🔍💡 Mental health in priority urban areas: 83% of professionals consider it a priority, but 97.6% lack the means to act. A quick survey conducted among 251 stakeholders reveals the urgency of structured coordination and local support for young people, single mothers, and the elderly.
📌 This quick survey provides city policy coordinators, social workers, and local elected officials with an accurate diagnosis of the state of mental health in priority neighbourhoods, based on the testimonies of 251 professionals.
It allows for the objectification of coordination difficulties among stakeholders, identification of vulnerable groups, and prioritisation of actions to be implemented in light of the major deficit in human and financial resources. An essential document for arguing with decision-makers and structuring a coherent territorial response.
Source: 📒 Survey on mental health in the territories
📜🔗LINK to the source
Number of pages: 16
1. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
Unanimous recognition of a major underfunded issue.
The survey conducted in 2026 among 251 professionals in urban social development (42% from local public service, 23% from the non-profit sector, 18% social workers) reveals that 83.3% consider mental health a priority issue in priority neighbourhoods of the city (QPV). However, only 2.4% believe they have the necessary resources, while 51.4% find funding to be very insufficient. The most vulnerable populations identified are children and adolescents (78.1%), young adults (74.1%), and single mothers (69.7%), primarily facing anxiety, depression, and addictions, driven by economic precariousness (86.1%) and social isolation (82.1%).
Critical deficit in coordination and lack of awareness of systems
Despite a high general awareness of mental health systems (95%), only 39% consider it accurate. Coordination among actors is deemed unsatisfactory by 66.6% of respondents, hindered by a lack of time and workload (68.9%) as well as mutual ignorance of missions (62.9%). A clear deficit in the appropriation of structural systems appears: 38.2% are unaware of the existence of a Health City Workshop in their area, and 66.7% of social workers do not know if a Territorial Mental Health Project exists. The identified priority actions include establishing local support services (78.9%), a structured networking of actors (63.7%), and training actions (63.3%).
2. KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT
1. A professional consensus on the priority of mental health in QPVs
83.3% of professionals consider mental health a priority, and 53% believe that the issue is of increased importance in priority urban areas compared to other territories (p. 4-5). Health professionals (62.9%) and social workers (41.7%) are more likely to share this perception than general practitioners (44.4%) (p. 5).
2. Vulnerable groups: young people, single mothers, and the elderly on the front line
Children and adolescents are identified by 78.1% of respondents as the most affected population, followed by young adults (74.1%) and single mothers (69.7%) (p. 6). The observed disorders are mainly anxiety, depression, addictions, and behavioural and sleep disorders, with variations according to professional profiles (p. 6).
3. Social risk factors: precariousness and isolation dominate
Economic precariousness and unemployment are cited by 86.1% of respondents as the main factors contributing to mental health difficulties, followed by social isolation and loneliness (82.1%), difficult access to care (60.2%), and violence/insecurity (56.6%) (p. 7). Stigmatisation and discrimination are mentioned by 44.6% (p. 7).
4. Structural obstacles: ignorance, taboo, and waiting times
The main obstacles to effective care are ignorance of disorders and services (75.7%), taboo and shame (72.9%), waiting times to access care (71.7%), and lack of professionals (68.9%) (p. 8). The perception of the taboo varies greatly: only 4.3% of general practitioners mention it, compared to 56.9% of social workers and 72.2% of health professionals (p. 8).
5. Failing coordination and lack of knowledge of structural services
Although 95% of stakeholders are aware of mental health services, only 39% have precise knowledge (p. 11). Coordination is deemed unsatisfactory or not at all satisfactory by 66.5% of respondents (p. 12). 38.2% are unaware of the existence of an ASV in their area, 37.1% of a Territorial Mental Health Project, and this rate reaches 66.7% among social workers for the PTSM (p. 13-14).
3. ACTIONS FOR LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS
1. Create local mental health support services
Establish listening and guidance services provided by trained psychologists or nurses, in community structures (social centres, health houses) to reduce waiting times and overcome taboos (p. 15). 78.9% of respondents identify this action as a necessary priority support (p. 15).
2. Structure a network of stakeholders and organise regular interprofessional meetings
Organise quarterly consultation meetings bringing together health, social, associative sectors and local authorities to improve mutual understanding of missions and streamline pathways (p. 12). 63.7% of professionals call for a more structured networking (p. 15).
3. Develop training actions for field actors
Offer training modules on identifying mental disorders, listening posture, and directing to appropriate services (CMP, Mon Soutien Psy, youth health spaces), particularly for social workers and associative actors (p. 15). 63.3% of respondents identify this need (p. 15).
4. Specifically support young people and families
Develop prevention workshops aimed at young people (11-25 years) in schools and community structures, as well as support groups for single mothers led by trained professionals (p. 15). This action is considered a priority by 70% of respondents (p. 15).
5. Produce and disseminate local data on mental health
Establish data collection tools (questionnaires, feedback) to objectify needs and guide public action, as 74.5% of stakeholders report not having data on the mental health of residents (p. 12). Integrate this data into territorial diagnostics and city contracts (p. 15).
