🔍💡 Suffering in social and health services: when users and professionals are exhausted by the same system, testimonies reveal how precariousness, prison and migration policies erode bodies and dignity.
⚖️🧩 This dossier gives concrete levers to act from the field: mental health, alliances between services, and collective action as answers rather than resignation. #SantéMentale #InégalitésSociales

📒 De la souffrance des usagers et des travailleurs : quelles réponses en social-santé ?

📜🔗LIEN


1. Analytical summary

Context and challenges

The dossier documents the multiplication of forms of suffering affecting both vulnerable users (precarious people, migrants, detainees, young people) and professionals in the social and health sectors in Belgium, particularly in Brussels and Wallonia. It shows how socio‑economic policies, digitalisation of services, tightening of migration policies and chronic underfunding of public services aggravate inequalities and undermine access to rights, housing and care. Interviews highlight the situation of precarious people considered “marginal” while they are structurally central (around one third of Brussels residents in precarious situations) and used as “sentinels of tomorrow” for future deterioration affecting wider groups. The text also describes the specific violence of prison, the crisis in reception for asylum seekers, and the strong psychological impact of uncertainty and waiting on mental health. Finally, work‑related suffering (burn‑out, moral distress, feeling of powerlessness) affects social and health workers, who themselves become users of care systems that are already saturated and fragmented.
​
Operational contributions

The dossier provides concrete narratives, analyses and tools to situate and understand suffering not as individual failure but as a political and organisational product, inviting actors to reposition their practices. It presents field devices such as the mental health service Ulysse, the association I‑Care in prisons, SOS Burn‑out, and the “Ce qui nous arrive” initiative as practical supports for rethinking action with and for vulnerable populations. Several articles identify levers: defence of low‑threshold services, insistence on physical access points alongside digital services, strengthening of community and collective work, and inter‑sectoral alliances between social work, health, culture and education. The document also offers arguments for advocacy (on housing, unemployment benefits, migration policies, prison health) grounded in the daily work of services, which local actors can mobilise. Finally, the conclusion underlines the importance of maintaining spaces of narrative, beauty and collective resistance as conditions to “continue to care, together, despite everything”.
​
2. Key points of the document 

The dossier reframes the suffering of users and professionals as a shared systemic product, linked to socio‑economic, institutional and political choices rather than individual fragility (p. 7–11, 13–21, 27–31, 43). 

Precarious people are presented as “sentinels of tomorrow”, illustrating mechanisms (housing crisis, loss of income, isolation, digitalisation) that will affect wider segments of the population (p. 13–19). 

The articles on migrants and detainees describe concrete devices of institutional violence (crisis in reception, street living, overpopulation in prisons, lack of health continuity) and their direct effects on mental health (p. 21–27, 27–31).
 
The section on burn‑out and work‑related suffering shows how organisational dysfunctions, administrative fragmentation and the multiplication of funds and procedures produce moral distress among professionals (p. 19, 43 and following).
 
Several initiatives are documented as practical resources: Ulysse for exiled people, I‑Care and BruZelle in prisons, SOS Burn‑out, and the inter‑sectoral device “Ce qui nous arrive” as a space for shared analysis and mobilisation (p. 21–27, 27–31, 19–21, 43).
​
3. Actionable avenues for local actors 

Local actors can systematically document obstacles to access (housing, income, digital procedures, reception, prison, mental health) and use the arguments and examples from interviews (C. Nieuwenhuys, O. Dellicour, M. Gumas) to support local and regional advocacy (p. 13–21, 21–27, 27–31). 

Services can strengthen low‑threshold, in‑person reception by maintaining physical counters, outreach and multilingual support, taking the Brussels ordinance on digitalisation and the work of Ulysse as reference points (p. 17–19, 21–27). 

Teams can organise regular shared spaces for analysis of suffering at work (inspired by SOS Burn‑out and “Ce qui nous arrive”) in order to transform individual exhaustion into collective re‑politicisation of constraints and negotiation with funders (p. 19–21, 43).

 In prison and in migration contexts, actors can develop or join community‑based health and rights‑promotion projects (Care Connection, Drugs Lab, projects against menstrual precariousness, perinatal consultations for exiled families) and adapt them to their territory (p. 21–27, 27–31).​

​