advance directives in psychiatry, calming spaces, personalised care plans, mobile teams — by relying on the national trajectory 2036 to carry out an establishment or service project.
4. Structure an approach of 'going towards' youth (p. 9) in living, training and education spaces, by articulating early detection and territorial mapping of the offer.
5. Formalise the place of peer support (p. 13) in organisations, by anticipating the requested recognition (role, training, remuneration) rather than treating it as a fragile and voluntary arrangement.
6. Unmet need / necessary adaptation : the document states requests but neither quantifies nor finances its proposals. In practice, any resumption of these axes assumes documenting the cost, human resources and realistic timeline — particularly for the objective of “zero restraint”, the clinical and safety feasibility of which is not detailed (p. 7).

4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Health Practices" on the theme of mental health ➡️🔗https://pratiquesensante.odoo.com/4-2-sante-mentale-et-psychique

1. HAS — Multiannual programme “mental health and psychiatry” 2025-2030 (validated on 20 November 2024, updated March 2026). Complementary methodological framework to axis VI: recommendations, peer support, anticipatory measures, patient rights.
   https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-03/dir1/programme_pluriannuel_sante_mentale_psychiatrie_2025-2030.pdf
2. CGLPL — Thematic report “The effectiveness of appeal routes in psychiatry” (December 2025). Deepens axis II: judicial control of isolation/restraint, constraints outside the legal framework (emergencies, minors, USIP), policy of lesser recourse.
   https://www.cglpl.fr/app/uploads/2025/12/cglpl_rapport-effectivite-des-recours-en-psychiatrie_dossier-de-presse.pdf
3. Court of Auditors — Annual public report 2025: “Public policies in favour of young people” (19 March 2025). Complements axis III: health prevention and well-being of young people, coordination of actors, adolescent houses.
   https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/le-rapport-public-annuel-2025

5. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

1. Who is advocating for this and what is its weight? The Mental Health Collective Great National Cause, comprising 24 actors representing over 3,400 structures: associations of affected individuals and their relatives, psychiatric organisations, medico-social and social actors, research, listening devices (p. 3).
2. What does the document request regarding governance? A guiding law, a multi-year national inter-ministerial strategy, a steering authority with resources, annual accountability to Parliament, and an evaluation of the 2016 Touraine law after ten years (p. 5).
3. What is the objective regarding isolation and restraint? A continuous reduction enshrined in law until total cessation, with a goal of gradual abolition by 2036, enforceable intermediate steps, and an obligation for annual data publication (p. 7).
4. What data justifies the priority given to youth? 13% of children aged 6 to 11 with at least one probable disorder, 15% of high school students at risk of depression in 2024, a near doubling of depressive disorders among 18-24 year-olds in five years, and a majority of disorders appearing before the age of 25 (p. 8).
5. What is the "minimum national enforceable baseline"? A set of services, care, and support guaranteed across the entire territory, accompanied by maximum access times that are also enforceable and a publicly accessible mapping for local authorities (p. 11).
6. How does the document address participation? He wants it to be enforceable and structuring, distinguishing citizen participation, associative representation and peer support, and calls for a dedicated national body adapted territorially as well as a framework for recognition, training and funding (p. 12-13).
7. What does he propose for peer support? To recognise it as a fully-fledged professional function, with dedicated courses, integration into health, social and medico-social structures, and inclusion in employment and remuneration grids (p. 13).

6. REWRITING IN EASY TO READ LANGUAGE

What this document is

A group of 24 organisations speaks with one voice.

They deal with mental health.

Mental health is the health of our emotions and our mind.

This group writes clear requests to the State.

The problem

In 2025, there was a lot of talk about mental health.

That was good. But it is not enough.

Many people wait too long to get help.

Help is not the same depending on where you live.

Many people feel alone and forgotten.

The main requests

• The State must have a real plan over several years.
• Several ministries must work together.
• We must stop restraining or locking up patients. Goal: not at all by 2036.
• We must help children and young people early.
• Every person must have the same rights everywhere in France.
• The people concerned must decide with the professionals.
• The role of peer support must be recognised and paid.

A difficult word explained

Peer support: a person who has experienced mental health issues.

They use their experience to help others.

7. CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES

• Literacy: partially present; the document calls for a mapping accessible to the general public (p. 11), but does not propose graded comprehension tools.
• Empowerment: central; recovery, self-determination, and experiential knowledge are established as a foundation (p. 2, 3).
• Participation: heart of advocacy; calls for a dedicated body and participation that is binding at all levels of decision-making (p. 12-13).
• Community health: integrated; community and participatory approaches explicitly requested in research (p. 15).
• Ethics: present through fundamental rights and dignity, but specific cultural biases are not addressed as such (p. 6-7).
• Human rights: structuring; dignity, access to care, autonomy established as foundations (p. 2).
• Intersectorality: strong; housing, education, work, justice, child protection mobilised (p. 2, 5).
• Partnership: formalised; co-construction with partners, professionals, and affected individuals (p. 5, 13).
• Combating discrimination: addressed through stigma and equitable access, but without dedicated treatment of intersecting discriminations or non-judgment in practice.

8. EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE

Type to note straight away: it is a advocacy document, not a neutral summary or a scientific report. The “proposals” are political demands put forward by a coalition of actors, to be read as such.

Scientific relevance: the figures cited are backed by identifiable sources (CGLPL 2024, CESE opinion of October 2025, Health Insurance), but reproduced second-hand, without a methodological framework in the advocacy itself. The figure of 24 actors / 3,400 structures is self-reported. No complete bibliography beyond three footnotes.

Operational relevance: high for the argumentation and strategic framing; low for direct implementation, as no proposal is quantified, funded, or scheduled.

Limits and blind spots: the document does not discuss the trade-offs of its demands. Regarding the objective of “zero restraint” by 2036, it claims to want to ensure the safety of individuals and professionals (p. 7) but does not specify how to reconcile abolition and management of acute situations — an argument that advocates of a cautious position would oppose. Similarly, the principle of “opposable” guarantees (deadlines, baseline) raises a question of budgetary feasibility and legal responsibility that the text does not address.

10. HASHTAGS 

#healthpractices #MentalHealth #PatientRights #Recovery #PeerSupport #YouthPrevention #TerritorialEquality #HealthDemocracy