4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Health Practices" on the topic of mental health ➡️🔗https://pratiquesensante.odoo.com/4-2-sante-mentale-et-psychique
. National framework for Local Mental Health Councils (CLSM)– Ministry of Health and Prevention, 2025 - Framework document for the creation and development of CLSM, supporting the territorial reorganisation of mental health and providing recommendations for networking local stakeholders - 📎https://medias.amf.asso.fr/upload/files/Instruction%20R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rentiel%20CLSM.pdf
2. Opinion of the National Council of Cities: "Thinking about health and well-being in QPV: the Resident as a key actor"– CNV, October 2024 - Opinion recommending the organisation of actions in cooperation with health stakeholders, linked to CLSM, and the implementation of prevention to reduce taboos around mental health - 📎https://media.anct.gouv.fr/ressources/2025-02/cnv-2024-avis-penser-le-bien-etre-en-sante-l-habitant-comme-acteur-cle-vf.pdf
3. "Well in your head" initiative: supporting the mental health of adolescents and young adults– Ministry of Health and Prevention, September 2025 - Presentation of the support systems available for young people (My Psy Support, Youth Health Spaces, number 3114, Youth Health Line) with access modalities and target audience - 📎https://sante.gouv.fr/actualites-presse/actualites-du-ministere/article/bien-dans-sa-tete-accompagner-la-sante-mentale-des-adolescents-et-jeunes-adultes
5. CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES
Literacy: The document does not provide tools suitable for varying levels of understanding, but identifies a lack of knowledge about disorders and systems as the main obstacle (75.7%), highlighting an unmet need (p. 8).
Empowerment: Residents are identified as a source of alert (46.6%), but no mechanism for beneficiary participation in the design or evaluation of actions is described (p. 10).
Participation: The survey does not document co-construction mechanisms with users, although it highlights the importance of supporting young people and families (70%) (p. 15).
Community Health: The collective dimension is implicitly mentioned through awareness and prevention workshops (63.3%) and the structured networking of actors (63.7%) (p. 15).
Ethics: Taboos and shame are identified as major barriers (72.9%), and cultural barriers are cited by 55% of respondents, revealing unaddressed cultural biases (p. 8).
Human Rights: Discrimination and stigma are identified as risk factors (44.6%), but no specific approach to equity or combating discrimination is formalised (p. 7).
Intersectorality: The survey highlights the need for coordination between health, social services, associations, and local authorities, but notes unsatisfactory coordination (66.6%) and a lack of mutual knowledge (62.9%) (p. 12).
Partnership: No formal collaboration model is presented, although the document identifies the need for more structured networking and local support services (p. 15).
Combating discrimination: Discrimination is mentioned as a contributing factor to difficulties (44.6%), but the document does not develop a specific non-judgmental approach or consideration of diversity (p. 7).
6. EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE
Scientific relevance
The survey presents a clear methodology with a sample of 251 diverse professionals (local public service, non-profit sector, social workers, health professionals, funders). The data is current (2026) and the results are presented with precise percentages and cross-analyses by profession. However, the lack of detailed methodology (sampling methods, collection period, response rate) limits the assessment of scientific robustness. The data is descriptive and based on professional perceptions, not on objective epidemiological data.
Operational relevance
The document is highly usable in the field as it precisely identifies vulnerable populations, barriers to care, priority actions, and existing but unknown resources. It provides actionable numerical benchmarks to argue with decision-makers and structure local action plans. Its short format (16 pages) and visual presentation facilitate ownership by field professionals.
7. MCQ — 5 QUESTIONS
PART 1 — Presentation of the MCQ
Question 1: What percentage of professionals considers mental health a priority issue in the areas where they work?
a) 53%
b) 66.6%
c) 83.3%
d) 95%
Question 2: Which population is most affected by mental health issues according to respondents' observations?
a) Working adults
b) Single mothers
c) Elderly people
d) Children and adolescents
Question 3: What is the main barrier to cooperation between social/urban actors and mental health actors?
a) Difficulty in mobilising residents
b) Lack of financial resources
c) Lack of time and workload overload
d) Lack of coordination
Question 4: What percentage of professionals report not having data on the mental health of residents in the QPV?
a) 38.2%
b) 51.4%
c) 66.6%
d) 74.5%
Question 5: Which action is deemed a priority by the largest number of respondents to strengthen mental health action?
a) Training actions
b) Establishment of local support services
c) Dedicated financial resources
d) A more structured networking
PART 2 — Commented correction
Question 1: What percentage of professionals considers mental health a priority issue in the areas where they work?
✅ Correct answer: c) 83.3%
📝 Explanation: The survey reveals that a very large majority, namely 83.3% of the professionals surveyed, consider mental health to be a priority or very high priority issue. This professional consensus reflects the unanimous recognition of this issue in the territories. —Source: p. 4
Question 2: Which population is most affected by mental health issues according to respondents' observations?
