Service styles

One of the main contentions of this book is that the way in which children's well-being is conceptualised will shape the service response to which it gives rise. The aim here, therefore, is not to detail what quantities of which service are required to match particular problems in order to achieve specified outcomes. To do this would require in-depth descriptions of specific interventions. Rather, the purpose of this chapter is to deduce the contrasting styles of service that the five conditions (or types of ill-being) require – in other words, the features that services should have logically if they are to have the potential to be effective in addressing a designated condition.

Of course, no archetypal intervention exists for any of the five conditions. Policy and practice tend to exhibit a mix of approaches (see Chapter One). However, drawing on the distinguishing features of each of the concepts (Chapters Two to Seven) and their empirical manifestations (Chapters Eight and Nine) it is possible for each concept to distil out the kinds of features that would characterise a ‘pure’ service; that is, one that is geared solely towards addressing the condition in question. These are described here in terms of who the service is for, what it does, how it is delivered and why it has those features. Numerous examples from existing provision are given, but where the service response in reality deviates from the pure service this is also noted. Thus, the chapter draws out from actual policy and practice the features that betray the conceptualisation of child well-being with which they are primarily concerned. It is important to stress at the outset that no service style is advocated over others; instead, the analysis is intended as an heuristic device to illustrate how concept drives – or should drive – service style.

Meeting need

Need-orientated interventions should be aimed at children whose health or development is actually impaired or likely to become so without remedial assistance. Potentially this means that a range of children might be targeted, since need can be a product of difficulties in any area of a child's life – living environment, health, identity, relationships and so on (eg DH et al, 2000).