✅ Correct answer: d) Children and adolescents
📝 Explanation: Children and adolescents are identified by 78.1% of respondents as the most affected population, followed by young adults (74.1%) and single mothers (69.7%). The elderly come in fourth (54.6%) and working adults are the least affected (20.7%). —Source: p. 6
Question 3: What is the main barrier to cooperation between social/urban actors and mental health actors?
✅ Correct answer: c) Lack of time and workload overload
📝 Explanation: The lack of time and the overload of work are the main obstacles cited by 68.9% of respondents, followed by the lack of mutual knowledge of missions (62.9%). The lack of financial resources (52.6%) and the lack of coordination (49%) follow. —Source: p. 12
Question 4: What percentage of professionals report not having data on the mental health of residents in the QPV?
✅ Correct answer: d) 74.5%
📝 Explanation: A very large majority (74.5%) of the professionals surveyed report not having statistical data, surveys, or feedback regarding the mental health of residents and access to care in the QPV. This lack of quantitative data constitutes an obstacle to the objectification of needs and the direction of public action. —Source: p. 12
Question 5: Which action is deemed a priority by the largest number of respondents to strengthen mental health action?
✅ Correct answer: b) Establishment of local support services
📝 Explanation: The establishment of local support services is identified as a necessary priority by 78.9% of respondents, ahead of more structured networking of stakeholders (63.7%), training actions (63.3%), and dedicated financial resources (59.8%). This demand reflects the need for an accessible first-level response in the territories. —Source: p. 15
8. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
1. Who conducted this survey and with which professionals?
The survey was conducted by IRDSU (Inter-Network of Urban Social Development Professionals) among 251 field actors distributed as follows: 42% from local public service, 23% from associations, 18% from social workers, 8% from health professionals, and 5% from social landlords (p. 4).
2. What are the three most vulnerable populations identified by professionals?
The most affected populations are children and adolescents (78.1%), young adults (74.1%), and single mothers (69.7%). The elderly come in fourth place (54.6%) (p. 6).
3. What are the main factors contributing to mental health difficulties in QPV?
The main factors identified are economic precariousness and unemployment (86.1%), social isolation and loneliness (82.1%), difficult access to care (60.2%), violence and insecurity (56.6%), and degraded housing or unhealthy living conditions (49.8%) (p. 7).
4. Why is coordination among actors considered unsatisfactory?
Coordination is considered unsatisfactory by 66.6% of respondents mainly due to lack of time and workload (68.9%), lack of mutual knowledge of missions among actors (62.9%), lack of financial resources (52.6%), and lack of formalised coordination (49%) (p. 12).
5. Do professionals have dedicated human resources for mental health?
Only 36.7% of respondents have dedicated human resources in their communities, while 45.4% do not. Among those who do, 44.6% indicate that the missions are specifically dedicated to mental health, compared to 50% for whom it is one mission among others (p. 9).
6. What is the level of knowledge of structural devices such as ASV, CLS, and PTSM?
A clear deficit in understanding is observed: 38.2% are unaware of the existence of a Health City Workshop in their area, 37.1% do not know if there is a Territorial Mental Health Project, and this rate reaches 66.7% among social workers for the PTSM (p. 13-14).
7. What are the three priority actions identified to improve the consideration of mental health?
The three priority actions are: specific support for young people and families (70%), the development of local structures (66.5%), and awareness and prevention workshops (63.3%). In terms of necessary support, the establishment of local drop-in services comes first (78.9%) (p. 15).
9. REWRITING IN EASY TO READ LANGUAGE
What is this survey?
The survey questioned 251 people who work in the neighbourhoods.
These people work in town halls, associations, or help residents.
The survey talks about mental health in the neighbourhoods.
Mental health means feeling good in your mind.
What does the survey say?
Mental health is important.
For 83 out of 100 people, mental health is very important in the neighbourhoods.
But almost no one has enough money or people to help.
Who needs help?
Young people and children need help the most (78 out of 100 say so).
Single mothers also need a lot of help (70 out of 100).
Elderly people also need help (55 out of 100).
Why are people unwell?
Many people are unemployed or do not have enough money (86 out of 100).
Many people are lonely (82 out of 100).
It is difficult to see a doctor or a psychologist (60 out of 100).
What prevents helping people?
People do not know where they can get help (76 out of 100).
People are ashamed to say they are unwell (73 out of 100).
You have to wait too long to see a doctor (72 out of 100).
There are not enough doctors or psychologists (69 out of 100).
People working in the neighbourhoods do not collaborate enough.
People who work do not know each other well (63 out of 100).
They do not have time to meet because they have too much work (69 out of 100).
Almost no one is happy with how people work together (67 out of 100).
People who work do not know what help is available.
Many people do not know if there is a Health Workshop in their neighbourhood (38 out of 100).
What should be done?
Create local places where people can talk about their mental health (79 out of 100 request this).
Organise meetings for people who work to meet (64 out of 100).
Train people who work so they can help better (63 out of 100).
Prioritise helping young people and families (70 out of 100).